House Finance Committee adopts several amendments to paid parental leave bill, sets bill aside for technical cleanup

The House Finance Committee on May 7, 2026, advanced a heavily amended version of House Bill 193, the paid parental leave (PPL) bill, approving a sequence of sponsor‑supported changes before setting the bill aside so legislative legal can fold amendments into a clean committee substitute.

Key actions: Committee members adopted Amendment 1 to create a distinct paid parental leave fund for employer and employee contributions to protect those deposits from budget sweeps. They then adopted Amendment 3 (reducing the proposed leave range from up to 26 weeks to an 8–12 week window) and Amendment 4 (allowing employers with a comparable existing program to apply for an opt‑out). Representative Galvin’s Amendment 6 pushed the program’s first effective date from 2027 to 2029 to allow more time for implementation. The committee debated employer thresholds and benefit levels, adopting Amendment 7 (exemptions/opt‑in for small or seasonal employers) on a recorded roll call (8–3) and Amendment 5 (adjusting employer UI contributions) on a 6–5 roll call. Amendment 8 reduced the benefit cap and weekly benefit level to tie payouts to the taxable wage base.

Sponsor and agency rationale: Sponsor Representative Carolyn Hall told the committee HB 193 both updates unemployment insurance benefits that have not changed since 2009 and creates the paid parental leave program. Hall and staff said many amendments reflected Department of Labor recommendations and stakeholder input, including business groups and the Disability Management Employer Coalition (transcript: DMACC), to protect long‑term solvency and ease employer administration. Joan Wilkerson, staff to Representative Hall, confirmed both parents may be eligible for the benefit if they have been paying into the program.

What changed (high level): • Fund structure — Amendment 1 creates a separate treasury account to collect employer and employee contributions and avoid sweeps. • Benefit length — Amendment 3 narrows the allowable leave period from 8–26 weeks to 8–12 weeks, with the Department of Labor setting the precise weeks within that range. • Employer opt‑outs and exemptions — Amendment 4 allows opt‑out authorization for employers with comparable plans; Amendment 7 exempts seasonal employees and employers under the committee‑agreed threshold (committee debated 25 vs. 50 employees and settled on a threshold through a conceptual amendment and vote) while adding an opt‑in process for exempt employers who wish to participate. • Benefit cap and weekly amount — Amendment 8 reduces the taxable wage base used to calculate benefits (from a cited $85,000 figure to $54,500) and reduces an illustrative maximum weekly benefit (from $817 to $524), a Department of Labor‑recommended change intended to preserve solvency and tie the benefit to wage measures rather than CPI. • Employer UI contributions — Amendment 5 (as conceptually amended) increases the employer contribution floor into UI/PPL programs (discussion produced a combined employer contribution number described in debate as totalling about 0.60% when various components were combined).

Roll calls and close votes: Amendment 7 passed on a recorded roll call, 8 yeas to 3 nays; Amendment 5 passed 6 yeas to 5 nays. Several other amendments were adopted without a roll call after objections were removed or labeled friendly by the sponsor.

Representative Hall and staff said many of the changes came from collaboration with the Department of Labor and business stakeholders. Hall described Amendment 3 as protecting the solvency of the leave fund and said DMACC’s guidance was that 12 weeks matched national averages for comparable programs. Joan Wilkerson, staff to the sponsor, clarified operational eligibility: a person is eligible for the program if they are paying into it; both parents may be eligible if each is a contributor through their employment.

Next steps: Because the bill accumulated many adopted amendments and technical drafting changes, the committee asked legislative legal to incorporate amendments into a clean committee substitute (ACS). The committee set HB 193 aside pending that legal drafting and scheduled the next meeting for the following day. The committee did not take a final vote on the underlying bill on May 7.