Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Equity Baby Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large debate, no vote on HB 7 (Children’s Future Act); members request more study and guardrails
Summary
Lawmakers heard extensive testimony for and against HB 7, which would create a Children’s Future Fund (a baby-bond style investment for children). The committee did not vote; members raised questions about eligibility, retroactivity, funding, administration and legal issues and asked for additional study and drafting before returning the bill.
The House Appropriations and Finance Committee held a lengthy hearing on HB 7, the Children’s Future Act, a proposal to create a state-managed future fund for children (often described as a “baby bond”). Committee members did not vote on the bill; testimony and questions focused on eligibility, governance, funding level and legal structure.
Supporters — including nonprofit leaders, program pilots and dozens of citizens — urged lawmakers to create a trust-like account for each eligible child to accumulate over years for education, homeownership, entrepreneurship or retirement. Michelle Gilbert of Partnership for Community Action described a local pilot serving 15 participants and said 93 percent of enrolled children were ages prenatal to 3. Anne Lynn Hall of Prosperity Works cited research the organizations track showing improved short- and long-term outcomes tied to child savings accounts, including higher third-grade reading and math scores and higher college-enrollment and graduation rates.
Public comment included multiple parents who said a starter investment would materially improve future opportunities; New Mexico Voices for Children’s Jacob Vigil framed the proposal as part of an anti-poverty and wealth-building strategy to address the state’s large income inequality.
Committee members pressed sponsors on many technical points: Representative Brown asked whether the fund would be seeded with a one-time appropriation (the sponsor said the appropriation language had been removed and the bill’s immediate purpose is to create a task force to design the program), and whether the program would be means-tested or universal (sponsor said the bill as drafted would include all New Mexico-born children but that the task force would flesh out guardrails). Representative Dow asked about financial-literacy components; sponsor said that could be considered by the task force. The state treasurer joined the hearing online and raised technical objections: she said the bill lacked funding and contained structural problems, including a retroactivity concern and details about investment authority and exemptions for military families.
Representative Serrato (bill sponsor identified by committee context) and supporters said the bill would establish the fund and a task force to recommend implementation details and guardrails, including legal and tax questions. Members repeatedly asked for further study and details; Representative Brown and others suggested a memorial or more technical work before committing to creating a funded program. Chair Small and sponsors indicated they would work with members on amendments and additional analyses and consider bringing the bill back for further action.
