H.B. 329 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um, I was told by Representative Walter that you should all be in a good mood after the presentation of his bill. I don't know if that's correct or not, but it is correct. That's what he told me to convey. Um, uh, I'm here to present House Bill 3 29. It is a bill focused on strengthening Utah families through expanding maternity leave. I don't know if the senate's aware, but, um, because of the dropping fertility rates and the skyrocketing costs of living, we created a pro-family and strong family working group over the interim and worked on policies to see what we could do to help, um, strengthen families. And this is one of the policies that came from that working group. And, oh, and I forgot to, I'm, I'm sorry. So I forgot to introduce my guest here. This is Emily Bell McCormick with the Policy Project, and they happen to, um, be kind of pioneering the same, um, goals as far as strengthening families and helping families out. Um, so what this bill does is that it, um, we, Utah currently provides six weeks of paid leave for new mothers, and the research is very clear that that is insufficient. Um, shorter maternity leave increases health risks for mothers, disrupts early bonding that is essential to child development and forces families back into the workforce during the most fragile and expensive stage of childcare. So what this does is it extends postpartum leave just for mothers for up, up to nine weeks, and then also focuses on adoptive leave and foster leave. We worked, um, with groups there to make sure that that, um, is sufficient for those groups. Um, this is a policy improvement that supports families while strengthening workforce retention. It shows that, um, workforce can re retain 70 has better, 70% better retention rates with, um, extended maternity leave. Um, finally, this bill does close an important legal gap. Um, Utah already protects public bl breastfeeding, but it does not explicitly protect pumping, um, breast milk in public. And this just fills that gap. Um, and with that, I would love to turn the time over to Emily.

Thank You. Thank you, representative. Um, we are very, very excited about this bill. This is a very concrete way that Utah can bring its policy in line with its culture and its belief system. Uh, paid maternity leave is actually one of the most studied family policies in the world, and I'm going to blow your mind. 96% of countries actually have a paid maternity leave with an average of 29 weeks. There are only seven countries, um, the US Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga that do not have a maternity leave. Um, and so, uh, the likelihood that this problem is going to be solved at the federal level is pretty small. But because Utah is small and mighty and, and, uh, quick to adapt, we know that we can do this here and value our families and motherhood. Um, as representatives said, this is huge for bonding. It's big for nursing, has incredible outcomes for improving child development and increasing secure attachment with a mother and the baby. Um, that in turn creates long-term outcomes for our populations that then becomes students and part of the workforce. And then we hope they go on to continue to have families and contribute to society. So we strongly encourage a yes vote on this. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. And I would just add to that, um, so I, when I had my first child, I was a public employee, um, and I had six weeks of maternity leave and returned to work after. Um, and it was incredibly difficult and costly for our family. It was difficult to leave a child that young find childcare and then pay for it. And so this will be a huge benefit. It'll be good for our employers, it'll be good for our employees. Um, and it'll be good for the state of Utah. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 3 29. My name is Sandy Snowden, a lifelong resident of Utah. I'm a mom of five married kids and a grandma of four, but soon to be eight grands with four daughters having babies this spring. All of my daughters are full-time productive driven employees here in the state of Utah. My Marco Polo feed is filled with my daughters trying to figure out how to survive financially and physically once their babies come, the things they worry about. Now, I was privileged to not worry about as a stay-at-home mom in the nineties, but things have changed and the cost of living is far higher for my kids. These five families need both incomes to make ends meet in our state. I understand their frustration watching them navigate wildly different parental leave situations. One son-in-law, VA nurse, receives four months of paid leave, but his wife, a dental hygienist gets no paid leave because of FMLA, she can take up to 12 weeks off with zero pay. Unfortunately, that's not realistic for them. They work hard, but will have to scrimp and sacrifice just for her to take a very short two weeks off. My other daughters receive anywhere from two to six weeks of paid leave, and that simply isn't enough. They're stressed about how to pay bills if they don't return to work immediately, but if they do go back right away, they're left to recover physically. Figure out nursing regulate seat schedules, bond with their newborn, and somehow afford or find childcare for a brand new baby. A few are now considering leaving the workforce not because they want to, and not because they can afford to, but because they don't see any other option. As a grandma, I want to help more, but like many of my generation, I work outside the home, have service commitments, and also help care for aging parents. I'll do what I can, but it's not enough. And that's heartbreaking. In Utah, we pride ourselves on putting families first. That's why we need the state to lead the way and model the strong family values we love by extending paid maternity leave to nine weeks. HB 3 29 helps show that the state of Utah cares and sets that high example for all to follow. Please support this bill for Utah families and our communities. And I'd also like to thank you so much for your time here on the Hill, these past 43 days and all you do year round. Thank you.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'm especially happy to be here today as I have just come straight from the hospital, welcoming the newest member of my family and one of Utah's newest citizens. And I'm very happy that my daughter will be going home. From the hospital was six months of pain maternity leave, and I wish it was even more today though. I am representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government, or MWE for short. MWE is a grassroots organization dedicated to building a more peaceful, just and ethical world through advocacy and empowerment. We believe that the family is a foundational group, unit of society. All families have the right to support and protection under the law. We are grateful to Representative de Fe bringing forward legislation that meaningfully supports families across Utah. HB 3 29 is pro-family and will help address maternal health needs while also strengthening workforce retention. Expanding paid maternity leave for state employees from six to nine weeks recognizes the medical and physical needs of mothers after childbirth aligns more closely with current medical guidance and gives parents critical time to bond with their children. Additionally, research consistently shows that parental leave improves employee retention, thus reducing turnover co costs by adding additional leave categories to adoption and foster placement. This bill recognizes that every path to parenthood deserves support. Taken together. These provisions will make Utah a more family friendly state and help ensure our public workforce remains competitive. We ask you to support HB 3 29.

Hi. Good afternoon, Senator Vickers. My name is Amy Winder Newton and I'm the Director of the Utah Office of Families. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of the Governor's office. This is an executive branch priority bill. Um, we, we see this as a companion bill to, uh, SB 2 29, which did the state employee compensation. Having this extended maternity leave helps us with our overall plan to better retain employees in this, in the state. And so we appreciate your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Corey Holdaway. I am representing the Utah Public Employees Association. We appreciate the fact that this bill is, uh, separate from, uh, the, the previous bill that was just mentioned by, uh, Ms. Newton. Um, this is a better policy. Uh, we as state, uh, representing state employees see this as a benefit, uh, not something that is being taken away from us. And for that reason, we stand in strong support of this and appreciate, appreciate the fact that it was taken out of the other bill and that it's a standalone.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Hi, my name is Rachel Stone. Um, I am a constituent of Senator Fillmore and I know Senator McCay. We promise not to hold that against you Through foster care, actually. Yes. Um, so I'm honored to be here. Thanks for having me. Um, I have been an employee of the state since I graduated from BYU 10 years ago. And my entire family has evolved while I've been a state employee in this time. Um, and so I am actually pregnant right now with my third, um, and I'm excited to hopefully deliver them in August. So I could be one of the first, uh, beneficiaries of this bill if it passes. And I would be so grateful for a number of reasons. The points I wanna make to you, I think cover a little bit more of the experience of an employee who is able to cover for a lot of the expenses of life. I'm the primary caregiver, uh, and well, I'm the primary, um, breadwinner for my family. And I do a lot of caregiving as well as a foster parent. Um, I'm able to pay for my family's mortgage, our groceries, our utilities, our bills, our retirement savings with my paycheck. And so for me, I'm able to save enough to take the unpaid FMLA, but let me tell you how this bill will impact our lives as a family. Um, a couple months ago, it was the Christmas season, and I had had a baby in 20, in 20 at the end of 2024. And so at the beginning of 2025, I found myself having bankrolled that FMLA time with my annual and sick time to the best of my ability. And so what happened for me at the end of 2025 was I'd run out of annual time to take spending Christmas with my family, my new baby. Um, and so this bill promises to make that, you know, not happen again. It means that I can use my sick time for taking care of my kindergartner when he comes home with that bug. They always do. Um, it means I can use my annual leave to actually spend on family vacations with my family because what I'll try to do with unpaid leave right now, considering FMLA is unpaid those 12 weeks, um, those six weeks that are unpaid for me. I try to supplement as best as I can with annual and sick. It's not enough. I only have two and a half weeks worth of sick leave per year and two and a half weeks worth of annual, which of course I'd love to use for a July 4th celebration or something else. Um, but again, I've been hoarding those hours to use them during maternity leave just so I can bring home a paycheck during that time. And so my family is really excited about the prospect of me getting to spend Christmas together, family vacations over the summer, enjoying the summer break with my kids who are off of school. Um, I want families to be able to spend time with their existing kids. So more than just the postpartum benefit of being able to breastfeed my baby at home, um, you know, this, this fall, it will also mean that I can spend Christmas with them this, this winter. And so that means the world to me. I also wanna add, as a foster parent, we've been foster, uh, parenting in our family for about four years. And I have done all of the appointments and the, uh, you know, many needs for attention that they have the, all the intake and case management activities for foster parenting just in the margins of time. Um, because I don't really have extra paid leave to dedicate to that good cause. And it's very time consuming to be a foster parent. Um, and so this could really help keep us licensed as a busy established family, keep our family available, um, as a resource in the community for, um, the refugees. We've had dozens come through our home over the last four years. We've been a stepping stone and it's been a privilege and I'd love to be able to continue, but it's unsustainable at this point considering there's only 24 hours in the day. And so this really would give me time back and, um, enable us to continue to serve.

All right. Can, can you hear me okay? Yes, Go ahead. Um, yes. My name is Matthew Morris. I'm a state employee with the DNR, but I'm here in my personal capacity on my personal time. I'm also a licensed foster parent waiting for our first placement, which makes me feel like I should probably connect with Rachel for advice. Um, but I wanna start by saying that I support this bill. Expanding postpartum recovery to six weeks and beyond creates a deca and creating a dedicated adoption and foster leave category. This is a meaningful improvement, and I really appreciate the work Representative Defay and Senator Mikel have done here. But I would urge the committee and the bill sponsors to consider expanding parental leave for non birthing parents beyond the current three weeks. Um, at my own workplace, most of the employees we've recently lost have been mothers of young children to their spouses. Didn't get enough time off to share the load at home. Um, when we talk about parental leave, we're not just talking about time off. We're talking about whether families together have enough support at home to make state employment sustainable and expanding leave for fathers and partners as part of that equation. This bill recognizes that bonding matters. It gives adoptive parents of young children up to nine weeks. It gives foster parents four, but fathers welcoming a newborn still seem to only get three and the number hasn't moved. I'd also just note that foster leave is capped at four weeks per 12 month period, regardless of new placements. Foster families, as you just heard, experienced disruptions, placements ends, a new child arrives, and the cap doesn't reset. I, that might be worth revisiting. I'm not asking to slow this bill down. I'm asking whether bringing these numbers closer in parity would strengthen what's already a good bill. And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A motion that we, uh, favorably recommend third substitute house bill 3 29 to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I, we've had good conversation and this is just really important, um, to show Utah families that we truly value them. And I think this is a good step in helping us strengthen Utah families.

Yeah, we have some slides. Hopefully those were pulled up for you. Okay. Yeah. Do you want me to, Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I'll just have my co-presenter em, Emily Bell McCormick with the policy project, introduce herself.

I'm exactly what she said at Emily Bell McCormick with the policy project. Good to see you all.

We can plug them in, Or do you have the slides And then we can kind of All right. While she's getting the slides going, I will start, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for having me here today. Um, I'm here to present House Bill 3 29. This is the maternity leave bill. It is a bill focused on strengthening Utah families through expanded maternity leave and clearer protections for nursing mothers. As many of you know, we formed a strong families working group over the interim and work to formulate policies that align with supporting Utah families. This policy is a result of thoughtful discussions of among committee members and advocates from the community. Like the Policy Project, Utah currently provides six weeks of paid leave for new, new mothers. And if you look, um, in statute, it's three weeks of parental leave and then three weeks of maternity leave or, uh, postpartum recovery leave. So if it looks confusing, it's because we are adding to, we're adding an additional nine weeks to that three weeks, which will equal 12 weeks. So we are expanding it from six weeks to 12 weeks. Uh, research is very clear that six weeks is sim simply insufficient. Shorter maternity leave increases health risks for mothers, disrupts early bonding that is essential to child development and forces families back into the workforce during the most fragile and expensive stage of infant care. The first 12 weeks of a child's life are foundational. Parents have always known this intuitively, and science now confirms it. The early period supports, uh, this early period supports emotional security, healthy development, and maternal, physical and mental health. At the same time, infant care is often the most expensive and burdensome childcare costs Utah families face. And you know that we are working to lower the cost of families. And this is one key provision and policy that we can pass to make a difference in this space. Extending maternity leave is one of the most direct ways we can reduce that pre pressure. And House Bill 3 29 offers a clear solution. First, for state employees, the bill extends maternity leave, like I said, from from six to 12 weeks. We're also including adoptive leave and foster leave for young children, uh, for families who are adopting or fostering. Um, and they and young children is defined as children who are six and younger to make it consistent, um, with the child tax, child tax credit and those expensive years of trying to find daycare, um, this is a significant policy improvement that supports families while also strengthening workforce retention. Studies show that extended maternity leave can reduce employee turnover by as much as 70%. This is good for mothers, it's good for employers, and it is good for the state. Importantly, this expansion for state employees requires no additional appropriation. Existing department budgets will absorb it. So the agencies have said, we're a fan, we're happy to do it, we'll absorb the cost. Um, the, the other piece of this is that it addresses teacher maternity leave by creating a $3 million district reimbursement pool to help districts. And charter schools offer up to 12 weeks of paid leave. And this would cost the state approximately $1 million a year over three years, and this would be funded through the stabilization fund. I do want to emphasize that this, this does not alter current statute, which requires LEAs to provide six weeks of maternity leave already, so that will stay consistent. Uh, lastly, the bill closes an important legal gap. Utah law protects public breastfeeding, but it does not exp explicitly protect pumping breast milk in public. And this gap creates uncertainty for nursing mothers who are working. And this just clarifies that this bill is about supporting mothers in critical moments, strengthening families and improving workforce stability, and making Utah a state where parents can thrive. I personally was a state employee when I had my first child. My husband and I, uh, my husband was in grad school. We didn't have a lot of money. I had to go back to work at, uh, when my child was six weeks of age. And it was very difficult and expensive to leave that child. And I definitely can see the benefits of having that extended maternity time. And I know that, that, that it'll be better in the long run, not just for families, but also for these agencies who can retrain, uh, retain the workforce for those who want to come back to work. Um, and then finally, I would just like to add, um, that I feel I, I just feel very strongly about this policy. It really is something that we can do as a body to show that we really mean that we want to support strong families. We really, really do care, and it's is meaningful legislation that helps us move the needle. And with that, I'm happy to turn the time over to Emily and then we can answer any questions.

Thank you. Representative Defay is a dream working with her, as you all know. Um, we are a nonprofit and we've spent the last three weeks going to seven different counties throughout the state of Utah. We Uintah severe Washington Cash, Weber, Iron, Salt Lake, and Davis. And in this, we have spent a lot of time with hundreds of community members, and we asked them this really interesting question and asked for their feedback. It was, we, we posed this, uh, 96% of countries have a nationwide policy providing paid maternity leave with a global average of 29 weeks. So 96% of countries, and they have about 29 weeks for maternity leave. And we asked everyone in the audience how much maternity leave does the United States, uh, paid maternity policy have. And it ranged from zero to 30 weeks. I wonder if anybody up there wants to guess? Anyone. Anyone. Okay. It was zero weeks. The United States does not have a paid maternity leave along with exactly seven or six other countries, including the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, and Tonga. So the United States has some improvement that we could do on that. Um, as we were traveling, we met with a woman in St. George who said that her paid maternity leave needed to be sick leave. And they did not, she didn't have sick leave. So she actually went back to work the day after she gave birth. And then we, uh, just last night in cash, we talked with a woman who really wanted her. Her dream job is being a rollercoaster engineer, but she had to say no to it because they only had a three day paid maternity leave, and she didn't feel like she could do that. So we think the likelihood of us getting a national policy is probably not high, but we know that Utah has always valued families. We love families. It's, it's part of our core. And so this brings us an incredible opportunity to bring policy in line with our values and what we believe in the state of Utah. Thank you.

Thank you. And I wanna thank Representative Defay, um, and policy project for all the work you've been doing. Thank you. Emily. Uh, we spoke earlier and I said I didn't have any questions, but I'm just checking my email and it looks like my constituents have questions. And so I just wanna ask if you could help us understand the policy goal for making parental leave optional for school employees, especially since prior legislation efforts work to keep parental leave aligned between state employees and school employees, and how we would evaluate that impact.

Yeah, that's a wonderful question. Um, so when we originally talked about this, um, because teachers fall in a different bucket, we had to look at them separately from public employees. Um, they're in a different category. And when we got the fiscal note on that, it is fiscally untenable for us to provide that in legislation. But what we could do is create this fund so that we can get data, um, that will help us move the needle with teachers in the future. So it's start, it's opening the door for LEAs to start having conversations about extending maternity leave forward their employees, and then also getting the right data so that a fiscal, uh, impact isn't as large as it may be thought to be. If that makes sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I understand that there are some issues with foster care. Uh, the timelines don't line up. Would being an emergency placement that lasts for anywhere from 24 hours to a few weeks qualify you?

Um, so that's a, that's a good question. Um, I am trying to remember, I'd have to go back to our analysts, the conversation we had a lot of questions about, 'cause there's different types of placements. Um, and so I can get back to you on that. I know that we have this discussion. We are currently working, um, on that piece to make sure that we're solid on it. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do you, did you have anything with that?

No, I think that was my exact thought, is that we did have a lot of conversation around this. We tried to secure it for kids under the age of six, but not exactly sure on that. So we can follow up.

Thank you. May I ask another follow up question, please? Yes. Yes, you ma'am. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, regarding adoption, you can't adopt a child for six months. So if they're already, if they've already lived with you for several months, why do they need the time then?

Yeah, that is a really great question, and that was actually brought to my attention. So we are looking at the language, we're making sure that the language adopt means when that child is placed, but not when that child is legally adopted. So that when you receive the, the child in your home, that's when the, the leave would start. So we are gonna shore up that and make sure that the way that it's written in here aligns. If it does not, then we'll make that amendment.

Okay. And then final question. Um, we are in a time where we are trying to make cuts. Why now?

Uh, well, I think one, I mean as a legislature, to me, the theme this year is families and cost of living. Um, families are really struggling to make ends meet. We are also looking at declining fertility rates, and we're trying to figure out what can we do as a state to support strong families so that families can have as many kids as they would like, and still either stay in the, remain in the workforce or stay at home if they, if they choose. So this has been an ongoing conversation we're spending a lot of time on. And, and I think it's valuable that we're doing it now with that cost of living. A lot of families don't have a choice but to have two parents working. And that's really why I think this has come to the forefront. Do you have anything to add?

Yeah, I would just echo that. You know, we, we have looked at different issues around the state, and without a question, family affordability is at the top of the list of people's concerns. And I think maternity is one of those ways that we can easily give people a little bit of a headstart as we heard, you know, their health benefits from a mother being with a child that really will help with like nourishment and getting through that. The other piece is childcare for newborns is the most expensive in the state. And where childcare is extremely expensive and limited in many counties, we're finding that giving that also opens up a window where people are no, not needing to find that kind of care and incur that kind of expense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you both for your good work on this. I, I think we can all agree that we want to support strong families, and we also recognize the importance of that critical time when a child is born and the need for that time with their parents in order to thrive. The first question is, is you go from three to 12. Where did you come up with that number and, and how did you come up with it? And, and maybe secondary to that is, um, I, being a father who worked while all my four kids were, were born and had a little bit of time to take off, did you guys think through looking at paternity leave, you know, teachers and employees that are maybe the fathers who would need to be supportive to their families and, and young kids? Yeah,

I'd love to Add a little, yeah. Yeah. So, so first of all, so on the time, so we're not going from three to 12, we're going from six to 12. So because, but the fathers do get three weeks because that is p uh, parental leave. So fathers get three weeks, mothers get three weeks, but then for postpartum recovery, that's an additional three weeks. So that's why it's confusing in the code because there's those two distinctions. So they are getting six weeks, we're going from six to 12. Um, as far as fathers, I have to be honest, I I did not contemplate that in this bill, but maybe Emily has more to add. Yeah,

I, I mean, I love what you're saying. I think that fathers are a big consideration. We did think about doing that this year, but I think as we're slowly kind of shifting the culture to consider a longer leave, we felt like the maternity would be first and fathers, I'm so sorry, fathers always get second, but

Thank you. Uh, just another question. Um, I, I think I, I like what you guys are trying to do here. My, my number one concern is money. Uh, there's a $3 million one time, um, fiscal note here. What happens when that $3 million, $3 million runs out?

Yeah, so this is a pilot program. So first of all, the 3 million comes from the stabilization fund. So this is not coming from our general fund. Um, and so the nice thing is we have a little more flexibility with that fund. Um, as far, so this is a pilot program. Really the goal is to gather data so we can understand how many of our teachers and public school employees are having babies. And that gives us an idea of what it would cost in order to cover those co cost ongoing. Um, so that's a conversation we would revisit once that $3 million is done. And at the same time, we're, we're shifting a culture, right? We're talking about what does it look like to have extended maternity leave for everybody, including teachers, and, um, how does that help with retention? And I think when the LEAs start seeing the positive results, then they're gonna want to shift their culture in that direction as well.

So I guess just one more follow up question, Mr. Chair. Um, is there a hard Sunset or required reauthorization before expansion or any future funding? Or is that, what is, what happens after the pilot? Because I think there can be programs that are put into place, and then it grows year after year. We've approved something and then we've kind of lost the train because we've already promised, you know, teachers and state employees you will have the 12 weeks. And so I'm just trying to figure out, is there a release valve that says, Hey, after this pilot, we are stopping and reevaluating and coming back with the data to ensure that this is what the full funding would ask would be?

Yeah, so that's a really good question because it's a fund, it's not a program, so it's optional for LEAs to opt in to the fund. So it would be, they are enrolling with the understanding that one, we're, we wanna collect the data and to help them get on their feet with extending maternity leave. So there's no promise that the, the state will come in, but it's revisiting a conversation. But because the LEAs, because it's optional for them, they're going to have to adapt to that timeline, if that makes sense.

And I, I would just love to add, like, as a nonprofit, one of the things that we are planning to do with implementation is to look at the data that we get back from those years and help evaluate, like, how did this impact teachers? Right now in the state of Utah, we have 47% of turnover in within the first five years of teaching. And a lot of that is due to, you know, having babies and moving into that phase of life. And so we do wanna take a look and just consider like, what is the best approach to this? And we've heard a lot of different ideas and opinions from, uh, different people in the legislature on that. And so I think it would give us an opportunity to really study what that looks like for the state of Utah.

Sure. Sorry, can I just, sorry, I'm, I'm a little slow, so I just want to make sure, make sure I'm very clear on this. After the $3 million is done and the pilot is through, there's no more funding. This program stops until another bill would come forward with an ask of additional funding and an additional program to roll it out statewide and possibly require LEAs to offer this option. Is that, do, do I understand that correctly? Yeah,

Just for LEAs, for state employees, there's no funding required, so that's a totally separate part of the bill. So yes, for LEAs it would require us coming back to the table.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, Thanks.

Let me see if I can clarify. On line 68, it, it reads, uh, it, it, uh, describes when a, uh, an LEA can apply for reimbursement from the fund, and that's only open between July 1st of this year to July 1st, 2029. So an LEA could only apply for reimbursement from, from that during that time window. In theory, an LEA could keep offering this benefit, but they would have to pay for it themselves. Correct. And they would not have an opportunity to be reimbursed from the fund, from the, uh, uh, the money that would be appropriated from the stabilization fund.

Does that sound correct? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And if you wanna call it a Sunset, it could, I mean, it's not officially, but yeah, that's, because that's where we, we reevaluate, right? Can LEAs absorb the cost? How many people are using this fund? Um, is it something that LEAs wanna move forward with, or is it something that the state should be taking on? And that's a conversation that we don't really know how to approach until we test the program.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Sandy Snowden and I'm a constituent of David Shallenberger and drove from House District 58 in Orem. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 3 29. I'm a mom of five married children and a grandma to soon to be eight grands with four daughters having babies this year. All of them are full-time productive driven employees. Right now, I'm watching them navigate wildly different parental leave situations. One son-in-law, a VA nurse, receives four months of paid paternity leave, but his wife, a dental hygienist gets no paid leave because of FMLA. She can take up to 12 weeks off, but with zero pay, unfortunately, that's not realistic for them. They're saving for a home and will have to dip into their savings just so she can take two weeks off. My other daughters receive anywhere from two to six weeks of paid leave, and that simply isn't enough. They're stressed about how to pay bills if they don't return to work immediately, but if they do go back right away, they're left trying to recover physically, figure out nursing, regulate, sleep schedules, bonding with their newborn, and somehow afford to even find childcare for a brand new baby. A few are now considering leaving the workforce not because they want to, and not because they can afford to, but because they don't see any other option. As a grandma, I want to help more, but like many in my generation, I work outside the home, have service commitments, and also help care for aging parents. I'll do what I can, but it's not enough and that's heartbreaking. In Utah, we pride ourselves on putting families first. That's why we need the state to lead the way and model the strong family values we love by extending paid maternity leave to 12 weeks. HB 3 29 helps show that the state of Utah cares and sets that high example for all to follow. Please support this bill for Utah families and our communities. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Audrey Wood and I'm speaking on behalf of the Utah Public Employees Association, UPEA. We appreciate the sponsor for addressing this needed benefit and recognizing the benefits for both the employee and the employer, and we appreciate her support on this. Thank you.

Good afternoon, um, members of the committee. My name is Hannah Randall and I'm the state Government Direct Government Relations Director for the American Heart Association here in Utah. We are here to express our support for HB 3 29 State Employee Maternity and Leave Amendments. Expanding paid leave is critical to ensuring Utah remains the best place for families to thrive. There are also key health benefits associated with expanded leave. Nursing parents who have access to paid leave are more likely to breastfeed, which has been shown to improve the heart health of the parent and the baby. Paid leave policies may also have other long-term health benefits for children, partly due to on schedule medical checkups during the first few months of the baby's life. There are so many different family situations in our state and even among state employees. Expanding maternity and parental leave is a way to ensure each of these families have the best chance to bond with their children, recover from birth, and start or grow families on stable ground. Paid leave policies have been shown to lead to healthier babies and mothers. When families have access to paid leave, they can be more financially independent and less dependent on public assistance programs. Saving the state money supporting this policy for new moms and babies in this stage of their lives is a sound investment in the future of Utah. We ask each of you to support HB 3 29 and vote favorably for it to pass out of committee. Thank you. Thank

Hi, my name is Amy Winder Newton. I'm the director of the Utah Office of Families. This is a very great pro-family bill. And, uh, just wanted to express my support. Not only does it do all the great things that was, were just mentioned, um, to help with both mother and baby health, but it also helps with our childcare issue in our state. The longer we have a parent who can stay at home with a child, the less we have daycares and other facilities who have to subsidize, um, expensive daycare for kids under two. And so if we can encourage, hopefully the state as we lead out, and then we can encourage other, um, you know, private companies to do the same. We'll, we'll be able to see some, some great progress there. So thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Lori Cartwright and I currently live in Stansbury Park, Utah. I am representing Mormon Women for Ethical Government or MWE for short. MWE is a grassroots or organization dedicated to building a more peaceful, just and ethical world through advocacy and empowerment. We believe that the families, the foundational group, unit of society, all families have the right to support and protection under the law. We are grateful to Representative Defay bringing forward legislation that meaningfully supports families across Utah. HB 3 29 is pro-family and will help address maternal health needs while also strengthening workforce retention. Expanding paid maternity leave for state employees from six to 12 weeks recognizes the medical and physical needs of mothers after childbirth aligns more closely with current medical guidance and gives parents critical time to bond with their children. Additionally, research consistently shows that parental leave imposes improves employee retention, thus reducing turnover costs by adding additional leave categories for adoption and foster placement. This bill recognizes that every path to parenthood deserves support taken together. These provisions will make Utah a more family friendly state and help ensure our public workforce remains competitive. We ask you to support HB 3 29. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you, committee. My name is Tiana Tonga and I am an ordinary citizen representing my family. Um, I am surprised, uh, that this bill is being sponsored by a Republican. I, um, I follow a lot of federal, uh, legislation and I find that a lot of Democrats, if you wanna call that, um, pass bill or running legislation of the, like, where they think that it's the government's responsibility to take care of healthcare, to take care of diapers, to take, take care of, um, childcare. I don't think that that is the proper role of government. And if, uh, this is an election year, you guys are gonna be have to talk to your constituents and your constituents are gonna ask you what is the proper role of government. I am in favor of family and I want to take care of family, but I don't think that is government's role to do that. And as Representative Fiefia brought up, he had concerns about whether or not after this program or pilot program finishes whether it's going to expand. Well, let me tell you the answer. It will expand and you wanna know why I know that because I've been watching you for the past decade. Okay. Uh, I've been coming up to legislation for over a decade, and I have seen the pattern of government is to expand because, and, and I don't know why. Maybe that's just, um, uh, what power and authority does, but I would just ask you to, if you're going to consider this, to have robust conversation because there is a fine line between helping people and then creating programs that will create dependency. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Stout. I am with Voices for Utah Children. Um, I'm also testifying here for myself. I am a single mother. I was working for a government agency when I first became pregnant and had to leave because my, I did all the things that I thought I should do in life. I Uintah college, Uintah church, went on a mission, met my husband, and three weeks after I found out I was pregnant, he left, um, the country and I haven't spoken to him since. Um, and he left me with to raise a son and I had to leave the government agency I was at because, um, I had to figure out how I could raise my child. And luckily I was able to get a job. Not all women are lucky like me, that gave 16 weeks of maternity leave. And it literally saved my life because my son was in the NICU for five weeks. And if I wouldn't have had that maternity leave, I wouldn't have been able to be there to take care of him. And, um, there's also studies showing that, um, if you're in the NICU with spending time holding your baby, they are more likely to leave, um, the NICU sooner anyway, so he was able to leave. And that maternity leave I wish was offered to all women, all companies. And I think by the state offering it, you're being a, um, you're spearheading and showing other companies in Utah that this is an important issue. You care about mothers. And, um, thank you,

Hi, so happy to be with you. Thank you. I appreciate this bill and your consideration. I'm a constituent of Colin Jacks there and friends with a few other you on this group. But I have been a champion in southern Utah of women and families and children for 35 years. Um, I'm a small business owner and I also have five children of my own. And, um, I can't think of anything as critical as this in supporting the state. So with my five children, and I'm in my sixties and I have one granddaughter, and I see this barrier, um, of children, my my kids and their friends, being able to choose to have a family, to start a family and continue to pay all the other bills. And it's just a critical time. And we see the declining birth rate and when I look at that population, there's a direct correlation. And so I know many people have talked about the heart of this and the data, but I really wanna focus on the economics of this because it's really a return on investment, the ROI of investing in young moms in staying home. Not only just the bonding, but also figuring out what they're gonna do with their next steps with choice. The choice to go back to work or stay home. For many, they don't have the choice. They simply cannot afford those first three months of childcare, and therefore the choice is made. And we all pay for that because they exit the workforce. They're not able to stay at homes or rent in our communities. And so that return the housing crisis is critical. It takes two incomes. So the choice not to be able to stay home or go to work because of maternity leave is significant and is affecting Utah's status as being a family friendly state. So I would strongly encourage we look at it as return on investment. Thank you so much.

There we go. Okay. Um, three. My name's Cammy player. Um, I live in Logan, Utah, and I teach third grade at Edith Bowen Lab School on the Utah State University campus. Um, three years ago I took maternity leave for the birth of my second son. Um, what surprised me most wasn't just how hard po postpartum recovery was mentally and physically. Um, it was discovering how hard our system makes it for working mothers. Um, I learned that maternity leave didn't really actually exist for educators like me, instead is treated as short-term disability. Um, the six weeks provided ended before my post first postpartum appointment, which wasn't until nine weeks after delivery. And that alone felt deeply wrong to me. On top of that, I was required to use all of my sick and personal days before any benefits kicked in. And that meant that my baby, if my baby or I got sick later on in the school year, I had no days left and had to take time without pay. Um, while recovering and caring for a newborn, I also had to write sub plans for my entire leave, adding unpaid work during, um, an already overwhelming season. Um, to make matters worse, my baby required a NICU visit and between unpaid medical, uh, medical bills and, um, paying for more and earning less, um, simply by becoming a mother. So it matters and, um, we shouldn't have to choose between health and financial stability. Thank you for listening and for considering this legislation.

Hi, my name is Melanie Col. I'm from Sandy, Utah. I'm a stay at home mom currently, and I'm a former working mom, so I am for support of this bill, HB 3 29 because I vividly remember how dismissive it can be when you don't have the benefits as an employee for the state. And just to have six weeks paid and not the other six weeks is just not enough time to recover, honestly. And so we're thinking about women in participation in the workforce, and you want that retention rate to stay high because it's very comforting as a parent to know that that is a benefit that you would offer to state employees. And I think we should be setting the standard and example to offer that to parents.

Hi, um, my name is Rhiannon McDaniel and I'm a mom and a social worker. I live in holiday and the wonderful Doug Owens is my representative. Hi, um, and I'm here to support seek in support of HB 3 29. Um, I like to think I'm pretty tough, but as a mom of two, I have never experienced anything quite as simultaneously absolutely destabilizing and undoubtedly sacred as the postpartum period. And having time to both heal and bond is crucial. My eldest and I struggled tremendously to breastfeed. Um, it took 10 weeks for me to nurse without excruciating pain. And each baby comes with their own unique challenges and it takes time for a mother and a baby to work through them. Had I only had six weeks to work through the challenges we experienced, including the basic healing from giving birth, I'm sure that my postpartum health and the health of my entire family would have greatly suffered. If we want to demonstrate that we are serious about family welfare, it's vital that we provide real supports for women and their families. Providing 12, um, weeks of paid leave is an essential step in that direction, especially as more and more families like my own must have two working parents to afford a mortgage. When we support the expansion of paid leave for our state employees, we're setting a standard for businesses and telling our citizens and businesses that we take families on their wellbeing series. Thank you.

Hi, I am Krista Hamilton. I reside in Cash Valley. I am a kindergarten teacher and educator of 13 years now. I have two young children of my own and experienced struggles with pay during maternity leave with each of my boys, though I was allowed the full three months of FMLA leave, I had to choose between staying home longer with my newborns, sacrificing one to two full paychecks or returning to work sooner to keep a consistent income for my family and for many other Utah mothers. This is a difficult and personal decision. Many employers do not allow for enough time to be banked or rolled over. That would compensate for a full three months of maternity leave. So even if mothers tried to save up those days and plan for their pregnancy, this often isn't an option. If paid leave were extended to 12 weeks, it would match the allowable FMLA time, which most mothers choose to take anyways. There's so much research that supports being home with your baby. Those critical early months. Younger babies are more susceptible to illness and will be exposed to all the school age kids germs much earlier. If mom has to return to work at six weeks, this could lead to health complications in the baby's future. And if mom has used all of her paid days, she wouldn't have any left to stay home with a sick kid at that point. Just as Cammy gave in her example. Multiple daycare options in Utah are so full. Women are putting their children on lists at the point of to ensure they get a spot. Ratios are lower with the younger age rooms. So if women can be home for 12 weeks, well paid, they have less daycare costs front and chances of more spots being open work and maybe teachers wouldn't have to plan for their babies to come in the spring to tack on those extra summer months if we had 12 weeks paid leave, no matter the season. I support this bill and I hope that everyone else will as well. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to make an amendment.

I'm looking for the exact line. Let me see. Line 68. So maybe we add line after line 68, um, that the program expires on July. Well, we can actually December 31st, 2029, unless reauthorized by the legislature.

It would just be for the LEAs, the LEAs that the program sunsets is unless extended. Yeah, just the pilot program because the other, the other programs are wrapped into costs of other depart of the departments.

Available. If I, if I could re-state again my amendment. Try to again, again. Uh, so I move that we add that the program expires on July 1st, 2029, unless reauthorized by the legislature,

Can I speak to it? Yes, please. You can speak To it. So I think it, it fits in line after line 68 because the repeal date matches the reimbursement window, making the statute internally consistent. I think the, the concern that I have is that the reimbursement stops, but not the program. And that changes the way that the legislature views this, as in why are we killing this program versus reevaluating and seeing if we should reinstate it. And I think that nuance actually matters when looking at these programs. Again, I, I think there's already reporting in the bill, which I think is important from the LEAs from the state school board. But I also think because of the amount that we would look at this is $3 million just for the pilot. This is expanding a huge program potentially to all teachers, which I think, again, I think we agree we want to support families, we want to support our teachers, but we also want to make sure that the legislature is reevaluating it and that we're not continuing our program, that we haven't had the full evaluation. And that nuance of do we want to kill it or do we revisit it and bring it back is, is important here.

We can't do that in an amendment. We have to do in a substitute. It has to be a substitute.

Thank you. And I appreciate the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. It, I think it makes some important clarifications and ensures that we have the opportunity to revisit this conversation so it doesn't fall by the wayside. So even if I'm not here in three years, somebody will be here and we'll have that conversation. So I appreciate it. Um, if, if it is, if it does have to go in a substitute, um, I I'm fine with that. Um, we can also make those clarifications around, uh, the adoptive leave in case we have to make any clarifications in that as well. Um, so happy to proceed.

Yes. Yes. If we could pass it outta committee today, I would, I would love that. And then we could work together to create that substitute. Um, that would be my preference,

Sure. Yeah. Happy to, uh, adjust and move to a substitute in a later date.

Yeah, I would just like to make a motion to hold it until the substitute's done.

I just think we need to make sure we get it right before it gets to the floor,

Motion in order. Yeah. I appreciate that. Um, I would resist that motion. I, I think the idea and concept itself, we know we want to move forward. I think there's just a really small change that we need to make and we're not sure if we can do it in amendment. Um, so I think it's okay to move forward. Thank you.

To pass with a favorable recommendation to the full house HP 3 29.

Thank you. Thank you for everyone who's come to speak to the bill. I think we've had a really valuable conversation. I think we're going to make some really fantastic changes. Um, and I, what I would like to say is, when I was approached about this bill, my first thought, Uintah my daughter, um, she's 15 right now, but she will be a citizen of this state. I hope when it is time for her to have her own children. And I hope that she can afford to live here and that she wants to have children here, and that this is a place where she feels supported and that families are supported. And I think we felt that as we had many people come up and testify. I think it's absolutely the role of government for government to, um, decide how it should provide benefits for its employees. And I think we're in a UA unique position, um, as government to set a standard but not force anything upon private businesses. It is, I do agree that that is not the role of government and I hope that we can be a good influence, but we do not want to, um, require anything of private business. But I'm thrilled, um, for the support. I know there's a lot of enthusiasm. There are lots of women, mothers and fathers families out there who are really cheering this bill on and hoping that we can step up and support our families. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And sorry I'm speaking a lot, but I, I, I just want to point out one, we're supportive of families and strong families and just appreciate all the good work that you've done. Representative Faye. I think this discussion is good. I think it feels a little awkward and it feels like, oh, we can't talk bad about families, but I sit three times a week in social services and we are cutting $85 million of programs of populations who need it also. And so when I sit here and question this, it doesn't mean that I'm against strong families and I'm against supporting our teachers. It means that I have to stare families down in the eyes and listen to them speak to me, and make the hard decisions to cut dollars. Um, and so I think this is really good. This is where the work should happen, is in the committees. And so there's, there's nothing wrong with this bill. I think this is really great that this is a robust conversation. I think even the motion to hold it is responsible. I I just think this is what we should be doing as legislators and we should not be rubber stamping bills as they come through. And so for everyone who's here, as you come through and we ask the hard questions, just know that we are on other committees where we are having to make hard decisions also. And so I just want to thank the bill sponsor for weathering the hard questions and the conversation and, and just applaud my colleagues for being willing to ask the hard questions and, and make sure that we're passing good legislation and make sure that we're following the role of government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for this conversation. I too, I, I wish I had all the money to help all the people, um, but this is not my money to give you. I, um, as far as the hardships with maternity leave, um, we all experienced that. I, I I can understand if there were issues like someone who had a c-section and needed to stay longer. I can appreciate, I can appreciate that. However, I also do believe that it is not the proper role of government to ensure that everyone is healthy and wealthy and, and, and doing okay. Just be, I mean, life is hard. Life is hard. And I wouldn't wanna take that away from any of us because it is the way we grow. So for that reason, and well, just because we haven't discussed the issues with adoption and, and foster care, um, I will be a no at this time.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt third substitute house bill 3 29. That

Yes. This bill has seen a few changes. This is the maternity leave and amendments bill. Um, originally it was drafted for 12 weeks of maternity leave, moving from six weeks to 12 weeks for public employees. This is scaling that back a little bit, going from six weeks to nine weeks, um, for public employees, and then also removes the fiscal note of $3 million, um, by taking out the, um, fund for LEAs. So that part is removed and it's a zero fiscal note.

Yes. With the sponsor. Yield

So does this, uh, substitute just put the state employees and LEA employees on the same schedule for parental leave? Or is, are they still separate?

So this would be separate. So this keeps LEAs, um, equal to the state for up to six weeks. So three weeks of paternal leave and then three weeks of postpartum maternity recovery leave. And then it would add an additional three weeks for public employees.

But not, excuse me, Mr. Speaker. So not for the school employees, is that correct?

Yes. Unfortunately with the budget this year, um, that was a cost we were unable to absorb and something to look forward to in the future.

Okay, thank you Mr. Speaker. I actually have another substitute that keeps the state school employees in the same par as, uh, school, school and state employees on the same for parental leave. So, um, I'll be voting against this amendment and, uh, proposing another

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

Thank you. Um, I know that we're moving from six to nine weeks. I'm in total support of supporting maternity leave in any way possible. However, um, when we do this at a state level, are we concerned that this could be setting a precedent for other businesses around the state? I would really hate for us to be putting that type of pressure on other businesses who are just trying to stay afloat that they would have to pay for additional maternity, maternity leave. I know that that's not specifically mentioned in the bill, but there could be, uh, an effect because we're passing something at a state level. What do you say to that?

Yes, thank you for the question. That's a great question. Um, if businesses are equipped to offer this, I hope that it does encourage them to extend maternity leave if they're able. I also understand that small businesses make up a large portion of our economy. And I this by no means is to put pressure on them. It's simply to help our own employees that we, that we employ.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker with the sponsor. Yield to a question.

So by removing, um, LEAs, it removes the fiscal note. Um, if we're going from six weeks to nine, how is there not a fiscal note to the state if there's additional time off?

That's a really good question. So the agencies are able to absorb the cost. So in the case of a school or an LEA, they have to replace that employee with a substitute employee. That's why there's a cost incurred, um, with a public employee. Um, that employee is gone for the amount of time, but they are not replaced with another employee. And what this looks like in reality is probably the employee isn't completely cut off. They're probably answering phone calls and emails and working. Um, so, but the agency is able to use other employees to help cover that employee while that employee is away.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield to one question?

Yes. Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'm, I'm a little bit confused. I've been reading them. I have spoken with the, uh, sponsor. Do, is this substitute going from three weeks to six or three weeks to nine weeks?

So that's a really good question. There's actually two types of leave that the state offers. So we offer three weeks of paternal leave. So this is for fathers and mothers. So everybody receives that leave. That's three weeks that already happens. The other three weeks that the state already offers is maternity recovery leave for a woman who has given birth. That is, we're extending from three weeks, we're adding another three weeks, which makes that six weeks of maternity or pa postpartum recovery leave. But with the three weeks of pa paternity leave that or paternal leave, then that equals nine weeks, if that makes sense. It's kind of confusing, but we have a three week chunk and a three week chunk. We're adding three weeks for a total of six weeks in the maternity leave chunk.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is all part of a larger conversation and so I wanna be careful to say this correctly. We, we need to make sure that we are not thinking about these policies in isolation of other things that are going on. Uh, and so I, I would, um, favor the position of the chief sponsor and so keep, keep the bill clean, keep it what she needs it to be so that it can be part of a larger conversation moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield Representative. Faye,

Wilcox. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm, uh, I'm going through this and, uh, just, just last week, you know, we ran some legislation where the potential loss in productivity was listed at $8 million for one day. And I wanna make sure I understand this. They're saying that they can absorb, you know, for how many employees for weeks, what, what does, what does that look like for our state agencies and potential employees that this would apply to?

Thank you. So this is not the shutdown of the entire government for a day. This is, this is one re one employee being gone and other employees covering their duties while that employee is gone. So the potential for revenue loss is none, as is stated by the fiscal note.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm in favor of the policy. I'm just trying to reconcile the difference there. Thank you.

I'll waive. Okay. Summation has been waived.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adopt a different substitute.

Yes. The first substitute that I put together is really important because the last few year

Yes. Thank you so much. So the last few years, this body's worked really hard for state school employees, both teachers and staff to have, uh, parental and postpartum leave on equal footing with state employees. And, uh, this substitute keeps that same provision that whatever state employees have, the schools also would have. The reason why this is important is looking at the numbers and the cost, is that we have spent an increased, uh, more than $830 million to our schools just in the last three years. The cost of them adding these, uh, weeks would be a total of about 29 million a year total, or excuse me, $24 million a year total with 29 school districts and charter schools. So the cost is not that much, and especially as you look at what the, uh, good sponsor of the bill mentioned regarding state employee leave, they actually have paid leave banks where they can contribute their paid leave to their cohort to help accommodate for a loss of them not working that day due to their parental leave. Now, last year in this provision that we linked LEAs with state employees, we also encourage that of our schools to have their own paid leave banks. And since then, many have adopted that system. So those paid leave banks for schools allow teachers and staff to give some of their paid time off money into this bank. And it could be used for substitutes, um, instead of the school using additional funds or different funds, um, or trying to find it from scratch. So I think this is really good policy. If it's good, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, um, I think that's why this first substitute would continue to link our state employees with our LEA staff and teachers.

Yes, I, I thank my good colleague from Bountiful for all her efforts. She has worked tirelessly in past sessions, um, for our educators and for that I'm so appreciative at this time. Um, as she mentioned, there was a $28 million ongoing cost to the LEAs. And, um, while I would love for this, for the LEAs to also have the same, um, week, uh, weeks available, it was an unfunded mandate to the LEAs and it's something that I'd like to work towards in the future. I see where she's coming from and I will leave it up to the discretion if the body, if they would like to adopt it.

You, um, I, I would rise against the, um, substitute amendment and support the underlying bill. Um, I appreciate the work of our teachers all across the state and, and, um, and, and the districts as their employees, but this is millions of dollars in an unfunded mandate that we would be passing onto our LEAs. And we need to be really cognizant of that. They're mindful of their employees. They know, um, you know, um, what causes turnover. They know, um, the demographics of their employees, and I think we should allow them the discretion to figure that out themselves and, um, not create unfunded. I also really appreciate the original sponsor of the bill and how much she has worked with all of the members of this body to address concerns. And those concerns are, um, addressed in the substitute that we just adopted. And so I would prefer to stay with the substitute that we have. I appreciate the conversation around supporting our educators, um, but I, I am not supportive of creating a, a millions, uh, millions of dollars unfunded mandate for our school districts and charter schools. Thank you. Thank

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I too would rise in opposition to, um, to this substitute for, for the same reason. Um, we have got to control unfunded mandates from, from this body, especially to our LEAs. Um, and that's, that's my number one concern. I am fully committed to work, um, with, with the sponsor of, of, of the motion to try and find a way to do this in a way that it doesn't put, um, a burden on our LEAs and send the wrong message from this body, um, that, Hey, you guys go deal with it. Figure it out. We don't, we don't care. Um, I think there's a way that we can do this and, and, um, be effective in that. And, and, and I don't think that the good sponsor of the motion is trying to say that we don't care. I'm just concerned about the message that we send. I'm grateful to both, um, of my colleagues for the work they put in this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak very quickly, um, in favor of the spirit of this, this substitute. The idea that state employees need more parental leave is also true for the, the educators and our LEAs. The funding piece. I, I leave to the conversations that are being had. However, I, I want to just respect and honor the fact that as we look at how we, uh, encourage our employees in the state to, to enjoy that critical time with their families, that we always keep, uh, our educators in mind and keep them connected with what's happening with state employees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, don't agree that this would be considered an unfunded mandate. This body, this legislative body decided a number of years ago that with the schools, the schools did not want us to give them micromanaged money. They wanted to be able to have increased WPU, they wanted to have the bigger bulk. And so the parental leave that they've had even before last year was all part of what they, uh, put forward for, uh, employees. And, uh, the what without the substitute, that means that we're hearing from school teachers and staff all over again trying to negotiate on their own instead of being paralleled with state employees. And I appreciate that the paid leave bank is a great mechanism that our state employees use, that our schools are now beginning to use, that actually helps alleviate those costs and helps each other to pay for it. So the unfunded mandate, I would say then we need to change the policy that we have of giving, uh, increases every year without micromanaging, which is what they wanted. They wanted the big increase. So they've been getting big increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today?

I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering. I do not, actually, that's a really good question. I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when they're out on leave. We're just gonna allow the remainder of the staff to cover the rest of those services. And if we're talking about millions of dollars of fiscal impact, potentially on the education side, I think we have to understand that it's gonna be millions of dollars in degradation of services to the public as well. I think that if this policy is important, then it should have a fiscal impact and we should be funding it. Um, but otherwise, under his current standpoint, I don't think we're discussing how this will affect the public services that the state offers. And with that, I would be in opposition to the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor please yield to another question?

Thank you. Um, so in the proposed bill, we have an, we had nine weeks of time off for childbirth. Does the employee also have their normal time off PTO, whatever, uh, it's called in this instance? And if so, what is that typical number of days Or weeks? Sorry, could, can my colleague please repeat the second half of that question?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.

Do, uh, so how many, so we're offering in this, in this, uh, bill, nine weeks of total time off for childbirth, do employees of the state have in addition to this, um, a certain amount weeks, days of time off that they would take as, as PTO?

Um, I, I believe if they, if they elected to use time off and, and if they had the time off, it would be very individual specific that it could be used.

Okay. To be just maybe a little more specific, we're offering nine weeks off. How many additional days do they get off as part of their benefits package? Is it another three weeks or four weeks of personal time off or vacation or sick leave or whatever For

PTO? Um, PTO, I believe that would be individual to the agency and the employee.

Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have nine weeks plus an additional number that is maybe individual to different, um, agencies. So we might be looking at 10, 11, 12, 13, some number weeks off total.

Um, where I'm in favor of course of promoting childbirth and families, um, I struggle with the lack of a fiscal note because in reality people will need to be covering while, while someone is away for potentially many weeks and when they're away. Um, I know that I check my emails and my wife complains that even when we're on vacation, I'm checking my emails and answering phone calls. But we can't necessarily expect that of everyone at every time. And so I, uh, I hesitantly speak in opposition to the bill for, for these reasons. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. In my sum, I would like to tell you about my bill because I actually didn't get a chance to do that part yet. Um, so this policy is one of the shining outcomes of our pro-family working group that we had over the interim. Many of you were part of this group and we looked at what can we do to address affordability and helping families and helping strengthen families. And this was a very easy policy for us to get behind and to champion. So many of you asked, why maternity leave and why nine weeks? So there's a few reasons. Um, the first reason is the first weeks of a child's, um, life are very sensitive to their neurobiological development. And so the underlying synapses and biological foundation are key to helping us have healthy, strong, and stable children in the future. Secondly, it is the most expensive window of childcare when the child is an infant. We are having struggles with affordability. We are having struggles with a childcare gap. This helps fill that gap for parents who are struggling to make ends meet. If they can stay home with that child, that's less, less money that they have to put forward towards childcare. Um, third, this policy improves employee retention by 70%. If we are concerned about losing money. If you own a business or you've done budgets for business or you know anything about business, you know, the employee turnover is the most costly part of, of, um, of having employees and human resources of a business. It is extremely costly. If you have a good employee, you want to keep them and you wanna have policies that will help. This will help save agent state agencies save money by increasing retention. And fourth, this is, this matters for maternal health. Studies show science shows that mothers who have more time to spend home, spend at home with a baby do better as far as postpartum depression and recovery. And I will also say that many mothers, while they would like to stay at home, don't have that choice anymore. Affordability, we know is a true issue here in Utah and women don't always get to decide if they have to work or not. They simply have to, to pay the bills, to have a house, to have food on the table. And so this is a true pro-family policy that we can adopt as a body to show families and the citizens of the states of Utah that we are truly pro, pro-family and willing to support the women and children in our state. Thank you.

Yes. This bill has seen a few changes. This is the maternity leave and amendments bill. Um, originally it was drafted for 12 weeks of maternity leave, moving from six weeks to 12 weeks for public employees. This is scaling that back a little bit, going from six weeks to nine weeks, um, for public employees, and then also removes the fiscal note of $3 million, um, by taking out the, um, fund for LEAs. So that part is removed and it's a zero fiscal note.

Yes. With the sponsor. Yield

So does this, uh, substitute just put the state employees and LEA employees on the same schedule for parental leave? Or is, are they still separate?

So this would be separate. So this keeps LEAs, um, equal to the state for up to six weeks. So three weeks of paternal leave and then three weeks of postpartum maternity recovery leave. And then it would add an additional three weeks for public employees. But not, excuse me, Mr. Speaker. So not for the school employees, is that correct? Yes. Unfortunately with the budget this year, um, that was a cost we were unable to absorb and something to look forward to in the future.

Okay, thank you Mr. Speaker. I actually have another substitute that keeps the state school employees in the same par as, uh, school, school and state employees on the same for parental leave. So, um, I'll be voting against this amendment and, uh, proposing another

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question?

Thank you. Um, I know that we're moving from six to nine weeks. I'm in total support of supporting maternity leave in any way possible. However, um, when we do this at a state level, are we concerned that this could be setting a precedent for other businesses around the state? I would really hate for us to be putting that type of pressure on other businesses who are just trying to stay afloat that they would have to pay for additional maternity, maternity leave. I know that that's not specifically mentioned in the bill, but there could be, uh, an effect because we're passing something at a state level. What do you say to that?

Yes, thank you for the question. That's a great question. Um, if businesses are equipped to offer this, I hope that it does encourage them to extend maternity leave if they're able. I also understand that small businesses make up a large portion of our economy. And I this by no means is to put pressure on them. It's simply to help our own employees that we, that we employ.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker with the sponsor. Yield to a question.

So by removing, um, LEAs, it removes the fiscal note. Um, if we're going from six weeks to nine, how is there not a fiscal note to the state if there's additional time off?

That's a really good question. So the agencies are able to absorb the cost. So in the case of a school or an LEA, they have to replace that employee with a substitute employee. That's why there's a cost incurred, um, with a public employee. Um, that employee is gone for the amount of time, but they are not replaced with another employee. And what this looks like in reality is probably the employee isn't completely cut off. They're probably answering phone calls and emails and working. Um, so, but the agency is able to use other employees to help cover that employee while that employee is away.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the sponsor yield to one question?

Yes. Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'm, I'm a little bit confused. I've been reading them. I have spoken with the, uh, sponsor. Do, is this substitute going from three weeks to six or three weeks to nine weeks?

So that's a really good question. There's actually two types of leave that the state offers. So we offer three weeks of paternal leave. So this is for fathers and mothers. So everybody receives that leave. That's three weeks that already happens. The other three weeks that the state already offers is maternity recovery leave for a woman who has given birth. That is, we're extending from three weeks, we're adding another three weeks, which makes that six weeks of maternity or pa postpartum recovery leave. But with the three weeks of pa paternity leave that or paternal leave, then that equals nine weeks, if that makes sense. It's kind of confusing, but we have a three week chunk and a three week chunk. We're adding three weeks for a total of six weeks in the maternity leave chunk.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is all part of a larger conversation and so I wanna be careful to say this correctly. We, we need to make sure that we are not thinking about these policies in isolation of other things that are going on. Uh, and so I, I would, um, favor the position of the chief sponsor and so keep, keep the bill clean, keep it what she needs it to be so that it can be part of a larger conversation moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Wilcox. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm, uh, I'm going through this and, uh, just, just last week, you know, we ran some legislation where the potential loss in productivity was listed at $8 million for one day. And I wanna make sure I understand this. They're saying that they can absorb, you know, for how many employees for weeks, what, what does, what does that look like for our state agencies and potential employees that this would apply to?

Thank you. So this is not the shutdown of the entire government for a day. This is, this is one re one employee being gone and other employees covering their duties while that employee is gone. So the potential for revenue loss is none, as is stated by the fiscal note.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm in favor of the policy. I'm just trying to reconcile the difference there. Thank you.

I'll waive. Okay. Summation has been waived.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adopt a different substitute.

Yes. The first substitute that I put together is really important because the last few year

Yes. Thank you so much. So the last few years, this body's worked really hard for state school employees, both teachers and staff to have, uh, parental and postpartum leave on equal footing with state employees. And, uh, this substitute keeps that same provision that whatever state employees have, the schools also would have. The reason why this is important is looking at the numbers and the cost, is that we have spent an increased, uh, more than $830 million to our schools just in the last three years. The cost of them adding these, uh, weeks would be a total of about 29 million a year total, or excuse me, $24 million a year total with 29 school districts and charter schools. So the cost is not that much, and especially as you look at what the, uh, good sponsor of the bill mentioned regarding state employee leave, they actually have paid leave banks where they can contribute their paid leave to their cohort to help accommodate for a loss of them not working that day due to their parental leave. Now, last year in this provision that we linked LEAs with state employees, we also encourage that of our schools to have their own paid leave banks. And since then, many have adopted that system. So those paid leave banks for schools allow teachers and staff to give some of their paid time off money into this bank. And it could be used for substitutes, um, instead of the school using additional funds or different funds, um, or trying to find it from scratch. So I think this is really good policy. If it's good, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, um, I think that's why this first substitute would continue to link our state employees with our LEA staff and teachers.

Yes, I, I thank my good colleague from Bountiful for all her efforts. She has worked tirelessly in past sessions, um, for our educators and for that I'm so appreciative at this time. Um, as she mentioned, there was a $28 million ongoing cost to the LEAs. And, um, while I would love for this, for the LEAs to also have the same, um, week, uh, weeks available, it was an unfunded mandate to the LEAs and it's something that I'd like to work towards in the future. I see where she's coming from and I will leave it up to the discretion if the body, if they would like to adopt it.

You, um, I, I would rise against the, um, substitute amendment and support the underlying bill. Um, I appreciate the work of our teachers all across the state and, and, um, and, and the districts as their employees, but this is millions of dollars in an unfunded mandate that we would be passing onto our LEAs. And we need to be really cognizant of that. They're mindful of their employees. They know, um, you know, um, what causes turnover. They know, um, the demographics of their employees, and I think we should allow them the discretion to figure that out themselves and, um, not create unfunded. I also really appreciate the original sponsor of the bill and how much she has worked with all of the members of this body to address concerns. And those concerns are, um, addressed in the substitute that we just adopted. And so I would prefer to stay with the substitute that we have. I appreciate the conversation around supporting our educators, um, but I, I am not supportive of creating a, a millions, uh, millions of dollars unfunded mandate for our school districts and charter schools. Thank you. Thank

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I too would rise in opposition to, um, to this substitute for, for the same reason. Um, we have got to control unfunded mandates from, from this body, especially to our LEAs. Um, and that's, that's my number one concern. I am fully committed to work, um, with, with the sponsor of, of, of the motion to try and find a way to do this in a way that it doesn't put, um, a burden on our LEAs and send the wrong message from this body, um, that, Hey, you guys go deal with it. Figure it out. We don't, we don't care. Um, I think there's a way that we can do this and, and, um, be effective in that. And, and, and I don't think that the good sponsor of the motion is trying to say that we don't care. I'm just concerned about the message that we send. I'm grateful to both, um, of my colleagues for the work they put in this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak very quickly, um, in favor of the spirit of this, this substitute. The idea that state employees need more parental leave is also true for the, the educators and our LEAs. The funding piece. I, I leave to the conversations that are being had. However, I, I want to just respect and honor the fact that as we look at how we, uh, encourage our employees in the state to, to enjoy that critical time with their families, that we always keep, uh, our educators in mind and keep them connected with what's happening with state employees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, don't agree that this would be considered an unfunded mandate. This body, this legislative body decided a number of years ago that with the schools, the schools did not want us to give them micromanaged money. They wanted to be able to have increased WPU, they wanted to have the bigger bulk. And so the parental leave that they've had even before last year was all part of what they, uh, put forward for, uh, employees. And, uh, the what without the substitute, that means that we're hearing from school teachers and staff all over again trying to negotiate on their own instead of being paralleled with state employees. And I appreciate that the paid leave bank is a great mechanism that our state employees use, that our schools are now beginning to use, that actually helps alleviate those costs and helps each other to pay for it. So the unfunded mandate, I would say then we need to change the policy that we have of giving, uh, increases every year without micromanaging, which is what they wanted. They wanted the big increase. So they've been getting big increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?

MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today? I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.

I do not, actually, that's a really good question. I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when they're out on leave. We're just gonna allow the remainder of the staff to cover the rest of those services. And if we're talking about millions of dollars of fiscal impact, potentially on the education side, I think we have to understand that it's gonna be millions of dollars in degradation of services to the public as well. I think that if this policy is important, then it should have a fiscal impact and we should be funding it. Um, but otherwise, under his current standpoint, I don't think we're discussing how this will affect the public services that the state offers. And with that, I would be in opposition to the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor please yield to another question?

Thank you. Um, so in the proposed bill, we have an, we had nine weeks of time off for childbirth. Does the employee also have their normal time off PTO, whatever, uh, it's called in this instance? And if so, what is that typical number of days Or weeks? Sorry, could,

can my colleague please repeat the second half of that question? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.

Do, uh, so how many, so we're offering in this, in this, uh, bill, nine weeks of total time off for childbirth, do employees of the state have in addition to this, um, a certain amount weeks, days of time off that they would take as, as PTO?

Um, I, I believe if they, if they elected to use time off and, and if they had the time off, it would be very individual specific that it could be used. Okay. To be just maybe a little more specific, we're offering nine weeks off. How many additional days do they get off as part of their benefits package? Is it another three weeks or four weeks of personal time off or vacation or sick leave or whatever For PTO? Um, PTO, I believe that would be individual to the agency and the employee.

Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have nine weeks plus an additional number that is maybe individual to different, um, agencies. So we might be looking at 10, 11, 12, 13, some number weeks off total. Um, where I'm in favor of course of promoting childbirth and families, um, I struggle with the lack of a fiscal note because in reality people will need to be covering while, while someone is away for potentially many weeks and when they're away. Um, I know that I check my emails and my wife complains that even when we're on vacation, I'm checking my emails and answering phone calls. But we can't necessarily expect that of everyone at every time. And so I, uh, I hesitantly speak in opposition to the bill for, for these reasons. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. In my sum, I would like to tell you about my bill because I actually didn't get a chance to do that part yet. Um, so this policy is one of the shining outcomes of our pro-family working group that we had over the interim. Many of you were part of this group and we looked at what can we do to address affordability and helping families and helping strengthen families. And this was a very easy policy for us to get behind and to champion. So many of you asked, why maternity leave and why nine weeks? So there's a few reasons. Um, the first reason is the first weeks of a child's, um, life are very sensitive to their neurobiological development. And so the underlying synapses and biological foundation are key to helping us have healthy, strong, and stable children in the future. Secondly, it is the most expensive window of childcare when the child is an infant. We are having struggles with affordability. We are having struggles with a childcare gap. This helps fill that gap for parents who are struggling to make ends meet. If they can stay home with that child, that's less, less money that they have to put forward towards childcare. Um, third, this policy improves employee retention by 70%. If we are concerned about losing money. If you own a business or you've done budgets for business or you know anything about business, you know, the employee turnover is the most costly part of, of, um, of having employees and human resources of a business. It is extremely costly. If you have a good employee, you want to keep them and you wanna have policies that will help. This will help save agent state agencies save money by increasing retention. And fourth, this is, this matters for maternal health. Studies show science shows that mothers who have more time to spend home, spend at home with a baby do better as far as postpartum depression and recovery. And I will also say that many mothers, while they would like to stay at home, don't have that choice anymore. Affordability, we know is a true issue here in Utah and women don't always get to decide if they have to work or not. They simply have to, to pay the bills, to have a house, to have food on the table. And so this is a true pro-family policy that we can adopt as a body to show families and the citizens of the states of Utah that we are truly pro, pro-family and willing to support the women and children in our state. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to, um, um, motion that to request, uh, leave of the body to open a bill file.

I would, um, I would like to open a bill file

Yes. Thank you so much. So the last few years, this body's worked really hard for state school employees, both teachers and staff to have, uh, parental and postpartum leave on equal footing with state employees. And, uh, this substitute keeps that same provision that whatever state employees have, the schools also would have. The reason why this is important is looking at the numbers and the cost, is that we have spent an increased, uh, more than $830 million to our schools just in the last three years. The cost of them adding these, uh, weeks would be a total of about 29 million a year total, or excuse me, $24 million a year total with 29 school districts and charter schools. So the cost is not that much, and especially as you look at what the, uh, good sponsor of the bill mentioned regarding state employee leave, they actually have paid leave banks where they can contribute their paid leave to their cohort to help accommodate for a loss of them not working that day due to their parental leave. Now, last year in this provision that we linked LEAs with state employees, we also encourage that of our schools to have their own paid leave banks. And since then, many have adopted that system. So those paid leave banks for schools allow teachers and staff to give some of their paid time off money into this bank. And it could be used for substitutes, um, instead of the school using additional funds or different funds, um, or trying to find it from scratch. So I think this is really good policy. If it's good, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, um, I think that's why this first substitute would continue to link our state employees with our LEA staff and teachers.

Yes, I, I thank my good colleague from Bountiful for all her efforts. She has worked tirelessly in past sessions, um, for our educators and for that I'm so appreciative at this time. Um, as she mentioned, there was a $28 million ongoing cost to the LEAs. And, um, while I would love for this, for the LEAs to also have the same, um, week, uh, weeks available, it was an unfunded mandate to the LEAs and it's something that I'd like to work towards in the future. I see where she's coming from and I will leave it up to the discretion if the body, if they would like to adopt it.

You, um, I, I would rise against the, um, substitute amendment and support the underlying bill. Um, I appreciate the work of our teachers all across the state and, and, um, and, and the districts as their employees, but this is millions of dollars in an unfunded mandate that we would be passing onto our LEAs. And we need to be really cognizant of that. They're mindful of their employees. They know, um, you know, um, what causes turnover. They know, um, the demographics of their employees, and I think we should allow them the discretion to figure that out themselves and, um, not create unfunded. I also really appreciate the original sponsor of the bill and how much she has worked with all of the members of this body to address concerns. And those concerns are, um, addressed in the substitute that we just adopted. And so I would prefer to stay with the substitute that we have. I appreciate the conversation around supporting our educators, um, but I, I am not supportive of creating a, a millions, uh, millions of dollars unfunded mandate for our school districts and charter schools. Thank you. Thank

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I too would rise in opposition to, um, to this substitute for, for the same reason. Um, we have got to control unfunded mandates from, from this body, especially to our LEAs. Um, and that's, that's my number one concern. I am fully committed to work, um, with, with the sponsor of, of, of the motion to try and find a way to do this in a way that it doesn't put, um, a burden on our LEAs and send the wrong message from this body, um, that, Hey, you guys go deal with it. Figure it out. We don't, we don't care. Um, I think there's a way that we can do this and, and, um, be effective in that. And, and, and I don't think that the good sponsor of the motion is trying to say that we don't care. I'm just concerned about the message that we send. I'm grateful to both, um, of my colleagues for the work they put in this issue. Thank you, Representative Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak very quickly, um, in favor of the spirit of this, this substitute. The idea that state employees need more parental leave is also true for the, the educators and our LEAs. The funding piece. I, I leave to the conversations that are being had. However, I, I want to just respect and honor the fact that as we look at how we, uh, encourage our employees in the state to, to enjoy that critical time with their families, that we always keep, uh, our educators in mind and keep them connected with what's happening with state employees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, don't agree that this would be considered an unfunded mandate. This body, this legislative body decided a number of years ago that with the schools, the schools did not want us to give them micromanaged money. They wanted to be able to have increased WPU, they wanted to have the bigger bulk. And so the parental leave that they've had even before last year was all part of what they, uh, put forward for, uh, employees. And, uh, the what without the substitute, that means that we're hearing from school teachers and staff all over again trying to negotiate on their own instead of being paralleled with state employees. And I appreciate that the paid leave bank is a great mechanism that our state employees use, that our schools are now beginning to use, that actually helps alleviate those costs and helps each other to pay for it. So the unfunded mandate, I would say then we need to change the policy that we have of giving, uh, increases every year without micromanaging, which is what they wanted. They wanted the big increase. So they've been getting big increases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?

Yes, yes. Representative

MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today?

I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.

I do not, actually, that's a really good question. I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when they're out on leave. We're just gonna allow the remainder of the staff to cover the rest of those services. And if we're talking about millions of dollars of fiscal impact, potentially on the education side, I think we have to understand that it's gonna be millions of dollars in degradation of services to the public as well. I think that if this policy is important, then it should have a fiscal impact and we should be funding it. Um, but otherwise, under his current standpoint, I don't think we're discussing how this will affect the public services that the state offers. And with that, I would be in opposition to the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor please yield to another question? Representative Fay, will you yield to a question?

Yes, yes. Representative. Strong.

Thank you. Um, so in the proposed bill, we have an, we had nine weeks of time off for childbirth. Does the employee also have their normal time off PTO, whatever, uh, it's called in this instance? And if so, what is that typical number of days Or weeks? Sorry, could, can my colleague please repeat the second half of that question? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it. Do, uh, so how many, so we're offering in this, in this, uh, bill, nine weeks of total time off for childbirth, do employees of the state have in addition to this, um, a certain amount weeks, days of time off that they would take as, as PTO?

Um, I, I believe if they, if they elected to use time off and, and if they had the time off, it would be very individual specific that it could be used.

Okay. To be just maybe a little more specific, we're offering nine weeks off. How many additional days do they get off as part of their benefits package? Is it another three weeks or four weeks of personal time off or vacation or sick leave or whatever For

PTO? Um, PTO, I believe that would be individual to the agency and the employee.

Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have nine weeks plus an additional number that is maybe individual to different, um, agencies. So we might be looking at 10, 11, 12, 13, some number weeks off total. Um, where I'm in favor of course of promoting childbirth and families, um, I struggle with the lack of a fiscal note because in reality people will need to be covering while, while someone is away for potentially many weeks and when they're away. Um, I know that I check my emails and my wife complains that even when we're on vacation, I'm checking my emails and answering phone calls. But we can't necessarily expect that of everyone at every time. And so I, uh, I hesitantly speak in opposition to the bill for, for these reasons. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. In my sum, I would like to tell you about my bill because I actually didn't get a chance to do that part yet. Um, so this policy is one of the shining outcomes of our pro-family working group that we had over the interim. Many of you were part of this group and we looked at what can we do to address affordability and helping families and helping strengthen families. And this was a very easy policy for us to get behind and to champion. So many of you asked, why maternity leave and why nine weeks? So there's a few reasons. Um, the first reason is the first weeks of a child's, um, life are very sensitive to their neurobiological development. And so the underlying synapses and biological foundation are key to helping us have healthy, strong, and stable children in the future. Secondly, it is the most expensive window of childcare when the child is an infant. We are having struggles with affordability. We are having struggles with a childcare gap. This helps fill that gap for parents who are struggling to make ends meet. If they can stay home with that child, that's less, less money that they have to put forward towards childcare. Um, third, this policy improves employee retention by 70%. If we are concerned about losing money. If you own a business or you've done budgets for business or you know anything about business, you know, the employee turnover is the most costly part of, of, um, of having employees and human resources of a business. It is extremely costly. If you have a good employee, you want to keep them and you wanna have policies that will help. This will help save agent state agencies save money by increasing retention. And fourth, this is, this matters for maternal health. Studies show science shows that mothers who have more time to spend home, spend at home with a baby do better as far as postpartum depression and recovery. And I will also say that many mothers, while they would like to stay at home, don't have that choice anymore. Affordability, we know is a true issue here in Utah and women don't always get to decide if they have to work or not. They simply have to, to pay the bills, to have a house, to have food on the table. And so this is a true pro-family policy that we can adopt as a body to show families and the citizens of the states of Utah that we are truly pro, pro-family and willing to support the women and children in our state. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to, um, um, motion that to request, uh, leave of the body to open a bill file. Thank you representative. That motion is in order. Would like speak to it? I would, um, I would like to open a bill file

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Representative? Fay, will you yield to a question?

Yes, yes. Representative

MacPherson, um, is the sponsor aware of how many state employees not in education are currently childbearing age women in the state today? I would venture my good colleague has an answer to that. I, I only have a guess. That's why I was wondering.

I do not, actually, that's a really good question. I'll get back to you on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, my, my concern here, I think comes back to some of the questions that have been brought up before about the fiscal note. When we're talking about if this included education, there'd be millions of dollars in impact when we're talking about in the state employee workforce that there won't be an impact 'cause they'll be absorbing those costs. What we're really talking about those degradation of services, we're talking about, um, Medicare employment, um, uh, we're talking about SNAP applications. We're talking about social services, things that are done by our state employees that those services will see a degradation because we're not gonna provide any fiscal note replacement costs for those employees when they're out on leave. We're just gonna allow the remainder of the staff to cover the rest of those services. And if we're talking about millions of dollars of fiscal impact, potentially on the education side, I think we have to understand that it's gonna be millions of dollars in degradation of services to the public as well. I think that if this policy is important, then it should have a fiscal impact and we should be funding it. Um, but otherwise, under his current standpoint, I don't think we're discussing how this will affect the public services that the state offers. And with that, I would be in opposition to the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the, uh, sponsor please yield to another question? Representative Fay, will you yield to a question?

Yes, yes. Representative. Strong.

Thank you. Um, so in the proposed bill, we have an, we had nine weeks of time off for childbirth. Does the employee also have their normal time off PTO, whatever, uh, it's called in this instance? And if so, what is that typical number of days Or weeks? Sorry, could, can my colleague please repeat the second half of that question?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.

Do, uh, so how many, so we're offering in this, in this, uh, bill, nine weeks of total time off for childbirth, do employees of the state have in addition to this, um, a certain amount weeks, days of time off that they would take as, as PTO?

Um, I, I believe if they, if they elected to use time off and, and if they had the time off, it would be very individual specific that it could be used.

Okay. To be just maybe a little more specific, we're offering nine weeks off. How many additional days do they get off as part of their benefits package? Is it another three weeks or four weeks of personal time off or vacation or sick leave or whatever For

PTO? Um, PTO, I believe that would be individual to the agency and the employee.

Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, we have nine weeks plus an additional number that is maybe individual to different, um, agencies. So we might be looking at 10, 11, 12, 13, some number weeks off total. Um, where I'm in favor of course of promoting childbirth and families, um, I struggle with the lack of a fiscal note because in reality people will need to be covering while, while someone is away for potentially many weeks and when they're away. Um, I know that I check my emails and my wife complains that even when we're on vacation, I'm checking my emails and answering phone calls. But we can't necessarily expect that of everyone at every time. And so I, uh, I hesitantly speak in opposition to the bill for, for these reasons. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. In my sum, I would like to tell you about my bill because I actually didn't get a chance to do that part yet. Um, so this policy is one of the shining outcomes of our pro-family working group that we had over the interim. Many of you were part of this group and we looked at what can we do to address affordability and helping families and helping strengthen families. And this was a very easy policy for us to get behind and to champion. So many of you asked, why maternity leave and why nine weeks? So there's a few reasons. Um, the first reason is the first weeks of a child's, um, life are very sensitive to their neurobiological development. And so the underlying synapses and biological foundation are key to helping us have healthy, strong, and stable children in the future. Secondly, it is the most expensive window of childcare when the child is an infant. We are having struggles with affordability. We are having struggles with a childcare gap. This helps fill that gap for parents who are struggling to make ends meet. If they can stay home with that child, that's less, less money that they have to put forward towards childcare. Um, third, this policy improves employee retention by 70%. If we are concerned about losing money. If you own a business or you've done budgets for business or you know anything about business, you know, the employee turnover is the most costly part of, of, um, of having employees and human resources of a business. It is extremely costly. If you have a good employee, you want to keep them and you wanna have policies that will help. This will help save agent state agencies save money by increasing retention. And fourth, this is, this matters for maternal health. Studies show science shows that mothers who have more time to spend home, spend at home with a baby do better as far as postpartum depression and recovery. And I will also say that many mothers, while they would like to stay at home, don't have that choice anymore. Affordability, we know is a true issue here in Utah and women don't always get to decide if they have to work or not. They simply have to, to pay the bills, to have a house, to have food on the table. And so this is a true pro-family policy that we can adopt as a body to show families and the citizens of the states of Utah that we are truly pro, pro-family and willing to support the women and children in our state. Thank you.

I was getting some thumbs up, so that's good. Um, we've got a great bill that it's been worked on for a long time and, and I appreciate the employee benefit bill that Senator Fillmore worked on as well. Um, I see these as complimentary. This is a bill that's focused on families and what's really important to, not, not just families, but to our values in the state of Utah. So this bill is focused on strengthening families through expanding, uh, maternity leave and clear protections for nursing mothers. This bill is the result of discussions from the Interim Family Working Group where legislators and community advocates collaborated on policies that support parents and children. So this is what the bill does. It expands paid parental leave for state employees by increasing postpartum leave from six weeks to nine weeks. It adds nine weeks. It, it adds nine weeks of paid leave for adoptive parents and four weeks of paid leave for foster placement of children under age six provides family support without requiring an appropriation for state employee leave. As the department can absorb the cost within existing budgets, this bill closes an important legal gap. Utah already protects public breastfeeding, but it does not explicitly protect, um, pumping breast milk in public. The gap creates uncertainty for nursing mothers when they are outside the workplace. So why does it matter? Utah currently provides six weeks of paid maternity leave for state employees, which research shows is often not sufficient for maternity recovery and early childhood development. The first 12 weeks of a child's life are foundational, supporting, bonding, and emotional security and healthy development. Infant care is also one of the most expensive childhood stages, making additional leave critical for family stability. I, I appreciate all of the stakeholders who have worked on this. This has been a work in progress for, for a long time. I think this is a, a great bill and, uh, what I like about it most is it it not only does it support tute families, it promotes the values that we, we care about and we care about these families. With that, um, I'm open for questions.

Yeah, Mr. Uh, president Broda. This is, uh, like the second half of the total rewards rebalance, uh, that we passed a little bit earlier today on Final Passage. So happy to have, uh, representative, uh, defe as a partner, uh, together we're, uh, we're making good changes to employee benefits and to support the bill.

Yeah. Thank you. And Mr. President pro tem. I just wanna thank those that have advocated for this, this bill. I, I love having people on Capitol Hill working on important issues that matter to Utah families. This is one of those classic examples where the public has, has come to Capitol Hill, advocated for an important policy and work with stakeholders in a positive way. And I just, I I think Representative Faye has done a fantastic job working on this bill. With that, I would move that this bill pass under suspension of the rules.

Senator Sandall. Thank you Mr. President ProAm. Motion to encircle.

Okay. I am better informed now on solar panels. Uh, found out that, uh, DEQ sat down with solar panel installers and they created, created a system that will begin a study to determine which solar panels are, have toxic materials, which ones don't, and how many of them may or may not exist.