The Committee of the Whole spent a day pressing agency officials and housing authority representatives over Bill 15-S, a measure that would authorize using $104 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds for utilities infrastructure at Lot 5280-3 in Mangilao (Manila). After extended debate about Treasury guidance, procurement review and recent litigation, the legislature proceeded to a third-reading roll call; the final recorded vote was 2 yays, 10 nays and 3 excused.

Senator Perez opened the questioning by reading a court ruling that limited GURAs eminent-domain authority and by citing Treasury capital-expenditure rules that require written justification for projects with total capital expenditures of $10 million or more. He asked to see the document submitted to Treasury that justified the obligation and warned about the possibility of having to return ARPA funds if federal conditions were not met. "I would like to see those documents," he said, pressing officials to provide the Treasury docket and interagency agreements.

Panelists said a written justification had been submitted to Treasury when the project was first conceived and that the administration had worked with Treasury as the interim and final rules evolved. "We have to use the whole body of guidance," a panelist (Mister Burns) said, referring to the interim final rule, the final rule and Treasury FAQs. Officials described a series of reports the government files monthly with the legislature that show how ARPA funds were allocated and obligated.

Much of the debate centered on procurement review under the statutory 51-50 process and whether the bill would effectively substitute a designated procurement counsel for the attorney generals review. Committee members repeatedly asked whether a solicitation package had already been released. Officials said a solicitation package had been prepared and submitted for AG review but had not been advertised or contracted. A GSA procurement counsel told the committee the bill would not eliminate procurement review; rather, the designated review counsel would perform the 51-50 review described in statute.

Senator Parkinson framed the issue as a choice between spending the $104 million in Manila or returning it to the federal government. "The time for discussion on this funding has come and passed," he said, arguing that the obligation deadline had already occurred in December 2024 and that the legislature now faces a binary decision: spend the money on the approved infrastructure, or risk losing it. Several senators echoed concern about tight deadlines: the panel reiterated that while funds were obligated by interagency agreements before the December 2024 obligation deadline, the government must complete spending by the December 2026 liquidation deadline.

Officials provided a high-level budget estimate for the package: power $35,000,000; water $26,000,000; wastewater $36,000,000; an administrative fee of $1,000,000; and civil engineering about $5.492 million. The totals were presented as estimates from the utility agencies based on anticipated scope and long-range plans.

The hearing also revisited litigation and how GURAs land acquisitions and alleged use of eminent domain were characterized in a recent court ruling. GURA representatives said the authoritys statutory enabling language permits acquisition and, where housing projects are involved, certain urban-renewal powers, and they described a plan to retain portions of acquired land for future housing and mixed-use development.

Other senators argued the legislature lacked sufficient documentation to decide whether the proposed statutory change would expose the territory to repayment risk. Senator Talahi and other members repeatedly urged transparency and said they would prefer more time and direct briefings from the governors office, GPA and GWA.

After debate and a recommendation from the committee of the whole to place the bill on the third-reading file, the house proceeded to roll-call. The clerk recorded 2 yays, 10 nays and 3 excused on the measure at third reading; the bill therefore did not pass on the final vote. The session adjourned after routine motions.

The next procedural step would be for sponsors to decide whether to revise the measure, provide additional documentation and return with new language or supplemental materials; several senators urged gathering the Treasury correspondence, procurement records and utility plans requested during the hearing before further action.