Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate rejects amendment to strip $10 million for Las Cruces clinic, passes capital reauthorization bill
Loading...
Summary
The Senate voted down a floor amendment that would have removed a $10 million item tied to a Las Cruces clinic from a large capital‑projects reauthorization, then approved the reauthorization (House Taxation & Revenue Committee substitute for HB332) without an emergency clause.
The Senate on the floor voted down a proposal to remove a $10 million line item tied to a Las Cruces clinic from a broad capital‑projects reauthorization, then approved the reauthorization bill without an emergency clause.
Senate floor amendment No. 1 to the House Taxation and Revenue Committee substitute for HB332 — offered by Senator William E. Scherer — would have struck a single $10,000,000 reauthorization intended originally for building or buying a clinic in Las Cruces. Scherer told colleagues, "This $10,000,000 was to build an abortion clinic in Las Cruces. The people of Las Cruces refused to build it; they couldn't find any contractors to actually build it," and said the amendment would excise that one project while leaving the remainder of the roughly $1.255 billion reauthorization untouched.
Senators pressed for facts about the proposed purchase; Scherer acknowledged that no specific building or location had been identified. Senator Scott and others asked whether the contractor shortage and community opposition were established facts or hearsay; Scherer replied that he believed the reports — including, he said, outreach by local religious leaders discouraging participation — were accurate.
After floor debate the Senate held a roll‑call on the amendment. The amendment failed, recorded as 15 affirmative and 23 negative. The Senate then returned to the underlying substitute for HB332; the chamber recorded the bill's final passage without the emergency clause.
Why it matters: HB332 is a routine reauthorization vehicle used to extend or repurpose capital‑outlay authorizations across many projects. The amendment debate focused attention on one contested project — the $10 million Las Cruces allocation — and highlighted how local opposition and project specificity (or the lack of it) can shape floor amendments even on large omnibus measures.
What comes next: With passage of HB332 without the emergency clause, the reauthorizations proceed under regular effective dates and any local projects affected by the removed amendment (had it passed) would return to sponsors and local stakeholders for future consideration.
