The House Health and Human Services Committee passed a bill that could provide up to 12 weeks of paid family leave by a vote of 6-4 on Monday.

SB 3, sponsored by state Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Los Alamos, would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave to welcome a new child or for the death of a child under the age of 18. The bill originally included up to 12 weeks of paid medical and safe leave, but as part of a series of compromises with some in the business community, the bill now provides up to nine weeks of paid leave for a serious medical condition or event, or to care for someone close to the employee with a serious medical condition or event. It also includes, now, up to nine weeks of paid safe leave in the event of domestic or sexual violence. 

Chandler said that two years after the program is operational, there will be a fiscal review for solvency and if the fund is solvent, then the nine weeks of medical and safe leave will become 12 weeks of paid leave.

One Democrat on the committee, state Rep. Tara Jaramillo, D-Socorro, sided with Republicans on the committee to vote against the bill.

The committee debated the bill for close to three hours despite HHHC Chair Liz Thomson, D-Albuquerque, asking that the committee be brief and stick to questions about the amendments because the HHSC had already heard the House version of the bill earlier in the session, she said.

State Rep. Harlan Vincent, R-Ruidoso Downs, tried to amend the bill to add a definition of Tribal entities.. He said that he has “been taught a specific way to read through these bills” and that, according to his training, the lack of a duplication of definition throughout the bill was a technical error. Tribes, pueblos and organizations owned by members of a tribe or pueblo are defined in the definition section of the bill. 

Chandler said that a duplication of the definition was not necessary. She said she would view the amendment as friendly if doing so would mean that Vincent would support the bill. He said he did not support the bill and Chandler called the amendment unfriendly.

The committee tabled the amendment by a party-line vote of 6-3.

State Rep. Jenifer Jones, R-Deming, said that the title of the bill was constitutionally incorrect because the title of the bill does not fully explain the bill. She also continued to argue that the bill contained other technical errors because the committee tabled Vincent’s amendment to add a definition to a later portion of the bill, despite the definition appearing in the definition section of the bill. 

Chandler said that the bill was drafted by Legislative Council Services and that “they are cognizant of constitutional requirements.”

State Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, asked questions about how the process would work through the state Department of Workforce Solutions.

NMDWS Secretary Sarita Nair said that if an employer refused to allow paid leave for an employee, that would be a violation of the act, if the bill is enacted. She said a refusal would lead to penalties and an investigation by the agency. 

But, if the employer allows a requested paid leave but the employer wants to work with the employee on scheduling, the government would not get involved. She used as an example that if an employer needs the employee to still be present for work on Tuesdays, that would be something the employer and the employee would work out between themselves.

Lord asked about another change in the bill that reduced the advisory committee to eight individuals. Chandler said some in the business community had expressed a concern that there was not adequate employer representation on the advisory committee previously. She said the bill sponsors took that input “to heart” and amended the bill to model the advisory committee on Washington state’s model, which is four employer representatives and four employee representatives. The advisory committee will receive neither a per diem nor a reimbursement for travel, Chandler said. The advisory committee’s role will be to offer advice to the secretary of Workforce Solutions during the one-year rulemaking process.

Lord said she could not support the bill because there is not an opt out clause for employees in the bill. 

Chandler said an opt out provision for employees would create too much uncertainty for solvency. 

Jones said she believed there would be medical providers who would “set up shop” and take $100 to provide a note so employees could request medical leave.

“That is huge, in my opinion. Anyone licensed or certified in healthcare could do that and abuse this fund,” Jones said.

Nair said this bill requires the Department of Workforce Solutions to do its check, including a third-party to qualify the event before the benefit would begin. Many Republicans have complained that the millions in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims have been lost by the agency during the pandemic and cite that as a reason why the agency can not handle the implementation of a paid leave program.

Nair said that the reason why the unemployment insurance fraud happened during the pandemic was because the agency was required to begin unemployment insurance payments before the agency could verify claims. 

She said that, in addition, the bill requires for the department to cross check the amount of requested time off for a qualifying condition against a database insurance companies use to cross check to see how long a person would normally require leave for the qualifying event. That is in addition to a third-party verification.

Nair said that New Jersey reported no fraud. She said that Oregon started to see attempts to make fraudulent claims using identity theft but the Oregon agency in charge of the program caught the fraud because of all the checks in place.

Nair also said that employers are able to appeal the agency’s determination on a paid leave claim and that that is “really valuable.”

“The employer is in the best position to know if an employee has a medical condition and know if they are faking it,” Nair said.

Chandler also said that if a medical provider fraudulently provides certification to enable a claim, the state could bring penalties against that provider and the provider’s licensure or certification could be challenged.

Despite the in-depth discussion of the bill’s details, Jones argued that the bill should go before the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee and that it is being “pushed through” and legislators do not understand the bill.

The bill heads next to the House floor.