S.B. 257 Domestic Relations Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Um, microphone. It should be on. You have to pull it up really close. Oh, the light's not on. Okay. Um, thank you. Um, this is a, a pretty comprehensive bill. It's, um, I guess a little bit of an a one subject omnibus bill. Uh, so let me walk you through it. Um, one of the many problems that it addresses Is, and are you speaking to the second substitute? Just I am. So we know. Okay. I am. Let's, let's go ahead. Let me go ahead and just say it's mostly technical changes, mostly changes people like, but let me go ahead

and, um, so I can present that move to delete first substitute Senate bill 2 57 and title and body and replace it with a second sub. Okay. So the motion I heard was delete SB 2 57 and replace it with, with sub with second substitute. Yes, that's what I meant to say.

Thank you. Um, so the second sub we're going to, um, This Creates, uh, a definition related to the word parent, um, and, and makes it consistent throughout Title 81, chapter five of the Utah Parentage Act. It requires, um, ORS to review the requirements for calculating minimal child support award and to report to the judiciary interim committee regarding the review. It clarifies, um, language regarding the parent-child relationship for the purposes of intestate succession, which is when you die without a will, it provides that the district court of each judicial district may assign any case or proceeding involving the same child or family to a single judge. It requires at least one party to a marriage. Uh, well, um, the second sub does not. So we had a problem. We got some complaints about, um, some of the online marriages, uh, being performed in, um, Utah County. Uh, and people were getting married, for instance, in the Philippines. Uh, and then a year later or so they would find out that although they were married in Utah County virtually, um, that their marriage was not recognized in the Philippines. And there's actually, I'm, I was surprised to find a list of, um, a number of, uh, countries. Many of them are in Asia that do not recognize the Utah County or Tola County virtual marriage. And so, uh, earlier, um, provisions would've provided, required at least one person to be present in state. We got some feedback from the clerks that that would, uh, cost them a lot of money and, uh, pretty much put an end, uh, to, to, to, uh, to the virtual marriages. So what we've done is we've modified that in the second sub to basically require, uh, some notification that the marriage may not be legal in their country of origin. And, uh, you know, we all have noticed, I think on our rear view mirrors or our, our, our side mirrors in the cars, it says object may appear larger or are smaller than they, uh, than they actually are. And I, I do think it's important if somebody's paying, uh, for a marriage, paying the, the clerk. I was told that, um, the original bill would've cost Utah County about $1.5 million in revenue. And I, I'm not trying to create problems that we don't need to, but I do think that, um, just like objects may appear closer than they are, I do think we have to tell people we're performing the marriage. We recognize your marriage in Utah County, but your home country may not recognize the marriage. So this does modify the requirements for a marriage license with regard to parties that are not physically present in the state, um, in the same, um, location as the officiant. It also provides, um, and addresses the authority of the court to deny a motion for genetic testing or disregard genetic results in a parentage proceeding. Uh, that defines terms related to child support, modifies the requirements for childcare expenses in a child support order, including requirements for minimum, uh, childcare award. And that's based off of, I think, a Ray Ward bill from last year. It provides that the base Child support award is automatically adjusted for the remaining children when the child support order, when the parental rights of the child are terminated for the parent who's obligated to pay and also creates a table for the purposes of establishing minimum childcare award for child support orders or modified after January 1st of next year. It clarifies a list of a offenses requiring notification when a parent is residing with an individual or providing an individual with access to the parent's minor child who has been convicted of an offense. And this is a common complaint that I hear, um, in the divorce context is, you know, my ex has moved somebody into the house maybe as a, uh, a girlfriend or boyfriend, or maybe as a, as a roommate. And, uh, now I find out that they are a convicted felon or something like that. Uh, it addresses the establishment and modification of a parent time schedule clarifies, um, the list of offenses related to when a court may order supervised parent time and clarifies for the purpose of modifying custody due to a change of circumstances that the list of offenses for when a parent is residing with an individual or providing an individual with access to the parent's minor child, and the parent knows that the individual has been convicted of a, of a criminal charge. It also addresses the change of custody or parent time for minor child who turns five years old and addresses makeup time when a parent has been denied parent time due to a, an investigation. And, and that that stems from, um, I know of one particular case where, um, the mother, uh, of a divorced couple, uh, she'll file a, um, an allegation of child abuse or child, um, a neglect. And as soon as that is done, and then the father loses all parent time for a month or two or three, as soon as that's resolved, she files another one. She's done this now for eight years, and the father almost gets to never see his children because, um, of these, uh, habitual and, uh, ritualistic, uh, false reports of abuse, um, it addresses the telephone contact and virtual parent time for non-custodial parents. When a party relocates a parent relocates and requires a time periods for extended parent time by a parent for summer break or off track to be consecutive. Um, so each parent gets two weeks of what we call uninterrupted time, which means during those two weeks, the other parent doesn't exercise overnights. Uh, some parents take their two weeks and they're like, I'll do three days here and I'll tack that onto a three day weekend, and I'll do another three days here and tack that onto a three day weekend. So this is, is is clarifying that, that that time needs to be consecutive. It was really designed so people could go to Disneyland or a family cabin or a family reunion or something, not, not just to be spread out throughout the summer and, and try to creatively tack it on to deprive the other parent as of as much time as possible. It also modifies the parent time schedules for Mother's Day and Father's Day. It removes Columbus Day and Veteran's Days as holidays in the schedules. And, and let me address that. First of all, a lot of schools don't take those days off, so that creates confusion. Second of all, a lot of parties, um, it creates a lot of fights over a holiday that most people don't have. Um, now with the exception of, uh, maybe a military family, uh, that, you know, a lot of families don't have a special traditions around Columbus Day and outside of military families, a lot of people don't have special traditions around Veterans Day. Um, so, uh, the, the family law section of the bar, uh, basically feels like those two holidays, including those, are actually creating more conflict than it's worth. Um, and of course, if a couple is divorcing and maybe one side of the family has, uh, military roots, they, they can always negotiate to put that into their decree of divorce. This wouldn't prohibit that. It also includes a coordinating clause to address a conflict with parent time schedule for Juneteenth and House Bill 3 0 9, uh, if they both passed and become law. And I believe that House Bill 3 0 9, if I understand correctly, Representative Hollins is going back to the state recognizing Juneteenth as the same day as the federal holiday. We decided to recognize it on a Monday to make a another three day weekend, which I think is the right policy. But because it's different than the federal holiday, it has created a lot of confusion and consternations, uh, especially for divorced parents who don't know when, whether they're supposed to follow the federal Juneteenth or the state Juneteenth. And that concludes my presentation. Alright,

Um, can you just walk me through the genetic testing portion of it? Uh, um, make sure I understand what you changed the bill as it pertains to genetic testing and the request on genetic testing?

Yes, I will. Let me get to that. So, um, section 81 dash five of 6 0 8 at line 25 64. This is a already existing section of code called authority to deny a motion for genetic testing or disregard the test results. So the current law says that in a proceeding to adjudicate parentage, so this is a paternity action, um, the tribunal. So the court may deny a motion seeking an order for genetic testing of the birth mother, the child, and the presumed declarant father. Or if the testing has been completed, the tribunal may disregard the genetic test results that exclude the, uh, presumed or declarant father if the Trium Tribunal determines that. And it goes through several different sec, uh, d the current code has different things that the court, um, um, can consider. So one of those in the current law is the length of time between the proceeding and the adjudicated parentage, and the time that the, um, presumed father was placed on notice, the length of time, uh, that the presumed declarant father has assumed the role of the child and the facts surrounding the presumed father's, uh, declarant fathers or possible father's discovery of the possible non parentage. And, and those factors, for the most part are not changing in my bill. Um, the, it, whenever you get into a family law context, the standard that the court's follows is what's in the best interest of, of the child. And so I think that what the current law did, senator, is it addressed the fact that if, if, if a man has raised a child as their son or daughter, and let's say the child's nine years old, um, when is it going to be in the best interest to pull the carpet out from underneath that child and say, well, you know your dad, that you've known your whole life, that's not your dad anymore. And so what the, what the replacement language does, and I believe this was, um, requested by the family loss section of the bar, it uses the term possible father to mean a man who has had sexual relationship with a birth mother that gave rise to the reasonable belief that the man was the genetic father of the child. And in a proceeding to adjudicate the parentage, the court may deny a motion seeking an order for genetic testing or disregard the genetic test results that exclude the presumed father, declarant father or the possible father if the testing has been completed. And then the tribunal goes through and determines that the conduct of the birth mother, um, the presumed father, the declarant father or the possible father, should act as an estoppel, uh, from that party denying parentage, or it would be inequitable to disrupt the parent child relationship between the child and the presumed father declared father or the possible father. So I do think that this puts some more tools in the toolbox, uh, so a court can try to fit a remedy to the situation, to the child, to the family. Um, and, um, and then down to line 26 0 9, if the court denies a mo motion seeking for an order for genetic testing or disregards the test results, the presumed father, declarant father of possible father, the tribunal shall also order, uh, the presumed father, declarant father a possible father to be the father of the child. Um, and, you know, under common law, so this goes back to, you know, great Britain and England, um, if a, if a child was born in a, in, in a marriage, um, the law presumed that that child was a byproduct of that father and mother. Um, and they wouldn't let people go in after the fact and say, whoa, wait a second. And, and, and so I think, um, because a lot more people today than in, um, you know, great Britain a thousand years ago are having children out of wedlock. Um, that, by the way, the marriage rule is called Lord's Mansfield's rule. Um, I think that this, um, statute that already exists and with these changes is trying to recognize that if you have a parent child relationship, um, and the father could have, you know, check this out when the child was born, or when the child was three months or six months or nine months, but now the child's eight or nine or 10 or 11, uh, the court's gonna determine if they're gonna let them pull that rug out from underneath the child. So, uh, that's, that's a thorough explanation. Thank you.

Um, You Asked No, I did ask, but it, it appears to me the courts are, the code was already designed in a way to prioritize the stability of the child. But this goes further to further for those circumstances where it's still keeping in mind or higher priority, the stability of the child over. Yes.

Yeah. That's how I read it. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. One last question is, um, I'm trying to make sure I understand. Could there be any circumstance where retroactivity, or going back in time based on just this, for a safe instance instance, who was the father and, and I, I, some of some, this is fairly complicated and I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, but we always try to write laws up here that don't go back in time. It doesn't appear that I can see that in this, but there are some possibilities where it could be, um, going back in time. Is that, am I missing something there? Or, or not? Um, can you rephrase the question? Yeah, I don't understand. Um, we don't, we typically don't pass laws that that would, that are retrospective, always prospective going forward. Is that, is there anything in this bill that is retrospective?

No, there's this, this is not retroactive, but I will say this. I think that the current code and the, the, the, the additions to the code, it does allow a court to go back and say, um, you know what, dad, you, if you wanted to challenge this paternity, you've waited too long. Uh, i, it does have an estoppel, uh, type of conflict. If you've raised this child for, I'm, I'm using the example of nine years, and now all of a sudden you want to go back, you know, based on the circumstances, the court could say, I'm not gonna let you do that now. You've waited too long.

Okay. Alright, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I, I did get a, a message from Mr. Davidson. Um, I know he tried to call me and I was in another meeting this morning. So what, what the bill does now is it requires them to publish in five languages because, you know, the problem is in Asia, uh, you know, so, um, on their website that that marriage may not be recognized in their own country. And then the bill also requires them right before the actual, um, solemnization of the marriage to, to also remind them that it may not be, you know, they're gonna have to check. So I think that the clerks would prefer, um, that they don't have to do it, um, verbally, that the, the notice on the website would be enough. Um, I'm, I'm gonna stick with, with the, the language I have in the bill, it doesn't cost them a million and a half dollars. I think it's a little bit inconvenient, but quite frankly, they've been profiting off of, uh, when I say profiting, they've been charging people and not telling them this may not be, uh, uh, recognized in your country. And that's, that's created huge problems for people. And so I, I think that, um, we, we do need to give proper notification.

Go ahead and there you go. Alright, thank you very much. Um, Seth Stewart from American Fork, representing myself. Um, I do have concerns about the effect on parental rights that this has. I recognize that some of these, uh, options were preexisting as far as rejecting DNA evidence or refusing an order for DNA evidence. Um, but for the statute that's referenced there, where a case may be reopened, I've noticed that the biological father is excluded from that and broadening the number, the, the different individuals who could reopen a case on the basis of DNA evidence. I'm just wondering, is this, what is the effect on parental rights here? Have we adequately considered that? I mean, there's another bill in this session that would require, uh, you know, consideration of family impact, uh, before passage of a bill. And I know we've discussed some of those issues here, but, um, I'm just wondering in that regard, who's looking out for the biological father who might be seeking DNA testing to establish paternity? And why does this block that and why does it expand the scope of individuals who might apply and be, um, be regarded, adjudicated by the court as the legal father? Uh, so that's my main thank you.

Alright. My name is Russ Rampton and I'm the Digital Services Supervisor for the Utah County Marriage License Office in Provo, Utah. I'm speaking in a professional capacity in representing my office. Thank you for allowing me to comment remotely when distance can be overcome through technology, we share the legislature's commitment to allowing participation through electronic means. We appreciate the work of the sponsor in presenting the substitute bill that will allow couples to continue to get married through remote appearance while addressing a very specific concern through a narrowly tailored response. Foreign recognition of marriages performed through remote appearance is an ongoing challenge. Uh, while we are doing everything in our power to increase the chances of recognition, it is of course ultimately up to each jurisdiction to determine whether they will recognize these marriages since 2020. As part of the affidavit made by each applicant prior to the issuance of the mar of the marriage license. Our system has included a clause where the applicants acknowledge this fact. While we are in complete agreement about the need for such a warning notice or disclaimer, we're not thrilled with the current language, especially the requirement that the officiant make the warning during the wedding itself. We would like to see if we can have some further negotiations on the exact nature of the wording, but overall we think the requirement for the warning is a fair solution and have no opposition to the bill.

Um, yeah, so I'd like to reiterate Ru Russ just said, so we are, uh, very open to this bill and I actually, you know, I kind of ran when I was clerk on, uh, kind of casting this as a little white chapel in Utah County. Uh, so if we can do anything to distance us from that, um, cliche, I am open and welcoming to it. Uh, we have implemented some safeguards so that there's no, Oh, hold on. We'll see if we can, we'll see if we can get him back. I think that was a tech glitch on our side. Um, I will take credit for that. And so give us just a second. Thanks. Okay, you're back on. I apologize for the glitch on that. That was on our end. Oh, not a problem. So yeah, I was just saying I ran on making it as distance in ourself from many implications that we're the little white chapel on the web. So we have implemented a lot of restrictions and I welcome this restriction. Uh, the only thing we would like to see is instead of saying, um, the efficient re reiterates the warning described in subsection blah, blah verbatim immediately before sodomizing the marriage, uh, if we could define immediately before as, just immediately before the marriage ceremony. So they, they, the officiant can talk to him just before, but not during the actual performing of the marriage. Uh, that's the only, the only thing that we would really like to have changed.

but not during the ceremony? Yeah, So it says 20 in 2287 immediately before solemn the marriage. So I read it as before the Solemnization begins. And so it would be fair to say that if a court were to go back and look at any requirement made upon Utah County or any other county performing marriages like this, they could look to this record as the legislative intent being that there, that this means, uh, that it could be sometime reasonably before the actual ceremony, but not in the ceremony. Yes. And I'll also, um, commit to working with Mr. Davidson and other stakeholders to see if we can be a little bit, uh, I think it's clear, but I understand what he's saying. Yeah.

I'll just say, I hope I get some kudos. I, this could have been five different bills, but I'm trying to, you know, run less bills. So this is one bill and that's my summation. Alright. And, and for what it's worth, I have not heard anything from the family law section. And so I assume that they're, they've been, uh, mildly okay with anything. You, you and I, Mr. Chair are members of a certain Facebook group and there have been some questions as to whether this could apply to Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker and things like that. But other than that I haven't heard a lot. Okay. So, alright.

Thank you. I just sent a summary to all of you. Um, I, I just forwarded it to, uh, representative Boxier 'cause she wasn't on the group email and it basically said this is a big Harry bill, um, because this is a big Harry Bill. And the summary I sent to you was, um, expertly prepared by someone. I'm not sure if you've heard of him. His name's Jonathan Adams. He works in the Office of Legislative Research at General Counsel. And it was interesting 'cause I asked, um, Jacqueline Carlton, who's hiding in the window sill behind me, um, if she could prepare a summary and she readily agreed. Um, and I didn't know until later that she delegated it, but she did, he did a great job. Um, this is a complex bill. Um, I asked Jacqueline to be here to answer the hard questions. Um, I don't know if Jonathan would wanna do that while he's your policy analyst, but, um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna hit some of the highlights. This is, I mean, this is like three inches this thick. I'm, I'm sorry it's so long. That wasn't my choice. But, um, one of the things that this bill does that i I quite like is, um, you know, how the Utah County Clerk Office started doing these online virtual marriages during COVID VID uh, now Toula County's doing them and they've kind of been a cash cow for those counties, which I guess is a good thing. Well, um, it turns out some people are getting married. I'm gonna pick on the Philippines. Some people are getting married in the Philippines. Um, they go online, they pay their fee, they, they have their ceremony and all is well, and then a year or two later they find out, oh, guess what? The Philippine government does not recognize this marriage. And that has been a problem, particularly for members of my faith when they go to go to the temple and they can't go to the temple because the temple in the Philippines is located in a country that doesn't recognize the marriage. And so what we were trying to do is bring a little bit more transparency. There's actually several countries, um, a many of them are, um, Asian countries that don't recognize these marriages. And that's something I've actually talked to Lieutenant Governor about. Let's, you know, do some external relations and get some of these marriages recognized. They're very popular in Israel and other countries. Um, but what this bill will do is require, um, the county clerks to give written and verbal notification, uh, that the marriage may not be recognized in the, uh, person's country of origin. So that's one important piece of this bill. Um, it also, uh, modernizes and clarifies several provisions of Utah family law while trying to prioritize child welfare consistency in court decisions and real world fairness, uh, for families. Uh, it improves stability for families, uh, by requiring one judge per family per case when practical updating parent time schedules and modernizes child support standards and also strengthens protections for children and vulnerable parents by including safeguards for domestic violence victims. And I clear rules around offender access and supervision. So I could go on and on and on about this bill, but I'm gonna conclude my presentation there and then be happy to answer or try to answer any questions you might have.

I was, yes. Okay.

Thank you. Uh, Stuart Ralphs, I'm the Director of Legal Aid, legal Aid Society of Salt Lake. I do not speak on behalf of the Utah State Bar. I do not speak on behalf of the family law section of the bar. However, as a longtime family law practitioner, uh, I come to speak in favor of this bill. Uh, nobody is stupid enough to run family law bills other than Senator Weiler generally. So I commend him for that bravery and, uh, touching that third rail of politics. Family law, as you well know, is a fraught area of the law. And the fact that you'll work with practitioners to come up with the best policies for our courts to implement on behalf of Utah Families is commendable by all of you. And I, I thank Senator Weiler for working with the stakeholders, uh, for all the prongs of this bill, and they, uh, speak in favor of it.

Um, my name is Danny Bordeaux and I'm here speaking on behalf of Utah Eagle Form. And I just had a comment on, um, I actually have this line number in the second sub, but I looked at the third sub and it doesn't look like it's been changed. So it's just an easier reference since I've already located that On line 4 46, uh, child is defined and it is, uh, referring to a criminal law section and they have child as being younger than 18. And I believe that policy wise child should be 18 or has graduated from high school, whichever comes later. We have 18 year olds who are in high school in an atmosphere where they're treated as a child and they haven't yet reached that maturity. And so I think that's an important note. Thank you. Thank

Hello, my name is Russ Rampton and I'm the Digital Services Supervisor for the Utah County Marriage License Office in Ville, Utah. And I am speaking in a professional capacity in representing my office. Uh, we appreciate the opportunity to comment remotely when distance can be overcome through technology. We share the legislator's legislature's commitment to allowing participation through electronic means. Uh, the substitute bill before us allows couples to continue to get married through mode appearance while addressing a specific concern through a narrowly tailored response. Foreign recognition of marriages can be a challenge while we are doing everything in our power to increase the chances of recognition. It is, of course, ultimately up to each jurisdiction to determine whether they will recognize a marriage. We do enjoy fairly wide acceptance of our marriages, uh, particularly in the Philippines. So I would like to push back and, uh, against any idea that somehow this is a cash cow and we are taking advantage of people. Most couples in the Philippines do get their marriages recognized. And the problems that Senator Weiler, um, uh, references, they are real. I feel bad for those couples, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Uh, we have had a warning as, or an an acknowledgement as part of our affidavit that their marriages might not be recognized. And we are in complete agreement about the need for such a warning. But we're not thrilled with the current language, particularly the requirement, uh, that this be repeated during just prior to the ceremony itself. But we have no opposition to this bill.

Okay. Uh, I move to adopt the third substitute.

No, thank you.

of us Chair Libe. I Move that we favorably recommend the third substitute to Senate Bill 2 57.

so I'll touch on some of the highlights. Um, this requires ORS the Office of Recovery Services to review the requirements for calculating minimal child support for child support order and report to the judiciary Interim Committee regarding the review. Um, it, uh, clarifies the parent child, uh, relationship for purposes of intestate succession. Provides that district courts of each district assign any case or proceeding involving the same child or family to a single judge and modifies the requirements for marriage license with regard to parties that are not physically present in the state or in the same location as the of officiant. And let me just talk about that last one. Um, we've had some complaints that, um, people that are being married virtually in Utah or Tula County, uh, they think they're married and then they find out later that their home country like the Philippines did not recognize the marriage. So this, um, bill will require the clerks of those counties that perform virtual marriages, uh, to notify, uh, the individuals that their the marriage may not be recognized in their countries of origin. And with that explanation, I'll yield to any questions.

Thank you. I would move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 57. Be read for a third time. Thank you.

recommendations we've received from the family law section of the Utah Bar. Um, and, um, it, uh, also has a fix, uh, to, um, make sure that people who are getting married online in other countries are warned that the marriage that they're performing in Utah virtually may not be recognized in their home country. Uh, and with that I'll yield to any questions?

Uh, thank you. I move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 57 pass.

Senator Spery Lewin Bramer Bus Comore Escamilla Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Ipson Johnson. Kwan McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton Brammer. President Adams Johnson.

Thank you Mr. President In the House Committee, they, they took out some language that, um, I didn't, wasn't aware of. So at conference committee we,

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. So this bill does several things in relation to the family law section of code. Um, these changes were all done in co in coordination with the family law section of the bar, but it does things such as standardize the definition of parent throughout the code. We know what apparent is, but apparently we define it differently in different places. So this just creates consistency. Um, it, it does a few other things. So for example, some counties do online marriages, however, those are not always recognized in some foreign countries. So it adds a disclaimer saying that we'll still marry you online, but it may not be recognized in your home country. Um, particularly in the Asian countries. That's been a challenge and people have come back saying, we were married, but our country doesn't recognize it. So this is just making that clear. Um, it also says that if a parent has rights terminated, um, to a child, that child support they may owe on other children, it's automatically adjusted down to account for the removal of that child, um, without having to go back to court to get that amendment. And then it also set, creates some provisions for if DCFS is weaponized against one parent for how that parent can make up lost parent time to make sure that we are being fair to everyone. Um, there's, most of these changes, again, are just around process. A lot of these things are either common practice or we do them a little bit weird and would just like to normalize that a little bit That complete your presentation. It does Thank you. Discussion

Er pleasure. Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker Peram, uh, I'd like to move the, uh, is it first substitute the fourth, fourth substitute to Senate bill 2 57,

I would, um, colleagues, as I, uh, was talking with the good sponsor of this legislation and her great work on this bill, um, I had a similar bill that dealt with, um, child support calculations. Just changed a tiny little line that ensured that, um, social security disability insurance was included. This was running in a separate bill throughout the process that had gone through unanimously through this body and also through Senate Committee. But we thought rather than take up extra time on the floor, why don't we just put this in this bill because it was dealing with the same subject. So that's what you see in the sub in the, um, substitute. Thank you.

Just not a motion on my part, but this is the friendliest of substitutions.

Wa Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Temp summation is waived.

I would, um, colleagues, as I, uh, was talking with the good sponsor of this legislation and her great work on this bill, um, I had a similar bill that dealt with, um, child support calculations. Just changed a tiny little line that ensured that, um, social security disability insurance was included. This was running in a separate bill throughout the process that had gone through unanimously through this body and also through Senate Committee. But we thought rather than take up extra time on the floor, why don't we just put this in this bill because it was dealing with the same subject. So that's what you see in the sub in the, um, substitute. Thank you.

Just not a motion on my part, but this is the friendliest of substitutions.

Wa Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Temp summation is waived.