Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers Like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, That's a wrap!

Lawmakers gaveled out the 30 day session just as we sat down to assess the highlights and lowlights with a panel of experts.

>> Feldman: This was -- a big deal.

I think the failure of that bill and -- a blemish on what otherwise I think was a pretty successful session, >> Nash: Plus, a day in the life with a young mother of two.

As state leaders push ahead with mostly Universal Child Care.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for joining us this week, I'm Nash Jones.

So, this was Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's final regular legislative session.

And like all sessions of the 30 day variety, it was a mad dash.

Even before it was all over, the governor's office issued a statement celebrating some of her priorities that got passed.

Changes to the state's medical malpractice and criminal competency laws, and a massive chunk of money to ensure most New Mexico families don't have to pay for child care funding for Universal Child Care.

Well, what turned out to be a version of it anyway was among the biggest wins for the governor.

Later this hour, you're going to hear from a mother in Ohkay Owingeh [Pueblo] who spent the day with [New Mexico] in Focus reporter Cailley Chella, describing her experience trying to get access to care for her two young children as she pursues a career.

Now, it was not all wins for the governor.

Her losses include no action on increasing criminal penalties that she wanted, particularly for minors.

We're going to get into some of that tonight.

The session also spotlighted where the real political division stand in New Mexico in this moment.

Spoiler alert it is not so much between Democrats and Republicans anymore.

Politics correspondent Gwyneth Dolan will explore that idea a little later in the show.

But we begin with the state budget, mostly because, well, the New Mexico Constitution says that is the reason for 30 day Sessions.

Three familiar faces join Senior Producer Lou DiVizio at the table this week to break down that spending plan.

They are Democratic former state senators Dede Feldman and Eric Griego, along with Michael Bird, past President of the American Public Health Association.

>> Lou: Dede, Eric, Michael, thank you all so much for being here.

Now, for the seventh year in a row, the state budget has grown.

That's every year that Lujan Grisham has been in office.

This year's budget comes as the state is expected to bring in less new money than originally projected.

Eric, broadly speaking, was it wise to amp up spending yet again, even as oil and gas revenue is leveling off, maybe even hitting a downturn?

>> Griego: Well, I don't if it was wise, but I think it was out of necessity.

I mean, these are some of the federal cuts are really going to hit the state pretty hard.

And I think it was -- it was great that we have at least the capacity to, sort of, step up.

And I think this is not that's not going away.

The fact that states and local governments are going to have to, sort of, bridge the gap on health care, on environment and all these other issues that we -- the state leaned heavily onto a lot of federal funding, and it's definitely dwindling.

So I think it was -- I mean, in the best of all worlds, maybe you wouldn't do it, but, you know, if the need is there, certainly on health care for sure.

>> Lou: Yeah, we heard that messaging from House Speaker Martinez before sessions started.

Also before session, we looked through the different budget proposals, the governor's budget proposal, and the legislature's.

One of the key pieces in both of those was the Universal Child Care proposal.

And there was a little bit of -- a difference between the two.

Dede, whose proposal does the final budget most resemble, and how is it going to work?

>> Feldman: Well, this -- the bill that was passed and the money that was passed -- much of it comes from the trust fund that always already exists for early childhood education.

They transferred $1 billion, from that fund into -- essentially the Operating fund.

And they did they did not -- back down from covering everyone.

So I think that the this is -- I think everyone kind of got what they wanted especially the governor.

There were co-pays attached to that.

Out of fear that the fund would run out, which I think is, ill- founded fear because it's you know, I think, like a $11 billion trust fund, one of the biggest funds we have.

And, so they did, though, out of an abundance of caution, put these co-pays for families over, 600% of poverty, which was about, I think, really like $198,000 for a family of four -- >> Lou: It's less than that.

I think like 160-170 for a family of three.

So, maybe for a family of four -- >> Feldman: For a family of four, I think that's it.

But, those co-pays only kick in if the price of gas goes down.

Oil and gas goes down, or inflation takes a dive.

>> Lou: Considering that, is that -- a legitimate financial strategy or was that more political?

>> Feldman: Legitimate in what sense?

>> Lou: Like if the price of crude oil drops, will those co-pays help buoy this program or -- >> Feldman: Yes, I think it will.

It will to a certain -- it depends upon how the income is distributed over young families.

And it's mostly -- they don't have that much income at that stage.

So, you know, they're expecting though 58,000 children in this program, by I think, [year] ‘29 or '30.

So, you know, that's a pretty -- I think it costs about $11,000 per kid.

So that's, you know, it's not chump change.

>> Lou: No.

Definitely not.

>> Griego: Just quickly -- >> Lou: Sure.

One of the things that was part of that overall, early childhood investment, which I think is key, is this investment in the workforce and wages, which was a big win for advocates because there was, you know, we've got all this money, we've got all this demand, we've got all this need.

And there's a real challenge in getting people who can be trained to do it and more importantly, who are paid, you know -- more than working at McDonald's to actually provide this really important service.

So, that was a big win for -- and hopefully the governor will sign that and not veto that piece of it.

>> Lou: Okay.

Yeah, we'll watch that.

Michael, I want to shift to health care.

That was a big issue this session.

And there was a fairly big schism between what the governor proposed and the legislature ahead of session.

We'll talk about some of the specific policy changes in the next segment.

But as far as the money goes, the Health Care Authority, which oversees services like Medicaid and SNAP, they're getting some extra money to cover hese federal shortfalls.

Where did those federal shortfalls leave our state?

And, from what you see, or have seen, is the state able to cover them adequately?

>> Bird: This is just -- I mean -- these cuts at the federal level -- I'm just going to run through a number of agencies that it impacts.

And, I'll just use the term, “dodo flows downhill.” And, that's what we're clearly going to see in terms of the lack of -- not just resources coming to New Mexico, but the resources of programs that have been long established that do provide services and consultation and -- indirectly, support the heath infrastructure of the state.

And I'm just going to run through a number of them that, or have been impacted.

And the key agencies in 2025 that have been affected are the centers for Disease Control, commonly referred to as CDC, lost thousands of positions with major cuts to programs tracking chronic disease, climate change and worker health.

The Food and Drug Administration suffered massive layoffs, impacting staff who review food safety, medical devices and drug approvals.

The National Institute of Health experienced significant layoffs, including the termination of Senior Institute Directors.

The agency for Health Care Research experienced severe staff shortages, creating a brain drain of patient safety experts.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness, affected by which handles pandemic preparedness, the cuts resulted in closing regional offices, eliminating divisions, and causing widespread chaos and panic And I can say is the past President of the American Public Health Association that -- that -- those -- I mean -- the impact of -- as trickles down hill, is really significant and -- and it also impacts academic health centers and in that regard, an array of programs that were developed specifically for specific populations American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian programing, Hispanic Latino communities and African American communities.

And those funds have been reduced significantly.

And many of those -- and I can say this for the Native community, those funds have created opportunities in terms of over the past 45-50 years now, opportunities for Native students to go to school to obtain credentials, to move into public health and the human services field and in many cases, the funding is impacting those centers.

Johns Hopkins Center for Indian Programing as well as others.

>> Lou: Right, right, yeah.

Thank you, Michael.

We'll spend some time in the next segment on health care too, and that the effects on our whole system, in terms of the rest of the budget, Dede the governor can line item veto specific spending measures within the budget.

Have you seen anything you're expecting her to strike out?

>> Feldman: Nothing that really jumps out as something that she would veto automatically.

She has the power to line item veto, not just in House Bill 2, I'm sure you know this, but in any bill that includes the word, “Appropriations” in the title.

So, you might be looking at some of these other bills that include appropriations to see whether -- she might be able to veto portions of them, but I don't see anything that jumps out.

I don't think she's going to veto the co-pays from early childhood.

That would be the one I think that most people might think she would.

I don't think she's going to do that.

>> Lou: Okay.

>> Feldman: I could be wrong.

>> Lou: All right, well, we'll watch for it.

Eric, a bill we'll explore a little more in the show also.

It requires all local government to end contracts with ICE.

Right now, that only applies to three counties, that's Torrance, Cibola, and Otero counties.

They all have to end their contracts to detain immigrants for the federal government.

So, it passed early on in Session, leading the call for the budget -- leading the calls for the budget to support those counties financially.

That was a big argument from the counties themselves, Republicans who represent those districts, what do they have coming for them in this budget?

And is it enough, is it necessary?

>> Griego: Well, you know, these rural counties, people forget that, you know, Bernalillo County and to a certain extent, Dona Ana County, for example, that big Jupiter project is where most of our economic development dollars go.

They are employment centers, but the big employers, right.

That's where they tend to come - which leaves rural counties like these folks, like, they don't have a lot of options -- It doesn't justify them taking any economic development including hosting, you know, immigration facilities, but we don't have a plan for how they transition.

I think there's something like $10 million that's proposed in this budget, which sounds like a lot of money.

That's one incentive, one deal in Bernalillo County or one deal in Dona Ana County.

The Jupiter project is $165 billion deal.

So, we need to have a long term strategy for investing in these rural counties.

And they have to have alternatives to having, you know, really kind of undesirable -- from a public policy perspective, hosting Federal Immigration Facilities, especially, as controversial as that is, especially in a state like New Mexico.

But you can't just say, “go figure it out,” right?

So, the Main Street program is underfunded.

We should be investing heavily in Main Street investment in these communities.

We should be -- any state facilities we could put there that are more productive.

For example, health care if we weren't divesting in health care, what about putting more health care facilities in some of these counties, and then, you know, just generally helping small businesses and helping local businesses survive?

You know, we spent so much money on the big 800 pound gorilla investments.

We don't help small businesses that serve community to get off the ground the way we should.

So, there's opportunity for us to really pivot, to say okay, what are we doing, not just for these counties, but what are we doing for rural counties to help them have options for economic development, right?

>> Lou: Yeah, I appreciate that, and we tried to explore that a little bit earlier in the Session.

Nash Jones, spoke with the Cibola County manager, and she told Nash that the county's been working for years to create new economic opportunities.

But it's been difficult.

In Cibola, specifically, it's tough to get water routed to businesses, she says businesses don't want to go there.

So, Michael, I'm interested kind of more philosophically, how should we, as a state and within that community approach a situation like that, where that community's reliant on a single industry, that our state leaders have now determined to no longer be part of New Mexico's values?

>> Bird: Well, one of the -- you know, I think that -- there has been some success in some rural communities, in terms of the Native community, because, I mean, the Native community has always been -- there's certain areas in New Mexico that clearly fall into this sort of experience and have historically over time, and I guess I would be curious to see -- if there are any success stories, you know, in some of the rural reservation communities in terms of what they've pursued in terms of economic development for their communities, and is there any lessons to be learned or resources that they've managed to utilize that still might be available for the southern part of the state?

I think the other thing that I often wonder about is, you know, we have institutions here in New Mexico -- the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State, do they do any research or projections, you know, has anybody done any -- studies to look at in the past or at least getting started today, to look at what are the opportunities that that might be -- that we need to be giving some thought to going forward in the future, some investing in some research to say, okay, here's what we've got.

What are are some potential opportunities that we can be exploring?

And, I don't know how much of that, you know, actually -- I don't know if there's any focus on that or if that actually translates into anything for -- those communities that are marginalized and rural and poor, and something to think about anyway.

>> Lou: Yeah, that's an interesting thought -- >> Griego: But if you can offer these big incentives for projects in these other communities, what if you said, you know, whatever you think about data centers, that was a big topic in the legislature.

>> Lou: Yeah.

>> Griego: Why not say, “hey, we need to figure out how to invest in that kind of infrastructure.” Water, energy infrastructure in these communities are most impacted.

If we're going to have a big policy change like this, especially when they're essentially a company town, in this case, it's for the prisons.

But, you know, we could say, “we will incentivize clean, productive, high wage jobs in these communities if we're going to attract the next Jupiter Project or whatever.” How about putting it in one of these communities?

>> Lou: Yeah, yeah, I appreciate it.

We'll be back here in just a little bit later in the show to talk about some of the other bills, thanks guys.

>> Martinez: It's a win for working people, right?

Because, I don't know what progressive means, but I do know what it's like to not be able to afford your rent or to not be able to pay for your health care.

It's good for those people and that's progressive.

Great.

>> Armstrong: This legislature needs balance.

I don't expect to just be in charge of everything, but I do expect to have a seat at the table.

And if we win more seats, that changes the makeup of committees, that changes the makeup of the Floor.

And we really need balance in the legislature.

>> Nash: We will take you inside the Roundhouse with Gwyneth Dolan in just about ten minutes, and we'll check back in with our panelists after that to break down some more of the big ticket items outside of the budget.

For now, though, we are going to stay with that $11 billion spending plan and zero in on the most debated funding measure tucked inside of it.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham grabbed bright lights of national headlines back in September when she announced, quote, “New Mexico will become the first state in the Nation to guarantee no cost Universal Child Care starting on November 1st.

But it was always going to be more complicated than pushing out a news release on the Governor's letterhead.

By last month, Lujan Grisham had released her proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins in July.

So had the legislative finance committee, and they were miles apart on this free childcare for all idea, more the $160 million apart.

And so the negotiations began.

Republicans opposed the measure from the start, calling it a universal entitlement program that could cost the state dearly.

And at the expense of other initiatives.

But as we record this, a version of the proposal with substantial tweaks along the way, will make it to the governor's desk.

We would be doing you a disservice if we only covered the policy debate around an issue that would have such a profound impact on parents acrossNew Mexico.

So we wanted to pull this idea out of the Roundhouse and hear from people who would benefit from expanding childcare subsidies.

To bring you that context, [New Mexico] in Focus reporter Cailley Chella has spent the day with Veronica Ramirez, a young mother of two and member of the Ohkay Owingeh tribe.

Here's Cailley.

>> Ramirez: I think Universal Childcare was a good idea and I think it was needed, but I think the implementation of it wasn't thought out.

Cage.

It's like herding cattle, cage.

No cage, you don't behave.

My name is Veronica Ramirez.

I'm 25 years old.

I'm from Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo.

My kids are Grayson and Lotus and Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo.

It's really, like, community centric.

Everybody kind of knows everybody.

And they're all related or grew up together.

Lived here my whole life so.

I had him right after I turned 19.

I didn't imagine being a mom at first, and he was born with some medical complexities.

So I was fortunate.

In my first year after having him to be able to meet his needs and take him to all his doctor's appointments and surgeries and therapies and all that stuff.

She popped.

He'd be my partner for the dance, Will you?

We're going to, Valentine's dance at one of my works is holding for the community, and there's going to be music and little arts and crafts.

to get childcare here is kind of difficult.

Because we don't have anything for early childhood.

Like before three.

So we have to outsource and find it in the nearest cities.

one thing for us, I was like, there is not going to be cultural representation in the daycares, and It's not going to be anybody like speaking the language to her or Lotus, is 20 months now.

I think before she turned 18 months, I was like looking at daycares and trying to figure out the process.

Yeah.

And then this whole universal childcare thing came out.

it wasn't like it's very clear how to sign up or what the process would look like.

It is a little time consuming to fill out and to have all that information.

Then you do have to submit, I believe, like your pay stubs and stuff like that.

I don't want to say it was hard, to navigate, but I think it was just like unclear, like who has spaces available and that, you know, takes time.

Does she get approved?

Yeah.

So if you want to get your child in then like spring start like now I was very adamant about after I fill out the application online, calling and following up with the case manager, whatever that was assigned to us.

And, trying to get that through.

ready set go.

I was kind of in dire-ish need and decided to just go and show up at the daycare and they said that, like, they have a slot available.

And they did say that they were like, having regular walkthroughs with different people.

And so it kind of made it seem like urgent for us to secure our slot by like, paying.

For like, this first two weeks until I was able to pay like 500 that was nonrefundable to like, hold and secure our spots.

And then in the letter, it was like.

Like right now you're you're not going to be charged.

But like basically at any time that could change, [kids playing] It's that like uncertainty I guess that like at any point, like, say, if the budget doesn't get covered or something like, we could have to pay her child care is like a thousand a month.

And so.

If I got that letter, she wouldn't be in childcare anymore [children gigiling] since having her in daycare, I've been able to increase my hours at work and get more pay, which helps us financially to be able to provide better and more for our family.

Having caps dependent on income, I think.

Yeah, it doesn't make it truly universal, but I think I'm like somewhere in the middle.

I guess, like if I was a millionaire, I'd be like, oh, let me give some money to these organizations that I feel like are supporting these things.

you're not getting nothing here.

This is all for later.

You want this?

As a mom, I think it's a step in the right direction.

And I think if we invest most mostly in, like, early childhood and, like, from cradle to career will reap the benefits, you know, in time, as a community organizer and going to and attending, like convening and stuff like -- New Mexico is really being watched and they're like, because other people want to replicate in other states.

I think universal childcare was a good idea and I think it was needed, but I think the implementation of it wasn't thought out.

I don't know, at least they did it.

And it's here and I don't know what that means for the future.

Like if it's going to last or I just hope that -- the supports continue on.

Like it's not just this temporary thing.

It's like, okay, we kind of put ourself in this boat and how do we keep this boat afloat?

>> Nash: Thank you to Veronica Ramirez for spending so much time with Cailley, and for sharing her thoughts and experiences around childcare.

Among the changes that wound up in the so-called universal child care funding plan are co-pays for wealthier families, tapping the state's early childhood trust fund to the tune of $700 million, and a requirement for childcare centers to create wage and career ladders for workers.

Moving on.

It has been an interesting few years watching the politics shift around the Capitol, and this year's session offered perhaps the clearest picture yet that the action lives less in the gulf between Republicans and Democrats, and more within the factions of the Democratic Party itself.

Politics correspondent Gwyneth Dolan went to the round House again this week to get some perspective on that change from Democratic House Speaker Javier Martinez and his Republican counterpart, Minority Floor Leader Gail Armstrong.

>> Gwyneth: Representative, we are standing here on Wednesday.

You finish tomorrow.

This will air on Friday.

So we're kind of doing a big picture.

Some takeaways here.

New Mexico is a blue state with red state money.

It's on a path of transition from a more moderate or conservative Democratic leadership to a more progressive leadership path.

But on several signature issues guns, free childcare, climate change, pay raises.

There were some divisions and some disagreement here are New Mexico Democrats still defining a progressive identity.

or are you finding the limits of that power and settling into a more pragmatic governing style?

>> Martinez: I disagree with the notion of the question.

The Democratic leadership in the House is for working people full stop.

What's good for working people is good for us.

If you look at our state budget, it is a historic budget with appropriations that range from health care coverage to senior services to free childcare.

And free childcare cannot be built on the backs of working people, the educators.

So in our budget for the first time in history, there's a $60 million a year recurrent appropriation for the career wage ladder, through which we're going to recognize the importance of the work that the early educators do, while at the same time providing these universal access to free childcare, ensuring that those who can pay, pay a small co-pay.

We just heard, the tax committee, earlier, you know, the last couple of days work on a tax package that is putting workers first, where the Senate decided to strip raises very modest 1% raises for all state employees, including educators and firefighters and police officers and nurses and others.

The house decided to put that money back and make good on our promise, for pay raises, especially now where we are seeing the cost of living across the state and across the country go up because of the dysfunction in DC.

This caucus, the House Democratic Caucus is committed to working on behalf and for and alongside working families.

And that's been my entire speakership.

And it's actually been my entire career in this building.

And we're going to keep doing that.

>> Gwyneth: I'm hearing you say it's a win for progressives.

>> Martinez: I'm it's a win for working people.

Right.

Because, you know, I don't know what progressive means, but I do know what it's like to not be able to afford your rent or to not be able to pay for your health care.

It's good for those people that that's progressive, great.

>> Gwyneth: So the governor threw some sharp elbows at you from the left and from the right.

Where did she push you and end up with a win?

>> Gwyneth: I don't think she threw any elbows.

We've been working really closely the entire session.

On health care policy, on capital outlay, on tax policy, on childcare.

So I if elbows were thrown, I didn't feel them.

And I think we've had a really successful session so far.

>> Gwyneth: What's one issue where you think Republicans were particularly effective?

>> Martinez: You know, I have a really good relationship with the other side of the aisle, and I think that they are most effective when they're willing to come to the table and work with us and collaborate with us.

We saw that with, with medical malpractice.

Right.

That was an issue that, you know, the House passed that bill by a vote of 60, 63, unanimous support within the Republican caucus, nearly unanimous support within the Democratic caucus.

When they are willing to work with the majority.

A lot of good things can happen >> Gwyneth: Now that's come up in previous sessions.

What made the difference this year?

>> Martinez: You know, a lot of credit to the lead sponsor of House Bill 99, Chairwoman Christine Chandler.

She, learned the entire act within a matter of months and really emerged as a leading voice for reform.

And I think that makes a difference, right?

Because one thing is to sponsor bills for the sake of messaging or scoring political points.

And we we see that happen all the time.

And on this issue, we've seen it happen over the last few years.

But when she took a hold of that, of that issue and she decided to make it a priority, it really galvanized our caucus around it.

And as you saw by the vote, it was it was fairly overwhelming.

>> Gwyneth: Last question.

Now, if this session, you know, can be seen as framing some of the fall election issues that we're going to be hearing about, what are you walking out of this building with in terms of your biggest wins and some things you wanted to get done but didn't?

>> Martinez: We're making life more affordable for New Mexicans, from the budget to tax policy to raises for state workers to child care, to health care, we are committed to making life more affordable for working people across the state, not just low income people, but working people.

I'm talking from low income people all the way to the middle class.

So those firefighters, those bus drivers, the people who pick up our trash, that is the takeaway of this session.

Things that I wish we could have gotten done.

Look, we've got to talk about gun safety.

And that's something that is really important to me.

I've got two young kids at home, and it's something that keeps me up at night.

My own home was shot at by one of these deranged individuals.

And so that's work that we're going to have to continue to do.

Having said that, this House has led on gun safety since 2019.

Some of the most, progressive gun safety measures in the country have taken place here in rural New Mexico.

And so there are a couple of more things that still are left to be done.

And I look forward to working on those in the future.

>> Gwyneth: Thank you so much.

>> Martinez: Thank you.

>> Gwyneth: Representative.

We are two days away from the end of this thing.

So we're asking you to take a big picture and look here in this building, Democrats control almost everything.

What did Republicans do this session that is going to deliver real impact for New Mexicans?

>> Armstrong: Well, thank you for that question and thanks for having me on.

We delivered medical malpractice.

That was the biggest one.

We have been saying for over five years that it's broken.

We need to fix it.

We voted against the original bill that passed in 2021, and we said, this is going to break the state.

And it did.

So we delivered medical malpractice.

I'm excited about that.

House Bill 99.

That was one of the most important things that we got done this year.

>> Gwyneth: And how did you change the bill you didn't like?

>> Armstrong: Oh, wow.

We put on caps.

We did a lot of things that we worked with a working group all summer long, during the interim and for many years, bringing together groups to make decisions on what they needed and what they wanted.

So the big package, House Bill 99 as it left Senate Judiciary, House judiciary, it was the perfect bill, got amended in Senate Judiciary, to be a terrible bill and got put back in place.

And, you know, and in order on, the Senate, House or Senate floor, >> Gwyneth: was there another area outside of medical malpractice where you worked with Democrats to force some compromises that made something better?

>> Armstrong: Wow.

You know, as you said, the Democrats are in charge.

It's really unfortunate that we don't get invited to the table a lot.

Controversial things are hard.

We did because of New Mexicans standing up for medical malpractice.

We did.

It forced us to work together.

Right now, the gun legislation that came forth, there was several Democrats that crossed over and said, we don't like this.

We don't want this.

Republicans always led the way on that as well, saying this is unconstitutional.

This is killing business in the state of New Mexico.

Why would we do this to New Mexicans?

>> Gwyneth: The governor pushed hard on a public safety agenda, a much of which you were aligned with, but not much of that happened.

Why?

>> Armstrong: Well, the obvious is why.

That's not what the progressive Democrats want.

They hold a pretty strong hold here, and, and they don't want it.

And that's obvious for many sessions.

A special session before regular sessions for eight years, the governor's been wanting it.

Republicans have also been leading the charge on that.

We carried the governor's bills and a lot of, some of the crime that, package that did, that did pass.

We had those same Republican bills, and they got killed in committee, and they moved the Democrat bills forward.

That's politics.

>> Gwyneth: What have you learned about how to work with this more progressive legislature and and how might you adjust further for next year?

>> Armstrong: Well, I'll tell you how we're going to adjust further for next year.

We're going to win some seats.

We're focusing on some seats, data driven, in areas where we can win.

This legislature needs balance.

I don't expect to just be in charge of everything, but I do expect to have a seat at the table.

And if we win more seats, that changes the makeup of committees.

That changes the makeup of the floor.

And we really need balance in the legislature.

And I think we've seen that a lot getting worse over the past few years.

>> Gwyneth: So coming out of this session, what are some of those Republicans, candidates going to campaign on?

>> Armstrong: They're going to campaign on a safer New Mexico, business friendly New Mexico, fixing health care.

So there's there's so much if you talk about the big picture, there's so much they can campaign on with 65 years of Democrat control.

There's a lot.

>> Gwyneth: Thank you so much, representative.

>> Armstrong: Thank you.

>> Nash: Thanks again to House Speaker Javier Martinez and Minority Floor Leader Gail Armstrong, as well as to, Gwyneth Doland, Lou DiVizio and our entire production crew for their hard work in Santa Fe over these last few weeks.

Now, with this being her final regular legislative session, the Governor had her eye on several high consequence issues, some of which are connected to the state's budget and some which aren't on that short list of priorities.

Gun control, setting her climate goals in stone, and changing how the state deals with medical malpractice claims.

For more on what passed, what didn't, and what that means for the governor's legacy, let's return now to senior producer Lou DiVizio and our panel of experts, >> Lou: Dede, Eric, Michael.

Thanks again.

Now, while the budget was the focus of the session, the governor called for a few other items to be heard.

And by a few I mean a lot.

Some came right out of the gate with the so-called rocket docket.

She worked with the legislative leadership on that before session even started.

Maybe the most high profile proposal within that was House Bill nine.

That was the Immigrant Safety Act.

The last segment, we covered it.

We covered it earlier in the session to it's going to require Torrance, Cibola and Otero counties to end their contracts with ICE to detain immigrants.

Eric, do you have any sense of when those contracts will end and what it will look like when they do?

>> Griego: I think that what the legislation says is, you know, they have to do it as soon as possible, as soon as they can contracts, you get out of it.

Right.

And I think, you know, there's a lot of scrambling going on to say, like, you know, there's people working there, you know, what do you do with the facilities?

You know, the the Trump administration is already threatening all sorts of, you know, reactions, not just for those places, actually.

They're not even for those places.

It's for the state, I think, and remains to be seen exactly how we're going to be part of.

But I, you know, I think it was a huge, moment for a, a state that is, has the history we do to really with, with a speaker who's, you know, very much an immigrant, American.

He's born here, but he's very proud of his immigrant heritage.

And, to say, look, we're just whatever's happening in Washington, whatever the circus is whatever's happening, Minneapolis, we're going to put a stake in the ground that we're just not going to be complicit.

And I think we're going to probably pay a price in terms of the politics for this.

But I do think, these communities, we have to say, we have to say to them, like, if we're going to do the right thing as a state, that we have to have a plan for how we get to the next thing.

We talked about economic development, but also as a matter of policy, as a state, we shouldn't we shouldn't relegate these facilities to sort of certain parts of the state.

I think, I think, the the win here is that New Mexico is leading on a really direct push back on really terrible policy.

And if not us, then who?

Right.

New Mexico, a state that's a majority a minority state, but also a state that has a long tradition of being pro-immigrant in being heavily interested in diversity.

And it's one of our strengths.

And I'm just really proud that the legislature and the governor have said this is an early priority.

We're going to make it happen, and we're gonna do whatever we need to do to help these communities adjust.

>> Lou: Yeah the legislators that we spoke to, the Governor, they've all outlined pretty closely that this is step one.

To your point, we just need to get this done and then we'll go from there.

But kind of the from there is a bit of a question mark.

We spoke with the governor and she acknowledged that since private prisons can still contract directly with ICE, this might not do much in terms of the detention part of it.

It gets the state out of the the equation.

But there's a good chance that immigrants might stay in these prisons.

But she said that if they need to do more, they would.

So, Michael, what could more look like?

What should more look like?

>> Bird: Well, first of all, let me just say for me, and I would hope most most people of conscience, would look at this.

This is a moral question.

It's not, it's more than just a legal question or some legality of some sort.

It is a moral question of how we how we view each others, how we treat each others, how we honor each others.

And if, and so I'm you know, I'm really happy.

I'm gratified that the state of New Mexico has taken this position because there are many states and localities that have not.

They have they've embraced it.

And I guess for a little phrase that comes from the Indian community and out of Minnesota, who's in the midst of a horrific occupation that, no one, and they come to say no one is illegal on stolen land.

So I just, I'm happy.

What we need is another pueblo revolt.

On a national level because that altered the course of New Mexico history in significant ways.

And maybe there's some lessons from history that we need to study.

>> Lou: Undoubtably.

Now Dede, next up in the rocket docket, big chunk of money, $1.5 billion road bonds package.

We spoke with Republican senator, Steve Lanier.

He called New Mexico one big pothole on last week's show.

Who's set to benefit from this huge infusion and who gets to decide who gets a share?

>> Feldman: Well, I think there is a list of projects, and I've already heard complaints that from various, legislators that there's not enough going to southeast New Mexico, for example.

But, you know, road and road bonds, road funding is a bipartisan issue.

There's a pothole in every district, you know, like a turkey in every or a chicken in every pot.

There is a pothole in every district.

So, you know, we have had a problem, you know, because roads are funded, through, the gas tax and we haven't raised the gas tax in years.

And, you know, this is a, the road fund is separate from the general fund, too.

And so, you know, it's running out of money and, especially with electric vehicles and, gas cars that are no longer gas guzzlers.

Although I hear that's about to change with federal regulations being dropped.

Everybody seems to support the bonds, and they're always kind of a no brainer.

It's just, is there one in my district?

>> Griego: I mean, it sounds like a lot of money, but it's a drop in the buck in terms of the need or I think, I think the number 7 or $8 billion that really would in need in terms of these roads, some of the roads in the state, you can't, especially all over the state, but certainly in oil country like there, they have a legitimate claim.

If you try getting around in Carlsbad and some of these southeastern counties, it's they really need, you know, the real numbers from like 7 or $8 billion.

So this is like a this is like phase one.

I think we have to invest a lot more.

>> Lou: Okay.

Now one of the last of the three bills, or the last of the three bills to be pushed through at the beginning of session was the Interstate Physicians Compact.

As of now, we're only part of the Nurses Compact.

With this physicians Compact passed, we're expecting the governor to sign it.

So, Michael, these compacts, they allow doctors who are licensed in other states who join these compacts to come into New Mexico and practice.

That said, there are a whole bunch of other issues, keeping doctors out of the state.

Will this alone have a tangible impact?

>> Bird: I would have to believe that at least it's a step in the right direction and exploring the potential opportunities with this, you know, the only other experience I could draw on is my 20 years with the Indian Health Service, where Indian physicians, not just Indian physicians, but physicians were able to come to New Mexico, either with the if they're with U.S.

Public Health Service or if they had been in private practice to come to New Mexico and practice in our facilities.

And maybe there's maybe there's some lessons to be learned from the Indian Health Service and how it's managed and handled this topic in this issue.

I just I'd have to defer maybe to them for sure.

>> Feldman: You know, I t hink what it is is really expedited, licensing for doctors.

And we also passed one for social workers.

So we did, and we need that it will facilitate telehealth also.

And I think that's, important.

I think it will really benefit, people on the borders of New Mexico.

But remember, this goes two ways doctors can leave the state too, doctors can practice in Texas or in Colorado or in other places where we have reciprocity.

>> Lou: Sure, yeah.

There's a lot of talk about this being a big boom for the ending, the doctor shortage.

But we also spoke with Republican Senator Nicole Tobiassen and early on in this session, and she basically said it's going to be useless unless we have med-mal reform.

Well, now we have med-mal reform with House Bill 99.

What ended up getting to the governor's desk Eric?

>> Griego: I think this is the big story of the session, right?

I mean, this is, this was a gargantuan fight in terms of the interest involved.

You know, the health care providers, the big hospitals, obviously, patients rights groups and this very powerful, you know, trial lawyers who really were arguing that, you know, we need to protect we need to protect patients.

Right, so there's some politics there.

You know, what ended up going to that making the desk is I, by the way, I was dead wrong.

I told somebody at UNM they're like, there's no way they're going to get a clean bill out of that Senate Judiciary Committee.

When you have some key leaders who are, you know, we won't talk about that.

But, but the fact that, a powerful chair is in the business of sort of making sure to put it how we would put it protecting patients.

They amended it, really damaged it.

It was it came out sort of limping out of the Judiciary Committee, eliminating some of the caps that they needed to really make this whole overall mosaic of, you know, compacts and malpractice reform, other things.

And then it got to the Senate floor and, surprisingly, overwhelmingly, those amendments were stripped out of it.

So it's essentially a clean bill.

Essentially, it caps some of the most problematic, provisions of our, malpractice statutes where which is really, especially punitive damages was the big thing, right?

Punitive damages, which was really, I'm not sure I believe that the insurance companies were or is the honest brokers here.

Hey, we just charging what it costs us to cover these positions?

They.

I think they kind of got off scott free.

Nobody really criticized them.

So why are the premiums so high?

But, essentially what it does is it eliminates, and, and I think, I think providers are going to really have to sort of put their money where their mouth is now that these sort of really damaging, legal constraints around how much, how much exposure they have in terms of these legal, these legal, cases, now, if they're gone, really what should be the case is we should really see a lot more, physicians coming, which is a physician staying.

We should see physicians really health care access increasing.

>> Lou: And you expect that to happen?

And do you expect insurance companies to follow?

>> Griego: Well, I hope that there's some pressure on the insurance companies, and I do I do think they got off well, we obviously we have a state superintendent of insurance whose job it is to sort of regulate the insurers.

And I also think I'm not saying they're not doing the job.

I think they did of anybody who sort of got a free pass on this.

Why is it that these premiums are so outrageous?

Right.

So for sure, we needed some, some, reform there and that these compacts you can help.

I just I'll just give you a real life story I had I have a, an eye condition.

I was trying to see a specialist for.

I called and this was, I was a previous patient.

One year wait.

There's a one year wait on it.

I was, and I, and I thought, geez, like, you know, it's not even life or death thing, but for folks who are trying to see neurologists or some really, you know, so we have a real problem.

And by the way, I don't think it's any, any of these, this is this then malpractice is I'm going to save the day compact still aren't going to do it.

We have a lot of things we have to fix in our health care system.

>> Bird: It's a complex issue that is going to take really not just focusing on the narrow aspect of it, but the larger aspect.

One of the things that comes to mind, and I have no experience with the University of New Mexico's med school, but we have a med medical school here.

What are they?

Who are they training, where do they come from, and how many of them actually make a choice to practice here in New Mexico?

And or is it possible to give preference, some sort of preference to people who are from New Mexico?

Native Americans, the Hispanic population, Mexican American population, so that if they say, I want to attend UNM and I'm going to make a commitment to staying here and practicing for a period of time, would we have a better, with better chance of recruiting local people who have a who have maybe relationships and commitment here versus someone who maybe comes from someplace else?

>> Lou: I know there are efforts >> Bird: Oh okay, well, that's good to hear because I haven't heard >> Feldman: The legislature and UNM has been working on this problem for, for two decades.

And there is a BA, MD program, at UNM Med school, which mentors kids from rural areas, local areas as a cohort as they go through their undergraduate into medical school.

And that was supposed to and we funded that from the legislature that was supposed to, bring doctors back to rural areas.

You know, it's a drop in the bucket, compared to the entire problem that we have.

And I think that is one reason why they're trying to double the size of the, medical school in New Mexico.

You know, the medical school here has been specializing in rural medicine.

But it's just not enough in our state, low income, chronic diseases.

There's all of that.

You know, we need a all of the above approach.

And Med-Mal is one, licensure is one doubling the size of the, medical school is another.

And yet the problem is a national one.

Every year we try to do something.

And this year we're trying to do more.

We put in a $10,000 personal income tax credit to attract doctors.

>> Griego: No, we're trying anything that sticks.

One other thing that I just I just read an article on this, one of the unforeseen effects of this immigration crackdown is it's actually going to affect immigrant doctors who actually provide a lot of this health care in the United States.

It's going to affect us.

And that's another that's an unforeseen circumstance because they're they're going to be caught up in this.

I have friends who are, worried about the immigration issue.

And as physicians right?

for their families, for their you and so on.

>> Lou: Yeah, we're pretty tight on time.

But I do want to get to clear Horizons.

That was the legislation that would have codified the governor's climate goals over a period of decades.

It did not pass.

What does that mean, Dede, in terms of those climate goals?

They just remain an executive order.

The governor is going to leave office.

What happens to them?

>> Feldman: Well, it's going to it's going to depend upon the next governor.

And whether the next governor pushes these, these concerns about, global warming and how New Mexico is a big contributor to it.

And, that, you know, that could be addressed by future executive orders or it could be addressed by a new legislature.

But this was clearly a really big disappointment from this session.

I was also disappointed that, the ETA or, maybe, weakened because of these new, Jupiter projects that have their own microgrids that are not subject now to, some of our limitations there.

So this was this was a big deal, I think the failure of that bill and, a blemish on what otherwise I think was a pretty successful session.

>> Lou: Understood.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

One second?

>> Bird: Yeah.

One second.

I think, you know, one of the things we need to begin to really and are starting to is that without clean air, clean land and clean water, there is no life.

And there are examples of what happened to uranium, right?

Uranium mining in New Mexico, northern New Mexico and the Navajo community and, and some of the pueblo communities as well.

And the fact that, you know, there there was expansion uranium mine people were put at risk and those, tailings are still have, there's never been remediation of those sites.

So we should look at that as an example of what we need to be considering with anything, any kind of development that impacts to our land and our water.

Yeah.

>> Lou: One other item that got through this session was House resolution that passed unanimously, went into effect immediately.

And it's the Zorro Ranch investigative subcommittee.

It's also called the Epstein Truth Commission, so-called, it's bipartisan members, all lawmakers.

They're authorized to investigate allegations of crimes and corruptions at Epstein's Zorro Ranch through the end of the year, according to House Democrats, lawmakers can issue subpoenas.

They can potentially compensate victims with funds seized from Epstein's bank accounts.

Eric can they actually do those things?

>> Griego: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but but my gut tells me that anything the courts and the judicial system can be to sort of empower folks to sort of, get the sort of remedies that they need is going to, I think is going to be on the table.

I think there's going to be I mean, give everybody everything, everybody from Congresswoman Stansbury to, you know, God bless, Representative Andrea Romero, who just was fierce in this, and this accountability, you know, New Mexico, sadly, it's coming up a lot in the Epstein files.

This ranch is showing up a lot, and there was some pretty nefarious stuff going on there from if you if, I've read all the files from what I've heard.

So we I'm just I'm really glad that we have some local leadership again modeling what it should, what should be happening all over this country, which is there has to be accountability.

I don't think we're going to like all the names we see.

Republicans and Democrats.

I think it's going to be uncomfortable for everybody.

But that's not the point.

The point is to have real accountability for what was going on.

But I think there's an opportunity for us to do something to what Washington should be doing.

>> Lou: Sure.

Obviously, the public's been clamoring for action on this at the national level, state level two, obviously, with the prevalence of New Mexico, as you mentioned, these are unpaid lawmakers.

Dede, is it enough time?

Is it enough?

Will they have enough resources to do what needs to be done to >> Feldman: I don't know what the budget was for this commission, but I'm impressed that they have subpoena power.

I think that's a big deal.

And, that'll give it some teeth.

I'm a little worried about how they would enforce any punishment, against those that they.

But the power of having hearings, the power of having, this out in the public is important in terms of pushing Washington to do something as well.

I think this is our moment to do that.

I think this session has been a good one at, you know, meeting the moment, the national moment when it comes to immigration, when it comes to the Epstein files, I think we've done it.

>> Lou: Quickly.

They cannot accuse people of crimes.

I was just told that, I didn't quite realize, but they can investigate, of course.

And Michael, to Dede's point at the end there, given the distrust with the DOJ's handling of this situation do our state lawmakers owe us anything more in terms of thoroughness, and the victims too.

>> Bird: Well, I'm in line with what Eric had to say.

I think that, you know, full disclosure.

I mean, we need to know what we know, how it's been handled at the Washington level.

We do not want to reflect and mirror that approach.

We want to do the right thing right.

>> Lou: Okay Thank you all.

>> Nash: Thanks to Michael Bird and former state lawmakers Dede Feldman and Eric Griego for breaking down the session with us.

And I personally want to thank everyone here at the show who stepped up and filled in gaps to allow me some time away this week to say goodbye to my dog, Jackson.

They meant a lot.

On another note, if you are lamenting the end of legislative coverage for now, keep your head up because we have some loose ends to tie up next week, including a final piece from journalist Jerry Redfern, who kept an eye on oil and gas bills for us all session long for New Mexico PBS I'm Nash Jones.

Until then, stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by viewers like you.