Senate committee advances $25 million bioscience investment fund after amendments

Senator Hickey, sponsor of Senate Bill 119, asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance legislation to add $25 million to the Bioscience Development Fund and the University of New Mexico Bioscience Authority, describing the proposal as a coinvestment fund aimed at building a bioscience ecosystem and creating higher‑paying jobs. “First of all, the coinvestor has to do 2 times the amount of the investment as would come from this fund,” Senator Hickey said, listing other eligibility criteria in the bill.

Committee members debated how to ensure the bill created quality jobs and protected the state’s investment. Senator Doohan successfully proposed replacing two instances of “average” with “median” for the $60,000 wage test so that the measure would better reflect the intended wage floor; the committee adopted that change as a friendly amendment. Other amendments adopted during the hearing required that stock accepted in lieu of cash be of equal or greater value than the cash payment and converted a proposed fourth‑degree felony penalty for certain conflicts or violations into a misdemeanor by specifying the misdemeanor statute (30‑1‑6(B)) as the applicable penalty provision.

Paul Lauer, chair of the Bioscience Authority, described the authority’s review process for coinvestments and said the authority would rely on both outside co‑investors’ vetting and its own board expertise before signing investments and that final releases of funds require sign‑off by the secretary of finance and administration and the economic development secretary. Ryan Cancelosi of University of New Mexico Health Sciences described the fund as “an evergreen fund” where equity returns would be recycled into new investments.

Committee discussion also included questions about overlap with the New Mexico Finance Authority’s private equity and venture programs; the sponsor said those entities have different criteria and that the Bioscience Authority would focus on bioscience expertise. Several senators pressed the sponsor on clawback language, bankruptcy priorities, and how the authority would value stock taken as payment. One senator voiced broad skepticism about state equity investments, citing past state investments that did not produce the promised returns; that senator said he would oppose the bill for fiscal‑policy reasons.

After adopting the amendments described above, the committee voted on a motion for “do pass as amended with no recommendation” and completed a roll‑call; the committee chair announced that the bill received a do‑pass recommendation with no committee recommendation. The bill was sent forward with the adopted amendments for further consideration.

The committee record shows the bill’s key changes as adopted: (1) employer wage test wording changed from “average” to “median,” (2) stock accepted in lieu of cash must be equal or greater in value than the cash payment, and (3) the penalty provision was changed from a fourth‑degree felony to a misdemeanor under 30‑1‑6(B).