Lawmakers sent Bill 176-38 to third reading after an extended, at-times sharp debate over whether the measure would improperly circumvent procurement rules for government land leases.

The bill’s sponsor argued the measure creates an option for commercial tenants who have occupied government land for at least five years and remain in good standing to extend their lease at fair market rent — determined by an appraiser licensed to do business on Guam and paid for by the tenant — for additional terms that in total do not exceed 15 years. Proponents said the provision would preserve continuity for small businesses, reduce administrative rebidding costs and include escalation clauses and five-year reappraisals.

Opponents, including several oversight committee members, said the bill risks bypassing procurement law, denying fair competition, and could yield below-market arrangements for public land. Multiple senators cited specific examples that emerged in committee testimony: the ancestral lands commission’s proposed lease extensions for AT&T and Smithbridge drew particular scrutiny as instances where opponents believed the proposed framework might benefit large corporations and shortchange government beneficiaries. One senator said GEDA (Guam Economic Development Authority) had identified two expiring tenants and that the bill could be used to extend those leases without public competition.

Sponsors and some supporters pushed back, noting the bill does not name companies and that the lessor retains discretion: the bill uses permissive language ("may"), does not require approval of an extension, and allows the lessor (e.g., GEDA) to reject an appraised valuation or decline the extension. Supporters also noted an escalation clause and periodic reappraisals that would limit rent decline below previously charged amounts.

The floor recorded objections and a hand vote, but the motion to move Bill 176-38 to third reading passed. Several senators urged additional safeguards, detailed public disclosures, and oversight to prevent perceived conflicts or undervaluation by tenant-selected appraisers. Some members warned the measure could invite litigation if procurement rules were seen as being circumvented; others said terminating improperly procured leases remains an available remedy.

Lawmakers did not adopt a textual change on the floor to require case-by-case legislative review; instead the bill advances to third reading for further consideration.