The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday voted 8–2 to advance a committee substitute for Senate Bill 119, a proposal to create a state bioscience investment fund intended to attract startups and grow high‑paying biotech jobs across New Mexico.

Senator (sponsor) Tim Hickey introduced the bill, explaining the substitute changed several provisions after review by the judiciary committee. The substitute replaces an “average” wage requirement with a median measure (raising the stated target to $104,000 from $60,000), adds bankruptcy‑response language aligned to New Mexico law, requires milestones before disbursing funds and narrows some advisory roles, among other changes. Hickey said the changes respond to concerns the governor previously raised when she pocket‑vetoed an earlier version.

Supporters from the biotech and business communities urged passage. JD Bullington of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce said the bill would help New Mexico “gain a larger share of the very lucrative bioscience industry with good high paying jobs,” and Alex Coughlan of the Bioscience Authority said the fund could support six to seven startups per round and “immediately affect 60 to a 100 jobs.” Paul Lauer and Stephanie Tofigy from the Bioscience Authority described the program as statewide and said the authority works with universities and national labs to build an ecosystem beyond Albuquerque.

Committee members asked whether existing programs—such as the state investment council (SIC), Local Economic Development Act (LIDA/LITA) funds or other state vehicles—could achieve similar goals. Proponents said LIDA’s requirements (including bond or clawback provisions) can be prohibitive for early‑stage startups and argued this fund would be targeted to early companies that cannot meet LIDA terms.

Several senators urged stronger conflict‑of‑interest language and clearer definitions for the bill’s “co‑investing organization” term; Senator Steinborn recommended adding family members to conflict rules and defining co‑investors to limit ambiguity. Proponents said the substitute includes prohibitions on board members participating in investments involving their own companies and provides a misdemeanor penalty for violations.

The committee approved the substitute for floor debate. The sponsor moved a “do not pass” on the original and a “do pass” on the committee substitute; the committee recorded a do‑pass recommendation on the substitute with an 8–2 vote.