At the halfway point of this year’s 30-day session, the House approved a proposed spending plan setting aside a little more than $11 billion in recurring spending with boosts in spending for a number of early childhood, health care and public safety initiatives.
House Bill 2, which currently proposes a 2.7% increase in recurring spending for the coming fiscal year, reflects an effort by legislators to make “responsible investments,” Rep. Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces and chair of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, said Wednesday afternoon.
“It invests in the most important parts of our state, while also being cautious about what is becoming a more uncertain economy and national outlook by the day,” he told his colleagues.
The budget, which now heads to the Senate, passed on a 55-15 vote, with all of the no votes coming from the Republican minority. Republicans proposed unsuccessful amendments to reimburse counties that could lose money if immigrant detention facilities close.
Notable appropriations in the bill include over $300 million in water investments, $73 million to help pay educators’ health insurance costs, $60 million to implement a wage and career ladder for early childhood workers and at least $50 million for the state’s child care assistance program.
Overall, as has been the case in previous years, public and higher education would receive the greatest share of the state’s recurring budget with a combined $6.37 billion, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.
Small noted the budget would allow the state’s funding reserves to remain at 30%, which would give New Mexico flexibility through economic downturns.
“We have over $400 million in the operating reserve,” he said. “Members should know that that really sustains us through whatever may come in an uncertain future, that gives very liquid reserves that can be used to fill what gaps might come up.”
Much of the three hours of debate centered on two floor amendments introduced by Rep. Jonathan Henry, R-Artesia, both of which were ultimately rejected on primarily party-line votes.
Those amendments proposed a number of changes, including cutting some funds for district courts and reallocating others from the New Mexico School for the Arts to general public school use.
Both amendments also would have required the state Department of Finance Administration to reimburse losses suffered by counties that lose revenue under House Bill 9. That measure, which Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is expected to sign Thursday, would prohibit local governments from contracting with the federal government to operate immigration detention centers.
Currently, there are facilities in Cibola, Otero and Torrance counties that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees. Republicans argued these rural counties stand to lose millions of dollars in tax revenue, jobs and other income under the bill.
“We are left holding the bag,” said Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park. “… There’s nothing else set up. If they close tomorrow, we’re done, we’re a ghost town.”
Democrats largely rejected the amendments, arguing it is not the state’s responsibility to prop them up and noting numerous allegations of poor conditions and human rights violations against immigration detention centers in New Mexico over the years.
“This bails folks out for the private prisons that [were] violating human rights in these various areas … and allows that to happen in perpetuity,” said Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe.
Lawmakers spent little time discussing the budget proposal’s plan to implement tiered copayments for families seeking state-subsidized child care who have incomes greater than 400% of the federal poverty level — a move that would place an asterisk on Lujan Grisham’s plan to create a system that is free to all.
A spokesperson told The New Mexican on Monday the governor does not support the move and plans to “continue to push for full funding of her universal child care plan.”
Small, however, said lawmakers wanted to target families who need state-subsidized child care the most with the plan for copayments.
“This was a significant point of emphasis for a number of committee members who said, ‘For those families who are in those highest income brackets, some amount of copay was both fair and also most financially sustainable,’ ” he said at a news conference earlier Wednesday. “Our focus was on practical details.”