the house will come to order the pledge this morning will be led by alex  from lincoln high school denver colorado and they are guests of representative buck mister randall please call the rol with sixty two present and three excused we have a quorum representative corrected by the chief clerk representative mckean thank you thank you madam speaker i would i would direct your attention to page twelve line thirty two i believe there's a comma out of place marilyn says she doesn't think so i actually haven't seen page thirty two all right that was a very compelling motion representative larson let's see where else did let's see where the  harrod thank you members can i please have your attention yesterday when i was sitting in judiciary committee presenting a bill i looked around for one of our strongest advocates and notice she wasn't there  a few minutes into the hearing i got a text message from a friend giving me a heads up that they found her and she had passed away so i wanted to give a special tribute to reverend tammy garrett williams you've seen her here on the floor she was formerly incarcerated and spent her life since incarceration fighting to make sure that the debt the stigmatization around people who were incarcerated was lifted that people had real opportunities to succeed and that what they did in their lives before didn't necessarily impact how they needed to move forward in the world she lived with such authenticity such fights such passion and power that she has impacted so many pieces of legislation in this building in the short time that she joined us here and so i just wanted to give a special tribute and acknowledge to the reverend you will hear more about how we plan to  my district she was involved she was invested she was passionate she kept a close eye on me and what i was doing made sure that i always knew that she was watching made sure that i always was a woman of faith was a member of the greater denver metro ministry alliance she had a nonprofit organization in addition to her civic work called the above waters project she was a member of the n double a c p very active we are here and elected to do work and it's always a blessing when folks who don't necessarily have to be here show up and they engage from our communities she's been impacted by a lot one of the original motivators that got her engaged in civic engagement  was when we had shootings here in our state of colorado in our schools and that happened not only across the country but here when columbine happened that was a trigger for her to be able to get engaged more civically and she even though that was many years ago thank you thank you members tomorrow afternoon so see me now this will be at the you club tomorrow from five thirty to seven thirty they really do great work i can attest to it so  please attend their reception they are wonderful very talented doctors so i hope you will attend okay see me if you have any questions thank you representative b madam speaker pro tem thank you madam speaker today is colorado speech language hearing association day at the capitol we'd like to recognize some of the speech and language hearing professionals here today and the others practicing across the state the colorado speech language and hearing association represents over two hundred professionals who work in various settings including hospitals rehab facilities schools nursing homes higher ed and private practices i would like for them to stand and we can recognize them and thank you for being here today thank you for joining us at the capitol today thank you any other announcements or introductions seeing none the next order of business is third reading of bills final passage mister randol please read the title of senate bill ninety speaker i would not have caught that so i moved to lay over senate bill ninety one till the end of the third reading calendar seeing no objection the senate senate bill ninety one will be laid over as requested will be moved to the bottom of the third reading calendar is requested by the majority leader please close the machine with forty nine i've oats fourteen no votes into excused house bill eleven sixty seven is passed co sponsors seeing none mister randol please open the machine and members please vote and final passage the question before the house is the passage of senate bill two hundred and three and third reading and final passage is there any discussion seeing none mister randol please open the machine and members please vote the bill will be laid over one day is requested by the majority leader that brings us to second reading of bill's general orders representative  you have heard the motion seeing no objection representative valdes a will take the chair the committee will come to order with your unanimous consent the bills will be read by title unless there's requests for reading a bill at length committee amendments will not be read and less requested as they are printed on your bill folders for amendments will be shown on the screen and on your ipads and will not be read and less requested and bill's will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader okay mis members this has been a longtime effort of both myself and representative herod as well as our partners in the senate to bring this bill before you we had a chance to consider something very similar last year but it didn't make it all the way through the process it is so vital that we move forward with senate bill seventy eight this year and the key reason is because of work the general assembly has recently done on broadband deployment around the state we have set aside nearly one hundred and seventy million dollars to support new internet connections broadband deployment to every corner of colorado that was an incredibly important step that we took together as a general assembly but there's one important problem that we didn't address and that was what happens if we get in a situation where one of those new providers decides to offer service that's not net neutral now you ask yourself what does that mean in practical terms well it means the internet service provider could throttle content could block legal content could create paid prioritization for content and that is extremely harmful to colorado consumers so if we're gonna spend taxpayer money or rates are increased to have these fees to help broadband deployment which is exactly what we're doing then we need to spend that public money that taxpayer money in a way that conforms with the standards around net neutrality to fail to pass this bill would create a serious problem around the state imagine a situation where someone's applying for broadband to and their entire intent is to create a low bid to get the contract and then to use paid prioritization and throttling to top up their revenue model that's exactly what is allowable from a legal standpoint if we don't pass this bill and that would be very damaging to the state and damaging to our constituents so i urge your support for senate bill seventy eight a representative harrod thank you mister chair it's an honor to serve with you it's an honor to serve with you thank you members  let me just break this down for you internet good slow or restricted internet bad we know this right we use the internet on a regular basis now members any of you all who don't you know i'd be shocked to hear that but this is a much broader conversation than just that and all jokes aside this is a great bill and the colorado way forward when regarding network management practices we didn't go anywhere beyond what they've already said that they're going to do and what their values already are in fact if you look up any company right now on own policies then you cannot take state dollars from these specific funds that's it it's quite simple it doesn't even say that you could no longer operate in colorado it just sa you will not be using our taxpayer dollars to do that to engage in those practices and so again i think my co sponsor for finding this this colorado way forward this is the right path for colorado i asked for an aye vote today thank you minority leader neville thank you mister chair members let me break this down for you internet good government controlled internet bad that's what we're talking about here members i'm like one of those few people that are kind of in a weird age group because technically i'm a millennial but i'm at the the very beginning of the millennial status and i can remember going back to being up that dial up and you're waiting for that picture to download and someone picks up the phone and your whole connections done and you're off the internet and quite frankly the internet's expanded and boomed beyond our wildest dreams because the government hasn't interfered in it bills like this are going to allow the government to interfere into our internet it's only going to harm consumers bills like this give special pork to people like netflix over those who are actually trying to offer just basic internet service so if we want to actually say as a body like we did last year that we are going to fund the development of broadband in rural areas let's do it unfettered from government control because that's the way we are truly going to have the best internet access throughout the state is with unfettered government control this is putting more controls on it that's only going to hurt the consumer in the long run and make our internet more expensive we've kept the government out of our internet this long i say we keep doing it representative williams thank you mister chair members this was a pretty interesting bill that we heard in committee last week and we had some pretty good testimony as to why we shouldn't do it do this particular piece of public policy one which was we run into preemption issues meaning that this this issue is this sort of the sole domain of the federal government and that is a possibility that there may be litigation if this were to pass number one number two we also had testimony from experts who actually flew in from out of state who have had experience working with the f specifically to this to this topic and one of the things that were brought up was the fact that this has this bill has the potential to hurt rural customers has the potential to disrupt rural service providers as they're trying to bring access to the internet to these to these rural customers one of the reasons being is the cost of compliance the other reason is for the potential litigation against themselves if these role providers are receiving taxpayer dollars and there they're not maintaining sort of the standard and that's the other problem with with sort of net neutrality that we're talking about is that there's not necessarily a set standard right so when a service provider is managing their business or their network they may think that they're not doing anything wrong they may think that they're not trying to throttle there they're not trying to control but that could be in the eye of the beholder and so  if if the government if this were the past if the government thinks that they're doing something wrong as they manage our networks then that's when they can get into trouble so the argument was that these rural service providers may not actually take the risk of having to provide access to these customers and so that's another reason why that this this bill is problematic there's much more and there are other members here that want to speak and my throat's a little little sore so i'm gonna go ahead and stop thank you mister chair so i just have a quick question for the sponsors that i hope that they can explain and just to make certain that i have clear the intent of the bill and my question is is there anything in this bill that prevents an internet service provider from coming to colorado offering their service not taking any state money and doing whatever they feel they need to do in terms  of how they control the service they provide so i just have a quick question for the sponsor i wonder if i could be indulge and have one of them come up after me representative hansen thank you so much mister chair and representing i really appreciate that question this is something we thought very carefully about as we were drafting the bill and it's a very straightforward answer absolutely not there is nothing here that prevents any company from operating in the state i reject the characterization of this bill that it is somehow government control in fact it's the exact opposite we have placed no controls over the internet at all in fact the state is preempted from doing that because of federal regulation but what we have done  we said if you're gonna spend our taxpayer money you have to offer us a product that does not throttle does not create paid fast lanes and does not block legal content it's just that simple spending taxpayer money means you don't get to do those things and as my this is the code of conduct the promise that has already been made by all the isps the internet service providers in the state so this is a great way forward for the taxpayers this is a great way to make sure we get high quality service without restriction for the folks who are gonna get help through the broadband fund and it's a great way to protect taxpayers so thanks so much for that question representative rich mister chair i heard this bill in committee last week and i am a no on this legislation maintaining an open internet will not accomplish with piecemeal state based legislation like senate bill seventy eight the federal communications commission has determined that state or local laws establishing net neutrality mandates are impermissible because the internet is inherently interstate and global state legislation creates inconsistent regulatory regimes and unintended consequences including potential challenges in federal court i urge a no vote on senate bill seventy eight representative tutone thank you mister chair members the internet is something that we use every single day every single one of us and there are a lot of people that don't have access to high speed internet right now in the rural areas and there are a lot of people in populated areas frankly here in the front range that don't have a lot of competition and competition is really what we're trying to get fixed here because competition is why we need net neutrality without competition people don't have any other option to go do anything else and if they start slowing down their internet connection and doing these pay prioritizations that don't fit what the customer needs they don't have any other choices they don't have anyplace else to go so what are we going to say to those people we're just going to give them the connection that whatever provider is going to go into that rural area and then sorry tough luck this is what we are offering you take it or leave it and they have no choice and they have a right to use that internet the internet is becoming something that is ubiquitous in our society we are dependent on it and it should be a utility that everybody gets and we battle this out in the federal government with with the net neutrality rules over and over again under the title one title two keeps going back and forth hopefully we're going to get this fixed up in the federal government but until then we need to make sure that the consumers have options and if they can't have options in competition that they actually have a free and open internet for them to use th in contradiction to action by the federal communications commission around regulation of the internet for decades the internet thrived and expanded under a light touch regulatory approach until the obama administr is mistakenly referred to as a net neutrality quote unquote in two thousand and seventeen the fcc reverse course real iterating the internet by bringing back a light touch framework senate bill seventy eight is an attempt to end run the fcc's decision by economically punishing internet service providers that utilize colorado's broad band fund to bring broadband to unserved areas of the state should they run afoul of ambiguous and often subjective net neutrality rules while senate bill seventy eight pretends to punish certain broadband providers the more likely practical effect would be to punish broadband subscribers in remote areas of the state net neutrality is a misnomer these rules attempt to impose a top down command and control regime on a decentralized bottom up information system making it more difficult for new isps to enter the market or existing ones to provide the services their customers want little wonder the fcc unwound them after only a few short years former chairman of the federal and state's attorney general's have already already have authority to protect customers while preserving an open internet regulating broadband internet service it's hard to see sb seventy eight as anything but a roundabout effort to do just that state lawmakers shouldn't be forcing their own heavy handed version of internet regulation on a select population of coloradans because they don't approve of the fcc's action and members  i also have concerns about the bill in terms of specifying that isps cannot block any lawful internet content application services or devices because there are isps now that are what are called family friendly isps so they they filter out pornography things that parents don't want their children's to be your children to be exposed to and i think that's that's likely a problem with this bill as well and so i rise in opposition and requests i know though thank you representative hansen thank you so much mister chair in just a quick additional bit of information for the body to consider the words regulation keep coming up i think we may reach the conclusion the independence institute did not read the bill because there is no regulation in the bill we are simply saying here's how we're gonna spend taxpayer money and there's a big difference between state as regulate or which is explicitly prohibited by the fcc order and state as market participant meaning we the general assembly get to decide how to spend taxpayer money that's our job that is our job in fact guess what its budget week we're spending a lot of time thinking about how to spend taxpayer money and this bill fits firmly in that legal framework state as market participant not as regulator that's a very important distinction members and keep that in mind as you consider your support for senate bill seventy eight representative what one thing that i would just like to point out when we talk about net neutrality certainly for me one thing that that comes to my mind is the state competing with what the federal government is already preempted and so that that's one issue that that that's out there the other issue that i want discuss is what is net neutrality let's dive into that for a moment think about a highway think about twenty five for example you have many lanes of traffic and if the entire highway comes to a standstill that's actually bad for everyone now if we do things like we add high speed rail on the side we had a hov lane as one of the lanes we maybe have certain restrictions on how much people have to pay during certain rush hour times such as what they've done in northern virginia and the new york city area all those are factors that we can turn to a transportation model and apply that to an internet model also not all internet protocols are created equally so for example checking your email as i see many are doing that right now or perhaps checking something else on your phone like the news doesn't use the same bandwidth or capacity as for example backing up data to the cloud or using voice over internet protocol or watching a video uploading a video downloading a patent file transferring a patent file capacity and there's varying needs and when you're in business particularly in rural colorado the ability to have guaranteed capacity within that framework to be able to transfer the data you need to be able to do business effectively because the world depends on it is really critical the other element you know going back to this conversation about you know are we regulating or are we a participant because i think that's really good here is one that i do want to dive in a little bit more because if we look at the bill and we're looking at the list of items that are included it's actually a pretty long list for where the state would actually remove their funding or at least not participate so if you look at page three of the bill for example there's this interesting list  which is why i would like or i move amendment l zero one zero and asked that it be displayed where i think we we could trip ourselves up as a state when when the federal government fcc regulates radio signals it's the it's the spectrum and those those specific bandwidths are given out in parses that we dial in through our old analog if you remember analog radios in your car to go pick up the signal that's been broadcast but those sections that are that are allotted to those stations by license are are not regulated from then on in the same fashion as we're regulating through this  bill for internet service providers specifically my concern is is these two statements to say engages in paid prioritization of internet content so if you use the comparison my analogy of radio signals if we would not provide the state funds for a radio station that engage in prioritization of radio broadcast say ads that are being paid for then of course we would be imposing the government's will the state government's will on that for profit entity that's trying to to simply survive by charging more for for more for longer ads and they than they would for for shorter ads the analogy holds here and i think that what we're going to do between that and also  to prefer a someone who pays more than over the other that's just good old free market enterprise and if we engage in that then we're gonna do two things worse we're overstepping what our our position is what our role is as government and also i think it's going to hurt or at least discourage those rural entities that are trying to provide internet bandwidth to the rural areas of the state so for that reason i'm i'm feeling very queasy about one thousand nine hundred and seven eight and hoping that we do not pass that is there any further discussion provider especially in rural colorado decides that they want to provide internet service as a family oriented isp then what this amendment would do would be to allow them a further content block than what is provided and the original or even in the engrossed version of this bill so the bill says that they would not they would not be allowed to block any lawful internet content application services and so on but what this does is it adds to that it provides also someone to to block to filter out sexually explicit or graphically violent content because that would be in keeping with the mission of that organization a family family organization that's trying to provide internet service so i move and ask for an aye vote on l one to representative humphrey are isps that provide this service it's a major feature of their business model family friendly internet service and i think it's important to protect this i think that the bill would not allow these companies to continue i move amendment l zero one three and asked that it be displayed l zero one three is properly displayed represents upper thank you mister chair so if you turn in your bill to page three what you'll find is a listing of items in which if these items are actually done or satisfied then they wouldn't be eligible to receive money what we're doing with this amendment is we're just adding one additional element and that would be element ii contracts with a search engine that has an algorithm that biases the search results it's really important if we're talking about net neutrality equally to the entire internet and what we're actually trying to achieve here to have a search engine in which the algorithm has biased results it injects things like fake news into the results it injects misinformation it confuses the public and if we're going to be investing our taxpayer dollars i think we need to be very cautious and if our goal is to and and i am slightly surprised by this amendment because it actually looks like it's additional regulation actual regulation and the rest of the bill has no regulation in it so that's slightly ironic to see this amendment coming from the other side of the aisle the other thing i would say is there's a tremendous amount of competition in the search engine space there are dozens and dozens of search engines that you could choose from unless you have an internet service provider who is throttling your content or creating paid in which case you might only be able to access one search engine so again ironically and i hope it's not lost on the chamber this would be a bad omen to adopt because we're actually moving in the opposite direction we're trying to with the bill which is no regulation and lots and lots of choice for customers so i ask a no vote on this amendment representative humphrey thank you mister chair and it's true that this amendment would add be a no on the bill but if we are in fact going to be adding regulations on on colorado businesses which is what we're doing i think that it would be relevant to address the issue of biased search  internet search engines recently new research from a psychologist and search engine expert doctor robert epstein showed that biased google searches had a measurable impact on the two thousand and eighteen midterm elections pushing tens of thousands of voters towards a democrat candidates in three congressional three key congressional races and potentially millions more in races across the country the study from epstein a team at the american institute for behavioral research and technology analyzing google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in southern california in all three races the democrat epstein's research suggests that google search bias may have tipped them over the edge and i won't read you the entire article but i think that that's that's a serious problem representing us over thank you mister chair i'm glad to be back down here so if you look on page three of the bill we we have this listing for which an entity would not be eligible for state broadband grant dollars and let me just read a couple of these because it actually fits in with what the amendment is doing so a blocks any lawful internet content applications services or devices unless the blocking is conducted in a manner consistent with reasonable network management practices i'm going to pause here because here you have actually an exception in some ways swallowing the general rule in a and this comes directly to the amendment and then b it talks about engages in paid prioritization of internet content well what we have an amendment l  three is very very similar to b and the fact that an entity is contracting with a search engine that has an algorithm that places bias within the search results so it's part of the same theme that's going on within this listing c which is already in the bill as well regulates network traffic by throttling bandwidth or otherwise impairing or denigrating lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content application service or use of a non harmful device that impairs that integration what this is talking about in my mind is definitely bias and it's very important since there's a theme that's being listed here that we are consistent with this theme we're not talking about more regulation we're talking about what our state broadband grant dollars are going to fund and if our state broadband tax dollars through this grant program are going to fund contracting with a search engine that provides search results on the basis of an algorithm that injects bias i think we need to be very very careful l zero one three it seems to cover an area that was that that was omitted in in the bill that is trying to prevent any kind of bias preference  anything that has funded through the state government so i think this is consistent with with the original and engrossed bill and and i didn't urge everyone to take it seriously and to support it i think this is a good amendment any further discussion three seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment l zero one three the all those in favor say aye all those opposed no the amendment is lost to the bill any further discussion seeing none the question before us is the passage of senate bill zero seven eight all those in favor say aye all those opposed no bills have already earned college credit in high school that if they do they have a higher likelihood of going on to pursue some type of post secondary education that was the idea behind hb one thousand eight hundred and thirteen twenty six last year which allows part of the cost of advanced placement exams for low income students to be covered by the state of colorado students may receive college credit if they won't receive a qualifying score on the ap test in college accept colorado has thirty three public high schools which offer ib programs and surprisingly twenty three percent of the students who took these exams last year qualified for free and reduced price lunch colorado has a history of working with students to get them off to a good post secondary start well cost is always an issue we need to do the right thing for all of our disadvantaged students we urge a yes vote on hb one thousand nine hundred and twelve twenty two representative mccluskey thank you mister chair i want to add that our primary goal in preschool through th grade is to make sure that we deliver a world class public education for our children and prepare happy healthy thriving students for college and career and even though colorado has been recognized as one of the most highly educated states in the nation colorado ranks at or below average in student college persistence and college credential completion we can improve student success in college by doing a few things raising the bar on the academic rigor in the k twelve system providing and strengthening their academic muscles by expanding concurrent enrollment partnering with institutions of higher education and bringing that real world college experience into high school classrooms expanding career and technical education creating a college going culture in our preschool classrooms all the way up through our senior high school classrooms expanding access to advanced placement curriculum exams honor level courses and international baccalaureate classes last year our colleague representative janet buckner ran a bill to provide grant funding for those students who are underserved in our schools students who don't who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds and who needs support to be able to participate in the ap exams and i an ap exam specifically this year were bringing forward a new group of students to include in the mix and we are so grateful to representative buckner for her leadership last year and her support in helping us include more students in the effort this year having said that we ask for your support of house bil thank you is there any further discussion seeing none the question before us is the passage of house bill one thousand two hundred and twenty two all those in favor signify by saying  also move the energy and environment committee report to the comm report representing force there were several amendments presented in committee that made the bill even better any further discussion seeing non i move amendment eleven to the committee report and asked that it be dis the amendment is moved and properly displayed to amendment l one representative for they thank you mister chair this amendment removes the civil right of action in in agreement with the attorney general's office and allows the attorney general to be the enforcing agent on the appliance efficiency standard all those opposed say no the amendment is adopted mister chair i move amendment elves zero twelve the committee report and ask that it be displayed l zero one two is properly asprey this amendment addresses contractor concerns that occasionally appliances are sold in conjunction with a repair and those are not the people that we are at attempting to enforce the new appliance efficiency standards on i ask for an aye vote is there any further discussion on amendment l zero one two seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment l zero one two all i now move the committee report as amended the committee report includes the removal of that the amendments that were moved in references to installation the purpose of this bill is point of sale compliance and that was the main focus of the amendments in committee is there any person i've owed on the committee report as amended is there any further discussion on the committee report seeing none the question before us is the adoption of the amended your for having our bill on seconds today this is really a good bill whether you are concerned about saving energy saving water or just saving money it has something for everyone hb one thousand two hundred and thirty one has the potential to save colorado a tremendous amount of energy in water by two thousand and thirty five through adopting more efficient energy technologies and fixtures we can make our homes and businesses more efficient and create a lot of savings for consumers industry is driving great innovations and new products these products benefit all of us and getting them on the market faster helps the entire state investing in these products will deliver a great return on investment for consumers we estimate that consumers will save six dollars and forty cents for every one dollar spent under this standard in their water and energy costs the big picture is hb one thousand two hundred and thirty one can save seventy eight million dollars annually by two thousand and twenty five and one hundred and sixty eight million dollars annually by tw standards include a vigorous process to ensure that product save water and energy but also that they are reliable and good quality so why should call them how to do this of other states and programs are already out there adopting these standards now helps colorado maximize the benefits and savings of the program the market is moving towards these products already this bill nudges that transition and in doing so puts us on the front end so we can get to capitalize on these benefits also it just makes sense to adopt the standards that can help save us water energy and money we ask for your yes vote on hb nineteen twelve thirty one today representative rowley thank you mister chair there are riley thank you mister chair this amendment removes a couple remaining instances in which the word install was included in the bill and i ask for an aye vote is there any further discussion on a minute l zero  move amendment l zero zero nine which cleans up the language in which both references to that cleans up and include state and local both times in the bill so one time it refers to state another time to state and local this time it will be both references are to state and local so it's a clean up and i ask for an aye vote on l zero zero nine the amendment has been moved and is properly displayed is there any further thank you and thank you members there are many reasons to set energy efficiency standards for appliances one is to protect colorado as federal standards are repealed and as state after state enacts enact similar legislation secondly these standards save colorado residents and businesses money lower utility bills and lower water usage therefore this bill is a handy realized that we have enough government control in our lives but then i come down here this morning and see that we are actually getting into people's dishwashers their refrigerators their microwaves people have enough mister chair and members i would ask for your attention please so there are a lot of times when we don't pay attention to what is said here on seconds but this bill while well intentioned has a very serious issue that i would ask that all of you pay heerden haydn's to this boat was clearly designed with consumer products that most of us would purchase at our homes in mind and that is a separate issue but the way this bill is written this is a serious threat to the restaurant industry and commercial products when you're talking about energy and water efficiency in your homes that's one thing but restaurants are required to meet very specific health code requirements that are for safety oftentimes there are products that are not energy efficient they need to be utilized for public health and safety purposes this include things that sound is innocuous as high flow dishwasher nozzles on sinks for cleaning dishes water cooled ice makers as opposed to electronically cool ice makers which are not as efficient but do not generate nearly as much heat which when you have a back room in a restaurant the ambient heat of your rest of your back room is a health and safety issue which is going to foster the growth of bacteria again members i seriously ask for your for your attention on this because this bill could and i'm not i'm not using hyperbole here this bill could seriously endanger health and safety and restaurants and i going cause literally millions of dollars of fines for commercial establishments i urge the sponsors of this bill to reconsider what you are doing here perhaps craft separate regulations for restaurants and commercial uses because there are a host of reasons why a restaurant needs to use an energy inefficient appliance in order to comply with the health and safety requirements that are set upon them may be a huge mistake to pass this bill as is you would be doing untold damage to commercial businesses and particularly the restaurant industry and furthermore you could potentially be endangering health and safety of your constituents when it comes to what we prepare in our restaurants so again i know this appears to be around the relatively innocuous bill but it is way overly broad it does not take into account the realities that are faced in our commercial restaurant industry and i strongly urge a no vote let's get this thing right let's not endanger the health and safety of our citizens let's not unfairly punished our small businesses our restaurants and let's let's do this right let's not rush this through this will have serious negative impacts for every restaurant in the entire state and i would hate to see us pay a price for that two years down the road because we passed something that sound innocuous so representative landgraf whoops members bills like this have far reaching repercussions a few years ago we had a bill on toilets i believe it was representative singers bill and i know it was well intentioned it actually came up during this committee meeting when we went to redo our bathroom for our disabled son we could not buy the products we needed in colorado because of that bill the same thing is going to happen here somewhere along the line you're going to have maybe people who need to buy their appliances secondhand and they won't be able to buy those appliances secondhand because they won't be have the proper rating there's no exceptions in bills like this it's e now somebody did say to me well there's a there's exceptions in the in the what i call the toilet bill but when you're online buying something all it says is we can't send this to colorado i've actually talked to people who ordered their appliances elsewhere and have their kids or friends ship it to colorado so there's ways around this and people are doing it so why should we do this this bill it just it drives me nuts that anybody thinks they should tell me what what i should or should not purchase that should be my decision based on what i want what i can use  can afford what works under our circumstances in our case somebody who's disabled one size does not fit all and this is pushing everything into that one size fits all chairman well members i to serve on the energy and environment committee we heard this bill last week and well i'm sure the sponsors hearts are in the right place i'm not sure this bill has many many many unintended consequences first of all really consumers today when they buy their appliances whether it's an oven or a dishwasher or stove refrigerator they are not out there just to go out and say well i want to buy the most least efficient energy appliance that i can because you can hardly find one the manufacturers themselves today kno w that to stay competitive you've got to have a good energy efficient appliance and so they make them because they want to stay competitive so for a consumer to go out and say geez i want to buy a run energy inefficient you just can't do that today but this bill also applies to the very computer screens that we use the consumer technology association as well as the information technology industry council both came and testified against this bill because their monitors their computer monitors and computers they already meet the california standards which are the most stringent in the nation they already do that so the need for this bill it's not needed quite frankly and like our good minority leader mentioned do we really need the government to micromanage every single thing we do from in the morning when we turn on the dishwasher or the oven so in the evening when we go to  bed i don't think so the some of the organizations that were against this where the colorado restaurant association my colleague representative larson talked about this you know colorado with some of the other legislation that has been passed you know this may knock us into recession so do we really need to go out and hurt the colorado restaurant association the restaurant industry which is very very important to colorado's economy so the colorado restaurant association they were against the bill as i mentioned the consumer technology association they offered a bill excuse me an amendment because to exempt them because they already meet as i said the california standards correct that's true and the colorado retail council which is your big stores they're gonna be stuck with inventory that they that in in some cases that they have to buy a year out and that is going to have a real negative impact on the retail industry i believe the pipe fitters had reservations about this so to my recollection i can't really remember too many people who were for it and a lot of good organizations that were against house bill one thousand two hundred and thirty one so in all sincerity i urge an aye vote i know everybody's listening out there so i know there's thousands of people that are listening and so for everybody that's listening the tens of thousands that are listening on channel one hundred and sixty five is that we need to vote flush with money then and they are not flush with money now and this bill needs to be flushed i urge a no vote thank you representative fralick thank you very much mister chair aye vote i appreciate our other members expressing concerns on behalf of the restaurant association however the restaurant association is neutral on this bill and we worked hard our stakeholders and i believe we've addressed the concerns of business as well we look forward to consumers in colorado and small businesses saving money saving water saving energy or you may have heard the motion mclaughlin ransom please close the machine with thirty two i votes and thirty two no votes and one excuse the amendment is lost please close the machine with twenty four i've votes forty no votes and one excuse the soper amendment is lost that brings us to the report of the committee of the whole any further representative catlin please close the machine with forty three i votes twenty one no votes and one excuse the report of the committee of the whole is past announcements and introduction representative eschar thank you madam speaker just this is the best announcement of the day so you might want to pay attention in case you forgot there the colorado coalition of massage therapists are here today first floor chair massages thank you representative michelson janay thank you madam speaker members of the public health care and human services committee please pay attention we will not be meeting today to hear any bills however if you'd like to stand in front of the door with arms crossed you're welcome but there will be no formal committee hearing representa madam speaker pro tem thank you madam speaker i have some special guests with me today if they could stand jod parker and her three children are here they are home schooled they are some of the brightest and smartest and most polite children i've ever met and my husband was her principal at overland high school so thank you for being here today she wanted them to learn about the legislative process and i am really impressed they're off to a great start thank you thank you for joining us today representative jackson thank you madam speaker capital quark come on down we have a birthday yes we do a birthday let's see if we can carry it to red representative williams thank you madam speaker i just wanted to request a brief moment of personal privilege a moment of personal privilege is granted thank you madam speaker members i wasn't here on monday to sort of explain what happened with my bill on as all of you are aware that was laid over until after the session ends and that was that was done frankly because there was a solution that was adopted by my party on saturday which solved the problem and i just wanted to take a moment here to thank the majority leader as well as representative susan len team for being flexible and accommodating and allowing for for that to occur you know last week we we had two moments of personal privilege about respect and decorum in this chamber and the need for more  that but i want to just point out that that was a good what happened on monday was a good thing that it shows what we're capable of when we want to come together and allow for something that i felt was important i'm sure everyone thought  important to allow for that to occur in a in a way that didn't involve a legislature i think really what what that bill spoke of was not so much the the policy because i think everyone agrees that everyone should have a their say in our election process regardless of their wealth or income i think the issue was process and how do we accomplish that and i think it speaks volumes to how the majority leader can conduct himself and how he manages the calendar and i just i wanted to point that out when that bill passed on seconds you know i came to him after after a certain period of time and i asked him hey can we can we lay this over for two months the majority leader has a heck of a challenge trying to manage the calendar and and his willingness to allow that i really do think speaks volumes and i want to say the same for representative s levine her cooperation her her help and support on that bill and and allowing again for that internal fix rather than a legislative one i think again speaks volumes about her character as well so sometimes we don't always get it right sometimes we could always treat each other a little bit better and this is one of those instances where we did where we did come together and it shows that we we can do a lot of good when we when we agree on the policy and we when we when we do want to come together as well and it also says something about being able to to fix a problem without having to resort to a legislative fix i think if we can look for those opportunities we should it was bittersweet for me because i did have thirty three votes i did have at least eighteen votes in the senate and i'm pretty sure i would have had a governor's signature but at the end of the day it's it doesn't matter how we solved the problem at the end of the day what matters is that we did solve the problem and i want to thank this chamber for their flexibility i want to thank this chamber for your cooperation as well and i can't say enough good things about the work that that we did accomplish and especially the the way in which the majority leader and my co sponsor represented one team conducted themselves so thank you very much chamber we got it right and i i look forward to continue working with all of you thank you