Guam's 38th Legislature passed Bill 295-38 LS, which establishes a formal licensure framework for school psychologists under the Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners, creating clear standards and protections while formally recognizing school psychology as an allied health profession; the bill includes grandfather provisions for current Guam Department of Education psychologists, defines school psychology as a subspecialty concerned with student learning, behavioral, social, emotional, and developmental needs, and requires licensed school psychologists to make appropriate referrals to qualified healthcare professionals for severe psychiatric conditions beyond their educational scope of practice.
安装我们的扩展，即时搜索任意视频内容
38th Guam Legislature Regular Session - May 21, 2026 2pm本站添加:
Legislator is back from recess.
Still in the uh second reading file.
Next up, bill number 295-38 LS. Senator Salis Batsani, you are recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to place bill 29538 into the third reading file and would like to discuss it. Bill 29538 is an act to add a new article 12A to chapter 12 title 10 Guam code annotated relative to school psychology lensure and to amend subsection 12101B and 12 802A of chapter 2 title 10 Guam code annotated relative to including school psychology in the healing arts and allied health professions definitions >> as amended.
>> As amended. Okay, you can proceed, m.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, we have an opportunity to do something important for the children of Guam because behind every student sitting in a classroom is a story we may never see. There are children showing up to school carrying anxiety, children dealing with trauma at home, students struggling with depression, behavioral challenges, family problems, grief, or emotional stress. Some children are fighting battles that nobody sees because they still come to school, sit in a classroom, smile at friends, and try their best to make it through the day.
And sometimes those children are not asking for help because they don't know how.
The reality is that our schools are seeing more and more of these challenges. During testimony, educators and professionals explained that since the pandemic, there has been a sharp increase in students experiencing anxiety, depression, trauma responses, emotional dysregulation, and behavioral needs across age groups.
And Mr. Speaker, these struggles don't just affect emotions. They affect attendance. They affect behavior in the classroom. They affect learning. They affect graduation rates. They affect whether a child feels safe, supported, and able to succeed.
Testimony also highlighted that school psychologists help reduce behavioral challenges, improve attendance, close achievement gaps, and create better learning environments for students.
Bill 295 is about making sure the professionals helping these children are proper properly trained, qualified and recognized under Guam law. Right now, Guam does not not have a formal lensure framework specifically for school psychologists.
This bill would change that. It creates clear standards and protections while formally recognizing school psychology as an allied health profession here on Guam.
In simple terms, school psychologists are often the people helping students through some of the hardest moments in their young lives. They help identify learning challenges, behavioral issues, trauma, emotional needs, and crisis situations.
They work with students, teachers, schools, and families to make sure children have support before problems become something much larger.
One statement from testimony really stood out to me. It was said that Guam's youth face a quote myriad of challenges and lifealtering decisions and that school psychologists help students navigate those storms.
I think that says it perfectly because sometimes helping a child succeed isn't giving them another textbook. Sometimes it's helping them through fear, through trauma, through grief, through moments where they feel lost or alone.
And Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to stress this bill was not created in isolation.
This legislation was developed in communication and collaboration with the Guam Department of Education and the Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners.
We listen to the professionals who are doing this work every day and understand the realities facing our schools and our students.
The bill was also strengthened through discussions with Mr. Dennis Mohot. He is the vice president of behavioral health for the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education or Witchie. Mr. Mohawk is a licensed psychologist and nationally recognized behavioral health expert with more than three decades of experience working in public policy, behavioral health systems, and mental health services for rural and underserved communities. His input helped ensure that this legislation not only addresses Guam's needs today, but also aligns with national best practices and stronger long-term standards for the profession. We also work to make sure current professionals already serving our students are protected through grandfather provisions so that we strengthen standards while maintaining continuity of care for students already receiving services. testimony strongly supported this legislation and emphasized the urgent need to continue expanding school-based mental health support. At the end of the day, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a controversial issue. This is about our kids. This is about making sure that when a child is silently struggling, someone qualified is there to recognize it before a difficult moment becomes a crisis.
The work has been done collaboratively.
The professionals support it. The need has been clearly identified. Our students cannot afford for us to keep them waiting. We simply need to act. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask for your support as well as support of my colleagues to ensure the passage of bill 295-38.
Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill, gentle lady from Timuning, then I will go to the gentle lady from Pog Bay and the gentleman from Telephone. Okay.
>> Susi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 295-38 and commend the sponsor and stakeholders for the amendments already made to improve this measure. Throughout the public hearing process, we heard compelling testimony from educators, school psychologists, Guam DOE personnel, and mental health professionals regarding the growing behavioral health and emotional needs facing our students.
We also heard from workforce shortages impacting Guam schools and the importance of establishing a formal lensure framework for school psychologists.
I appreciate that the amendment amended version of this bill already addressed several concerns raised during the hearing process, including expanding qualifying educational pathways, refining the grandfather provision, and broadening applicably beyond only the public school system.
This amend these amendments demonstrated a collaborative effort to strengthen the measure while maintaining the bill's overall intent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill in its entirety by proposing several amendments clarifying uh several additional clarifying amendments that I believe will further strengthen the measure, preserve patient and student safeguards and ensure consistency with the Guan's existing psychology lensure law.
So I would like to offer my first amendment. I believe the amendments were passed out in advance, Mr. Speaker. And if I may continue.
>> You can continue.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, the first amendment uh to discuss will be on line 25 page 3 uh to amend 121201B in section two of the bill uh to read.
It starts off B school psychology means subsp specialty of psychology that is primarily concerned with pupils or students in then we cross out the public school system and incorporate educational settings and the provisions of services related to learning educational behavioral social emotional development and justed needs.
This amendment is to update the definition of school psychology to align with the broader language already adopted elsewhere in the bill, the current bill. This resolves remaining inconsistencies and clarifies that school psychology services may occur across educational settings while still remaining focused on student learning, behavioral, social, emotional, and development needs. That is my first amendment, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you. on the amendment found on page three, line 25.
Are there any uh any senators wishing to speak on the amendment?
Any no senators? Ma'am, you you want to close?
>> I'll wave the closing.
>> Okay. Are there any objections to this amendment?
No objections. So ordered. You can proceed.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues.
My second amendment would be located on line 25 page 5 and this is to amend 12A1203 in section two of the bill to read.
Now this adds a 12A1203 scope and limitations of practice and it reads the inclusion reads as well the practice of school psychology under this article shall be limited to educational and school-based psychology psychological services including assessments consultation behavioral intervention counseling related to educational performance crisis response response.
I just wanted to say that again. Crisis response. It's being proactive here.
Prevention and other service supporting students learning and well uh learning and well-being within educational settings. Nothing in this article shall be construed to authorize independent practice of clinical psychology outside the educational scope authorized and herein unless separately licensed pursuant to article 12 of this chapter.
This amendment uh Mr. speaker and colleagues um is to clarify that school psychologists provide educational and school-based psych psychological services and that nothing in this article authorized independent clinical psychology practice unless separately licensed under the existing Guam law. This amendment directly addresses concerns raised during the testimony and by the Guam um GBA regarding overlap between school psychology and clinical psychology licenses the Guam behavioral allied health that's the GBA um and that's what my amendment does it just simply clarifies it between the two >> on the amendment Starting from line 25 on page five, are there any discussions on the amendment?
>> Um, actually, Mr. Speaker, if I may, it it does continue. I just wanted to kind of bifrocate it so that it's clear because it there's just a simple renumbering underneath.
One minute recess.
>> Okay. Thank you.
legislation back from recess.
Colleagues, we're going to bifurcate this uh amendment um and deal with let start line 25 page 5 actually to to um insert subsection 12A1203.
Um the area of this amendment that shows 12 a 123206 will be dealt with at a in a later Okay.
So we're going to bifrocate this just we're just dealing with the language for 12A1203 scope and limitation of practice. Are there any any person wishing to speak on this?
It's just the first the first paragraph of the Any colleagues any senators wishing to speak on this amendment?
No senators wishing to speak on this amendment. You can >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for explaining to my colleagues that situation. I think it would be a lot easier as we move along to um uh just cut the two in half and and create it on as my uh last amendment.
So um that being said um I also like to include for this amendment that is being profered in front of us on the scope and limitation practice and to have clerks and legal to make any technical amendments necessary. I would like to add that too as well.
>> That's the amendment to the amend. Any any objections? No objections on the amendment.
Any objections? Any objections to the amendment? No objections. sorted. You can proceed.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, and then, uh, my third amendment, uh, which is on pa line five, page six, uh, to add a new 12A1204 in section two of the bill to read.
>> This is, as you can see, title protection.
And my amendment reads, "A person licensed under this article may use the title school psychologist or licensed school psychologist psychologist."
Period. Nothing in this article shall authorize a person licensed solely under this article to represent themsel as a clinical psychologist or otherwise engage in representations reserved to persons licensed under this article 12 of chapter of this chapter and for legal clerks and legal to make any uh technical amendments necessary and this bas this amendment uh Mr. speaker. It basically, you know, it's a clear title protection by clarifying that individuals licensed under this article uh may use the title school psychologists and licensed psychologists but may not represent themsel as a clinical psychologist.
We are dealing with department of education and we wanted to make that clear and separately uh and separate which those who are licensed under chapter 12 I mean article 12 of clinical psychologists you know has that prevy as long as they are licensed so this helps avoid public confusion and uh pres preserves the integrity of the Guam existing licensing framework Mr. Speaker and that's my amendment >> on the amendment on the amendment which is to uh add a new subsection 12A1204 title protection. Are there any discussions on the amendment? Gentle lady from um mam your recogniz uh I support this amendment and I I just I'm glad that it's actually being added to the bill. I think it's an added protection to all who are involved and because um because the bill in particular makes an exception to the qualifications of certain people. And so I think uh making very clear that we are not um that we are qualifying them for school psychology but not necessarily any other profession. So I appreciate this amendment. And I think it makes a bill better.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the amendment. On the amendment. Are there any other senators wishing to speak on the amendment? No other senators?
Senator Tidy, you want to close?
>> I'll wave. Thank you.
>> You wave. Closing. Are there any objections to this amendment? No objections to this amendment. So ordered. Senator Tidy, you still have the floor, ma'am.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, um I have another amendment. Um it's on page six. and uh it basically puts into play referral of services beyond authorized scope. This is added a new one 12A1205 in section two of the bill and this adds referral of services beyond authorized scope. A licensed school psychologist who identifies a pupil or student exhibiting severe psychiatric, psychological, emotional, or behavioral health conditions beyond the educational and school-based scope of practice authorized under this article shall make appropriate referrals to qualified licensed health care or behavioral health professionals for further evaluation.
diagnosis, treatment, and intervention as appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to inhibit a licensed school psychologist from providing crisis response, comma, school-based intervention, consultant consultation, behavioral support or coordination of services with the education educational setting settings pending referral of continuation of care.
Mr. speaker.
When we recognize a child in need, sometimes people just disregard it.
They're very quiet. They don't say anything.
With this provision, it ensures that our students who need the help at a higher level than just from school, that these referrals will be made.
It'll allow the school psychologists to continue to provide school-based support and crisis intervention services. It allows them to go further than just school to seek help for these students.
And we all know that the rate of suicide on this island is so high. And we see it happening in our schools all the time.
So, let's be proactive. It's require a proactive approach in this legislation and that's why we've included most especially this section into the law.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you, M. On the amendment to add a new section 12A1205 referral for services beyond authorized scope.
Any senators wishing to speak on the amendment? gentle lady from zona mam you're recognized >> again based on uh some of the very passionate testimony that we heard at this on the hearing on this bill I'm very glad the author put this uh in the the author of the amendment is proposing to put this in the bill because uh it did seem we are going to license school psychologist for a certain scope of work and this severe year um cases uh require a referral. So I'm very very glad uh they did have discussion about this and so I'm very glad that the this amendment is being proposed and I want to thank the sponsor of it for being very diligent about that uh so that um uh we we have the correct people dealing with the correct situations uh in these severe cases. So uh again very grateful to the author for their diligence. Susi >> thank you very much on the amendment.
On the amendment any other senators wishing to speak on the amendment no other senators. Senator Teddy you want to close? You want to wave? You want to >> I just this might not need just I mean I don't want to under categorize this particular amendment by waving my right on this one. It's just too important.
I hope that with this amendment, it would encourage not just the psychologists, but everyone who sees these children every day, teachers, custodians, back in my day, we called them parapros, but you know, the school aids that the administration of this school takes this into heart.
to train these individual workers at schools how to recognize a student who's in dire need, a depression that can take them to a place of very darkness.
And I hope that uh this particular measure does go through um this bill as a whole goes through so that we can give the the care and the time and the notice of these kids that we see you.
We see you.
Uh thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I ask my colleagues for their support.
>> Thank you very much. M Are there any objections to this amendment?
No objections to this amendment. So ordered. Senator Teddy, I think that as a result of this.
>> Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think you know without um you know cutting down trees, all we do is uh >> Yeah, we're just going to change the numbering.
>> Yes, >> that's it. Okay. So, if if I can, colleagues, um as I mentioned earlier, we bifrocated uh the first amendment.
Um, however, uh, you know, just to save a tree, all we're doing is changing the section where grandfather provisions is at on page five to 12A1206 now to be renumbered and of course to allow uh, legal the clerks and legal to make any technical amendments necessary.
And that's my amendment >> on that amendment. on the amendment is just in consideration for all the amendments that have just passed. We are now reordering reumbering subsection 12A1203 grandfather provision to now read 12A1206.
Are there any objections to that?
Okay, no objection to that. So ordered.
>> And lastly, Mr. speaker, if I may, um, just to thank my colleagues for their support of this measure and, uh, the author for making the changes uh, that she saw fit in here that was brought up during the public hearing. And I humbly ask for, um, the author to include me as a co-sponsor in this measure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill, on the bill, gentle lady and ranking member from Pago Bay, Mam, you're recognized.
Good afternoon uh Mr. Speaker and Duncalus Mossi for giving me the opportunity to speak on this measure. Before I do the testimony, I just want to say that as I look at this um proposal, which is uh this legislation 295-38, intends to establish a comprehensive uh lensure framework for school psychologists under the Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners, setting forth definitions, qualifications, and a grandfather provision for the current Guam uh Department of Ent Education uh psychologist.
Um I want to say that uh I rise in support of this measure uh Mr. Speaker because as we all know um school psychologists uh truly play an essential role in supporting students mental health and their academic success.
Um they are often among the um first professionals students encounter when facing struggles uh be it academic or real uh trauma in their um personal lives. Um Mr. Mr. Speaker, I want to share that through the public uh policy institute uh one of the many issues uh or one of the issues many interns uh consistently raised is the um growing uh concern uh surrounding um uh students and children's mental health in our schools and establishing a lensure standard for school psychologist is a a meaningful step toward uh strengthening these services and responding to what our students themselves are seeking for.
Um I also want to acknowledge um the good chair of health for um incorporating the suggestions from um Mr. Dr. Dennis uh Mohot who is the VP uh of behavioral health at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and as you know Mr. speaker and colleagues that Witchie has a very close relationship.
Um the Western Interstate Commission for higher education has been really involved in uh making opportunities uh for our students and those uh who want higher education. Uh I want to share with you uh Mr. speaker and colleagues that uh it was uh their recommendations uh Witchie's recommendations that helped strengthen the bill and ensure the framework reflects professional best practices while remaining practical uh for our workforce and that uh this measure uh Mr. speaker is an important important investment in both uh success and the overall health of our educational system and I uh respectfully support its passage and I ask my colleagues here in this august body to support this. I'm hoping that we can get a unanimous support uh for this message uh for this measure. And I want to thank the good author uh and uh the oversight chair on health for really taking the time to work closely with us and I asked her to be a part of this. I do have another measure that's um that's uh in the arena uh for the 38th and I just want to thank her for listening to me and and working in unison and I too I had asked her earlier if I could be a part of the co-sponsorship uh and more importantly to continue to work so to see how we can get more psychologist uh uh uh to our island and uh we've done a a lot of uh great efforts in working with witchy and I want to thank them for their expertise and their support and more importantly for giving the opportunity for our students who go to the universities in the west coast. there's 160 uh universities that which he works closely with and our students here on Guam are given the opportunity to to help uh uh assist in their scholarship and their education and and that's something that uh we know that those who really want to go off island we have a very good system here educational gem here uh in Guam at the University of Guam and the Guam Community College but which he has also played a very important part in working with those two uh educational entities and I just want to thank them for support and literally the oversight chair for being open-minded and and having their recommendations uh be placed in soi Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak and rise in support of this measure and I ask that we get a unanimous support on this samasi.
Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill as amended, gentleman from Talovo and then the gentleman from Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Bill 295-38.
This policy, I believe, represents a critical investment in the mental health and academic success of every child in our Guam public school system. This is not a procedural matter we can defer.
This is urgent. This is necessary. And this is the moment for all of us to act.
Studies show that students with access to properly licensed school psychologists demonstrate improved academic achievement, averaging 10 to 15% performance gains, particularly for struggling learners. Schools with these professionals report a 20 to 30% reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms and early intervention reduces dropout rates by 15 to 20% among at risk students. Mr. Speaker, I pursued a psychology degree in college because I believed in the power of understanding human behavior and mental health. During my time at Cal State Bakersfield, I interned at a child guidance clinic in the city because I wanted to translate that belief into practice to help young people navigate the challenges that can derail their futures. I sent three of my five children to Guam's public schools because I believed and still believe in this community and its commitment to their success. Bill 295-38 sits at the intersection of all three of those things for me today. Our students cannot wait. Guam is currently operating without a specific lensure framework for school psychologists. Meaning we have no assurance that the professionals serving our most vulnerable children have met rigorous nationally recognized qualifications. We are leaving our students mental health and academic futures to chance. But that clarity came through during our public hearing on April 8th, 2026. Mr. Speaker, other jurisdictions have moved forward.
National standards exist. The infrastructure is ready. Delaying this legislation means another school year, another cohort of students proceeds without proper professional protections and credentiing standards. Bill 295 is thoughtful legislation. It establishes clear evidence-based qualifications aligned with national standards. It requires rigorous graduate training, supervised practicum experience, and actual school settings. and also passage of the practis 2 examination.
Critically, it includes a grandfather provision which we have amended protecting current Guam department of education psychologist ensuring continuity of services during this important transition. The entire school psychologist workforce testified to that in that public hearing. They were all in our house. This bill recognizes both excellence and transition. It raises the bar, Mr. Speaker, while respecting those already serving our community. Our children deserve school psychologists who are properly trained, appropriately licensed, and held to the highest professional standards. They deserve the measurable benefits that evidence-based school psychology services provide.
better academics, better mental health, safer schools, and most importantly, better life outcomes. Mr. Speaker, our students are waiting for us to pass this bill 295. Our teachers need these partners. Our schools need this framework. Without this framework, we have no assurance, no professional standards, no accountability, no protection for Guam's students. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much, sir. On the bill as amended, gentleman from Timing, sir, you're recognized.
>> Sus Mosi, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly rise in full support of bill 295-38. I want to commend the author for her work on introduction of this bill, the markup and the amendments that have been included on the floor to this comprehensive framework uh for school psychologists.
Mr. Speaker, so much good dialogue has happened on the floor with regard to this bill. I thought I would be remiss not to share an experience of mine uh in my first uh foray or entrance into government service having been selected in 2003 as the director of the department of youth affairs.
Among the many things that I had to look into as becoming the director in terms of resources and programs and other things to work on at Department of Youth Affairs, one of the things that came to my attention during a transition report uh you know uh finding was that uh it should is very important that Department of Youth Affairs consider or not just consider but hire a staff psychologist at Department of Youth Affairs. prior to my time there, that had not been uh the standard. Now, that was in no way um a slight on the excellent counselors and case management workers and others that do excellent work and continue to do excellent work at Department of Youth Affairs. It was actually brought to my attention for the purposes of being and ensuring uh shielding from possible liability when it comes to the critical treatment of our clients in custody.
But what transformed from that in hiring Dr. Juan Rapotus was a transformation of the entire care system for our youth.
And beyond that, it wasn't just the issue of enhancing counseling case management. It was also a further understanding of the many reasons why our young people have difficulty at certain times of their life in terms of their uh mental fitness and different things that affect the way that their behavior acts out. Also, Mr. speaker in custody of course and and and confinement with youth uh at youth affairs of course you have the administration of medications and that includes even within our Guam public school system. So this reform really is is so critical for so many reasons. First and foremost, of course, being able to work with other staff within the school system to help our youth in crisis should that be the issue. Regular uh programs for counseling case management and also treatment regimens that really have the entire system understand a lot more of what's going on when there are behavioral issues with our young people.
you know, upgrading this standard and ensuring that that that this bill what it will bring in terms of its requirement and in terms of what it's calling for can can is really going to go a long way, Mr. speaker to enhancing our children in school whether they're just going about their day uh and their normal course uh through education but also in times of crisis having those professionals and a system in place that ensures those professionals and their lensure are commensurate for the job that they're supposed to do and the services they give our children is absolutely critical Mr. speaker and you um it was amazing to me to watch the case management transformation and how things changed for our young people and how a lot of people viewed the different reasons why some of our young people were in crisis other than maybe a propensity towards criminal behavior or or being a young person just not making wise decisions. There's so many other things a lot of times that go into behavior Mr. speaker and that's why this policy I believe is absolutely critical and will make a big change within our Guam public school system. I commend the author uh for the great work and all the members of the body who've enhanced this legislation and I kindly ask to be a co-sponsor as well. Mr. Speaker, >> thank you very much sir. On the bill as amended on the bill as amended general lady from Joy may be recognized.
So this bill does a couple things and the first thing that it does is it sets a standards that should be in place for schools. Our schools need school psychologists.
That's the standard across the nation.
We should have those in our schools. So this bill lays out what are the standards for to be deemed a school psychologist, a qualified licensed school psychologist on Guam. And if you read the standards that it puts in place, they're actually quite difficult.
You have to have a doctoral or a master's degree or uh an EDS uh education specialist in school psychology, which is higher than a master's degree. So uh and plus lots of other things including hours um minimum of 1,200 hours of uh training or practicum in the schools under the supervision of licensed psychologists, clinical psychologists etc. You have to pass the practice too. You have to demonstrate graduate level coursework in a whole list of areas that takes almost one page of the bill. So it's very difficult standards that we are setting for school psychologists on Guam and I think that's that's justified and uh that is going to benefit our students to have qualified school psychologists.
Uh unfortunately I think this bill might make it very difficult for GDOE to recruit such school psychologists uh because of the high um education standards. But not only that because you have to have had your practicum uh in a public school system or equivalent structured experience uh under one of these already licensed professionals. So, it's just, you know, one of those things that's uh going to be difficult, I think. And right now, apparently, they have not been able to recruit any school psychologists that meet this criteria except for maybe one, a GDOE.
Uh, one now because we're adding the words clinical psychology into into one of the degrees that uh that person's not qualified. Five of the only six across the schools that are deemed school psychologists uh before are were not necessarily um going to meet this criteria. So the second part of the bill or the other part of the bill that had a lot of discussion at the public hearing was this grandfather clause which is going to allow that every person who holds a position of district school psychologist, school psychologist or lead school psychologist with Guam DOE at the time of passage of this bill shall be deemed to hold a current valid license issued by the Guam Board of Allied health examiners. So, we're grandfathering those who are sitting in these positions at DOE to become licensed under Guam law by the licensing board. And this is an unusual situation.
Uh but we did hear at the at the hearing and I was kind of concerned about that.
Uh but we did hear at the hearing um just really how DOE has not been able to bring any in and some of the problem it seems to have stemmed from in 2022 when they redid the the hay study or they redid the salary structures at GDOE.
Uh the language for psychologists or persons getting paid under psychologist positions seems to prohibit anyone who is not a school psychologist.
So what they had previously filled these positions with very very experienced counselors of other um specialties uh would have been prohibited from keeping those positions. So this grandfather clause is to allow them with their years and years of experience to continue in these positions particularly now while we have no others. And so it doesn't seem to grandfather any or allow any other exceptions in the future except for immediately while there are no others and while um GDO is in great need and while they're actually serving in these positions under the GDOE position categories description.
Um so again there are only six across the schools. We heard a lot of testimony about what this position, the people in these positions especially because they care and because they are so experienced and able what they have done to actually help students. And so we want to continue that and um uh they will be now regulated under the Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners.
So, um I think our students are continue to be in good hands. I'm glad that we now have a way to hold everyone accountable for what they practice in these schools. We have kind of a uniform system of what will be deemed a school psychologist going forward. We have very high standards for that. in fact going forward and that and that we will not have a break in service for those students in our system today who are being serviced by only six counselors across the board a severe shortage. So um I I I will support this bill and uh I want to thank them all for their work. I want to thank uh the parents who have who have you know who it's their their children who have trusted us to ensure that there will be standards and have trusted these counselors to care when they can care for to treat to refer when necessary and uh all those things that uh needed in the school system and and really um parents are trusting that that is what's actually going to happen. So again uh I think all of the maybe five out of the six if not all of them came to the hearing that day who are currently practicing as school psychologists and I want to thank them again for all their work. They uh they really convinced me that um you know this grandfather clause would be safe and that um uh and GDOE officials also testified that uh they are in full support of this bill as is. Uh so I hope that they will be able to recruit what is needed in our schools. We need more right now. They said they have openings, vacancies that they've had for years. So, I hope that they will be able to recruit that GDE does not let this lie that they use every means available to recruit the psychologists that our schools need. As one of my colleagues said early on, uh this the issues that our children are facing are so severe. They are living in an environment that even we as adults sometimes don't know how to deal with.
It changes so fast. There's so much pressure. Pressure for things that harm them.
and uh all the support that we can give them uh all the suicide that we can prevent by putting these counselors in the school who are able to deal with that type of response.
I think that's better for our students, better for our community. So, Suzi, Mr. Speaker, >> thank you very much. M on the bill as amended. on the bill as amended. Are there any other senators who wish to speak on the bill as amended?
There are no other senators who wish to speak on the bill as amended. Senator Salis Batani, would you like to close?
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and and thank you to my colleagues, um, Senator Tidui for helping make the bill a better bill.
And I can tell you I just wanted to share because I recently right before I was going to introduce this bill, I attended a a youth summit that was uh hosted by the committee chair on education over at the Guam Museum. And I was on the healthc care panel and one of the questions from the students was about what are you guys going to do about uh mental health uh the mental health well-being of our of our youth?
And I talked to them and I told them, "We're actually working on on legislation to provide help."
And I shared with them a story about my goddaughter.
She was in middle school and she took her own life. She was one of those um silently struggling students that I um mentioned.
So, I humbly ask for everyone's support in passing this bill. I would uh like to make a motion to add uh co-sponsors, starting with um ranking member Tina Rose Barnes, followed by Senator Telot Tide, Sean Gumatau, as well as Senator Chris Twainus.
And if there is anyone else that would like to be a co-sponsor and Senator Jess Luhans, um, Senator Vince Warha and Senator Will Parkinson on the motion to add Senators Tina Rose, Muna Barnes, Telet, Shan Gumat, Chris Dues, Jesse Luhan, Vince Vincora and William Parkinson as co-sponsors.
Are there any objections?
Hearing see no objection. Motion carries.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to move uh bill 295-38 LS as amended on the floor to the voting file.
>> On that motion, are there any objections?
Okay. Are there any objections? Hearing see no objection. Motion carries.
Senator B, you have the next one.
Bill number 2302-38 CR. Senator Sbatani. Ma'am, you're recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move bill 302-38 COR as amended by the committee to the third reading file and discuss it. Bill 30238 is an act to amend subsection 12206.2, subsection 1226.3.4.5.6 6 and subsection 12207 of article 2 chapter 12 title 10 Guam code annotated as amended by public law 38-107 relative to strengthening lensure requirements expanding practice settings to include both public and private healthcare facilities mandating supervision and progressive assessment and updating enforcement provisions for internationally trained physicians.
You can proceed.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it's important that we start with something all of us in this session hall agrees on. Every one of us wants the same outcome. When a loved one gets sick, we want to be able to see a doctor. When someone needs a specialist, we want to receive we want them to receive care here on Guam instead of waiting months or forced to leave the island.
Again, this is not about politics. This is about people. Because behind this legislation are real people. It is the mother waiting months for an appointment. It is the patient sitting in an emergency room hoping a specialist is available. It is the family trying to figure out whether they need to spend thousands of dollars and leave Guam just to receive care.
And we know Guam has real healthc care shortages. Testimony during the public hearing confirmed Guam continues to face shortages in primary care and specialized services including areas like OBGYn care and stroke and neurosurgical coverage which continue contributing to delays and off island referrals.
That is why public law 38-107 was created. The goal was simple, bring more doctors to Guam.
I don't think anyone disagreed with that goal. But wanting to solve a problem and making sure we get the details right are two different things because healthc care is not like fixing a road or replacing a roof.
When we make mistakes in healthcare policy, those mistakes affect people's lives. And I think it's important that we remember how we got here in the first place because sometimes the issue is not where we are trying to go. It is how we got there.
The substitute version of bill 206, the version that ultimately became public law 38-107, never received its own public hearing.
While the original bill had a hearing, the substitute version substantially changed the legislation and changed the framework people were being asked to vote on. The original version had one pathway for foreign trained physicians to practice on Guam. The substitute version introduced a second pathway for internationally trained physicians to practice here. But physicians, specialists, hospitals, and healthcare stakeholders who would be directly impacted never had the opportunity to testify on the actual language that became law. Testimony later reflected concerns regarding transparency and whether the process had been sufficiently vetted.
And Mr. Speaker, that is significant because public hearings, as we are all aware of, are not simply a box that we check. That is where we listen. That is where experts tell us what works and what does not. That is where doctors tell us where problems may exist. That is where the people most affected by legislation finally get a voice.
As many of you know, I attempted to return the substitute bill back to committee so that the medical community could weigh in on the final version before it became law. That effort failed.
And after the bill became law, many of the concerns raised afterward were exactly the concerns people wanted the opportunity to discuss beforehand.
Patient safety, supervision requirements, implementation, oversight, and accountability.
That is why bill 302 exists. Bill 3022 does not close the door. Bill 302 does not stop internationally trained physicians from coming to Guam. Bill 302 simply says if we're going to move forward, let's make sure we build the strongest and safest system possible.
And I think it's important for people watching to understand exactly what this bill changes because this is more than a technical flaw in the public law. First bill 302 creates stronger supervision requirements. Instead of broad language, physicians entering through this pathway would be supervised by Guam licensed board-certified physicians practicing in the exact same specialty. So if someone is trained in cardiology, they are supervised by a cardiologist. If they are trained in surgery, they are supervised by a surgeon. Patients deserve to know they are being evaluated by professionals who understand that exact field of medicine. Second bill 302 creates ongoing assessments and evaluations. This is not simply bringing someone to Guam and saying good luck.
Physicians entering through this pathway are continuously monitored and evaluated to ensure competency and patient safety.
Third, bill 302 strengthens accountability and oversight. The bill updates reporting requirements and enforcement provisions so regulators have stronger tools to monitor compliance and intervene if issues arise. Fourth, it strengthens scope of practice protections. In simple terms, doctors practice within the field they are trained and qualified in, not outside of it. Fifth, bill 302 expands practice settings to include both public and private healthc care facilities. And colleagues, I think this point is important because healthcare in Guam does not happen only in government medical facilities. Patients do not become public patients or private patients when they get sick. People simply become patients. Some receive care at GMH. Some receive care at GRMC.
Some receive care at private clinics.
Some receive care at public health community healthcare centers. Some receive specialty care elsewhere. The reality is our health care system works because both sectors work together.
During the public hearing, testimony raised concerns that allowing private facilities to participate could somehow weaken oversight. But testimony also provided another perspective. Physicians who have worked in both public and private healthcare settings explain that private facilities often maintain extremely strong oversight because patients safety and liability are directly tied to their operations. One physician testified that private facilities closely monitor performance and act quickly when concerns arise because they simply cannot afford patient safety issues. And Bill 302 does not simply throw the doors open. Any facility, whether public or private, must prove there is a legitimate need before bringing in an internationally trained physician. They must demonstrate there are not enough qualified physicians available to fill that position already. So this is not about special treatment. This is not about lowering standards. This is about recognizing reality. If our goal is truly increasing access to care for our people, then we should not artificially divide healthcare into separate lanes when patients across Guam rely on both systems every single day.
I also met in person and through Zoom with physicians and healthcare stakeholders including Guam Regional Medical City, 7th Day Adventist Clinic, FHB Health Center, American Medical Center, the Guam Board of Medical Examiners, physicians from both public and private sectors, and representatives from the Governor's Office. Many of the amendments before us today came directly from those conversations. I also want to recognize Dr. Jonathan Thorp from SDA and others in the medical community whose recommendations help strengthen portions of this legislation through stronger competency standards, specialty specific experience requirements, and clear supervision safeguards.
Colleagues, this bill is not about saying anyone was wrong. This bill is about saying we listened. We listened when physicians raised concerns. We listened when hospitals raised concerns.
We listened when health care professionals asked us for stronger safeguards and we acted because bringing more doctors to Guam matters but patient safety matters too and we should never have to choose one over the other. We can increase access to health care while also strengthening standards, accountability and patient protections. That is what Bill 302 does.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask for your support as well as the support of my colleagues. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill, gentle lady from Pago Bay, Ranking Member Ma'am, you're recognized.
>> Um, Cis Masi, u Mr. speaker for giving me the opportunity to rise and speak in uh support of bill uh 302-38 co as amended by the committee on health and veterans affairs. Mr. Speaker, I want to share that I support this measure because it maintains strong patient safety standards while helping address uh Guam's uh physician shortage. Um, this bill requires uh internationally trained physicians to successfully pass the United States medical licensing examination which is the USMLE and practice under the supervision of a Guamlicicensed boardcertified physician in the same spe specialty. Uh these safeguards help ensure that qualified doctors can contribute to our health care system while maintaining standards of care for our community.
Mr. Speaker, um we're going to continue to try and do our very best to make sure that medical care and affordability of medical care is there for our community.
Having to to train doctors and to want to come home sometimes is not an easy task because the opportunities out there are are are so much greater and bigger.
And we've had the opportunity, Mr. speaker to even work closely with our our island nations and um that Guam has been afforded the opportunity to travel to. We look at St. boots. We look at uh Taiwan. We look at uh four or five different medical facilities in Taiwan, several facilities in the PI.
But what about the opportunity for bringing all those kind of specialties here?
We look at the program that we're trying to implement too with the professional student exchange program with the barata act that was signed into law that would give students the opportunity to go to school get get the resources but on a condition that they come home because barata means to return right to come home and work here and any opportunity that we can do to help out is key to bringing medical care to our islands.
So, I stand and rise in support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good uh author um for bringing this measure up. I um know that that it's not always easy, right? When you come in to something where uh maybe the industry can get a little bit territorial, but I think if you look at the bigger picture and look about what we can do for all the people on Guam, not just the interested, I think that this is a win-win. Um this measure is a win-win.
So I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this and share some perspective on what Guam is already doing and hoping we can do more to bring more professional medical care uh to our people. So um thank you again for uh letting me share my support in this measure samasi.
>> Thank you very much ma'am. On the bill gentleman from town will say you're recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to rise in support of Bill 302-38.
Our rules in our branch are examined through many lenses by members of this body, our legal council, and others throughout our government and beyond. The changes in this particular policy are necessary.
They mark this legislaturator's continued commitment to support the health care needs of all of our people.
I do not view this policy as a private versus public health care matter. This policy speaks to the people the providers serve, the patient, the taxpayer, all of us.
Bill 302 represents both an urgent necessity and a fundamental correction to what I would call an incomplete process. This policy is not simply about amending public law 38107.
I voted against the substituted version signed off by the executive because of the lack of transparency. It is about restoring credibility to our physician lensure framework when Guam's health care system cannot afford delays. We face a physician shortage that threatens quality healthc care delivery to each and every resident. The legislative findings in this bill reflect real gaps in our provider network growing more acute each month. Yet, public law 38-107 was enacted without meaningful input, in my opinion, from those who know our health care system best, our practicing physicians. Mr. Speaker, consider this sobering fact. Only seven of approximately 500 licensed physicians in Guam provided input on Bill 302. This is not a limitation to accept. It is a wake-up call. These seven physicians represent the most influential and respected voices in Guam's healthc care community for over three decades. They include hospital administrators, specialists, educators, and leaders of our Guam Board of Medical Examiners.
These are not peripheral voices. They are at the center of our healthc care infrastructure. Directing hospitals, training residents, setting clinical standards, overseeing licensing.
When such concentrated medical expertise comprises the entire physician perspective on licensing law, we must ask what is the credibility of a law governing the profession of those we did not meaningfully consult?
Substantive changes to policy here require a public hearing and we did that on May 5th, 2026. And the answer is clear and bill 302-38 acknowledges it directly. This gap in consultation creates a credibility problem that cannot be ignored. Bill 302-38 corrects it by doing what public law 38-107 should have incor in incorporating proven safeguards expanding flexibility and strengthening our framework based on expertise from those who actually practice medicine. During the last regular session, I was grateful to learn at the time that healthcare leaders and policy makers across the executive and our legislative branches were working on a policy proposal together to expand and ultimately strengthen health care for all our families right here at home. Mr. Speaker, I also made it clear that because the executive branch expressed a willingness to collaborate with our branch on a unified approach in developing pathways for foreign trained physicians to work in Guam, I commented that we ought to allow some time before moving forward with a separate but relevant policy to bring that measure over the finish line. I urge this body to move forward carefully and with due regard to good work that was put forward up until that very moment. And that moment was March 26th, 2026.
Nearly two months after we are nowhere closer today than we were on March 26th, 2026 to implementing a policy many of us here two months ago thought had to be passed ASAP.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of Bill 302 are sound policy. provisional licensing with mandatory supervision by board certified physicians, robust assessment aligned with ACGME standards and critical expansion to both public and private healthc care facilities. This expansion is time-sensitive.
We cannot limit physician resources to government facilities when private providers stand ready right now to serve our island community. The implementation window is narrow. Every month we delay.
Patients face longer waits. the staffing issues at the Guam Memorial Hospital, Guam Public Health, Guam Behavioral Health, all of the clinics, specialist shortages, routine off- island referrals. These demand our action now, not next year. Bill 302-38 is common sense. It reflects our most experienced physicians input and many beyond that core group. It corrects the consultation deficit that undermined public law 38-107's foundation with safety guard rails befitting any licensing board, not just Guam, Mr. Speaker, but in the United States of America. Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.
>> You're very welcome. On the bill, on the bill, gentle lady from Timony, you're recognized.
Seduce Masi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to bill 302-38.
Colleagues, let's be honest about what this debate is really about.
Supporters of this bill argue that public law 38-107 is discriminatory, that the ITP pathway is unsafe and puts patients in danger, that private clinics were unfairly left out, and that the ITP provisions were added deceptively without proper public input.
Mr. Mr. Speaker, those arguments do not hold up when you actually look at the law that was passed by this legislature and signed by the governor. Public law 38-107 created two separate pathways serving two different purposes.
That's what everybody's ears are closed up to.
That's what the bill does.
Two separate pathways serving two different purposes.
The FMG or the foreign medical graduates pathway already allows qualified foreign medical graduates to practice in both the private and the public health care settings. This pathway already exists.
So you have to ask yourself why all of the sudden then we get a couple doctors who've had the opportunity to fill their clinics with foreign doctors are complaining now that's been there for over a decade.
the FMGS were just codified. Secondly, in that law that actually had more than just two doctors to come and testify on the bill on the ITP.
We had the foreign medical uh board of directors. We had the Guam Medical Board. We had doctors. And this was taking months and months.
Bill 302 had a public hearing on May 5th and the committee report on May 8th and not one of the recommendations by the agencies, the Guam Medical Board nor Dr. Thorp was put into the bill. It sounds to me like only two doctors created this bill and that was it.
The ITP pathway which was germanine and included into the bill was intentionally designed differently because it serves a different purpose.
It was created as a structured governmentbased pathway focused on addressing shortage shortages at GH at public health and other government supported health care facilities.
where there are there is centralized oversight, supervision and accountability and patient protections already in place.
This was meant for the public sector because we lack the physicians there.
And when I asked in the public hearing, Dr. Sheay, do you think the more majority of people on this island can uh afford a private doctor? And he said yes. And that's when all the texts were flooding in to my offices, flooding into friends, people calling me up and saying, "I can't believe he said something like that, that we can all afford a private doctor."
That's exactly why we incorporated a second pathway. So don't mislead anyone here by saying that the bill that was passed recently is only for the public.
No, there's a pathway for the private sector as well.
This is not discrimination. This is responsible policy. And frankly, Mr. Speaker, the ITP pathway under public law 38-107 was already the more restrictive and controlled pathway.
It already limited practice settings.
It already required supervision and oversight. It already operated under centralized accountability. Meanwhile, the FMG, the second pathway already provided broader practice authority and flexibility for private clinics.
But now, Bill 302 makes the ITP pathway even more restrictive through additional technical requirements and operational barriers. That may sound good politically, but will absolutely discourage physicians from coming to Guam.
And that is why we need to rethink this bill because now you don't think doctors are not paying attention to what's going on. Foreign doctors are not paying attention.
We are a small island already struggling to recruit doctors. Why are we making this harder? And for who? For who?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk honestly about what this pathway was designed to serve.
The ITP pathway was created to privatize Guam's medically underserved population.
medically underserved populations, the patients who rely on GMH, public health, the community clinics because they do not have the luxury of private health care or off island treatment.
GMH cannot turn patients away, Mr. Speaker. Public health cannot turn patients away.
They take everyone, the uninsured, the underserved, the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, and families who cannot afford to fly to the mainland or to St. Luke's for care.
Those are the people this pathway was written for. My colleagues, that public law was meant for those individuals.
When people say the law is unfair, I ask who is it unfair for? Who?
Because what is truly unfair is putting more barriers in front of medically undeserved underserved patients who are already struggling to access care.
What is truly discriminatory is creating unnecessary restrictions to discourage discourage physicians from coming to Guam while our people continue to suffer without access to treatment.
Let's stop pretending private clinics are somehow shut out.
If the goal is private practice authority, If the goal is private practice authority, the FMG pathway already exists. Qualified physicians can already practice in the private setting under current law. There is a pathway for the private sector.
So this argument that private health care was excluded is simply misleading.
Mr. Speaker, after the public hearing, they demanded what did Sorry, this is Mr. Speaker, after the public hearing, they demanded.
What did we actually hear, though? We heard that the Guan Medical Board of Examiners, public health, the physicians directly involved in developing implementing this pathway, and that the testimony overwhelmingly supported preserving our current framework allowing the law to operate. first before making major structural changes.
Dr. Berg testified that the pathways was initially designed as controlled phase approach with centralized oversight.
Now, another argument began pushed another argument being pushed is that public law 38107 references a subsection that does not exist.
Mr. Speaker, that is a technical drafting area error.
And I can correct, it can be corrected without dismantling the entire framework of the law that was created to help the underserved, to help the poor, to help GH, public health, Guam behavioral, to recruit physicians for those people who cannot afford private doctors.
Mr. Speaker, we were elected to serve all our people, not just those with deep pockets or the ability to leave the island for care. The ITP pathway in public law 38107 was incorporated to help the people most at risk of suffering, living in pain or dying simply because they cannot afford private care or off island treatment.
And that's who the who this prioritizes families.
The voices of the majority and the reason we are elected to fight for are those individuals that the public law that was recently passed was for private sector already has a pathway.
Colleagues, >> so that being said, I strongly oppose.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I strongly oppose and implore my colleagues to remember and vote no on a bill that now is just going to discourage doctors and just bring no help to the people who need it today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much. On the bill, gentleman from Epensa, you're recognized.
So, does Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and uh uh speak on the bill, uh I I kind of want to start with uh a little testimony from uh Dr. Nathaniel Berg, who um actually was kind of shocked to see I agree with him. I don't even think I voted for his nomination.
Uh but we are definitely on the same page uh with this uh bill. Uh Dr. Berg uh writes of the ITP uh pathway for uh public uh hospitals and he in his testimony he says the level of integrated multi-layered oversight cannot be reproduced in private practice settings.
Private facilities do not operate under legislative or executive branch supervision, and they don't provide the same centralized structure for continuous monitoring, peerreview, and administrative accountability, even with additional statutory requirements.
Oversight in a private setting would not be able to duplicate the existing standardized multi-level process at GMHA.
The result would be less immediate and more difficult to enforce consistently across multiple independent entities.
The presence of multiple supervising physicians layered departmental review and executive level oversight within a single system is a defining feature of the current model and is not realistically transferable uh to private uh practice. Uh Mr. Speaker, and I think it's important to note that uh public law 38 uh 107 uh which we passed here in this body is a pilot program.
So in essence that public law uh for lack of a better term ser serves as almost like a guinea pig practice with the intention of implementing widening the program further on down the road when we figure out what works. And this was in the testimony from the department of public health and social services. Mr. Speaker, they wrote about preserving the pilot integrity and patient safety. Public Law 38107 was meticulously designed as a controlled service-based pathway. Its current structure limits practice to government funding facilities, ensuring a high level of institutional oversight and standardized supervision.
Guam does not yet have a time-tested assessment framework for this new pathway. By maintaining the current government-based restriction, the board can iterate and refine competency standards in a controlled environment.
DPHSS further writes that uh the current law 38107 requires physicians to pass step three as an objective measure of clinical readiness. Transitioning to private practice after only two years without meeting this benchmark as suggested in this bill would bypass a critical nationally recognized safeguard for patient safety.
In their testimony, they further write about protecting public investment as the current framework ensures that the government of Guam receives ROI. I know that's a popular term with some of my conservative colleagues. ROI, return on investment, Mr. Speaker, uh for the administrative and clinical burden of onboarding and supervising these physicians. Allowing an early transition to private practice risks a revolving door effect where the government bears the cost of development only to lose the provider precisely when they become most clinically effective.
Dr. uh Berg writes further and I I think this kind of goes in line with the points that one of the retiring uh speaker uh had raised about um this bill looking like it was born out of the efforts of just a couple uh doctors very influential uh doctors. Uh Dr. Berg writes, "Expanion into private practice would also have structural implications for the healthcare market. Larger organizations with greater resources would be positioned to participate while smaller and solo practices would not." And one thing I respect about this testimony is Dr. Berg writes that he could stand to benefit from this bill because he manages and operates a large private healthc care entity.
He writes, "Expanion of the program into private practice could create financial advantages for organizations positioned to participate." And again, my dear people, the organization's position to participate are the biggest of the big uh clinics, including Dr. Berg's own clinic. He writes, "I've considered that carefully. My position is that those considerations should not outweigh the importance of maintaining a system that prioritizes safety, proper supervision, and responsible implementation."
For that reason, Dr. Berg writes, "He cannot support the proposed expansion at this time." So, Mr. Speaker, I mean, it's pretty clear to see I'm not a doctor. I don't have the medical expertise or the clinical expertise or even the managerial expertise to run a clinic. So, that's why I use the words of another doctor. And as we uh debated the bill that uh is under fire, the public law that's under fire in here 38107, uh there was a lot of discussion about a substitute uh bill being placed onto the agenda. Uh Mr. Speaker, as you know, that's something that happens just about every session.
Just about every session, someone will come in with a substitute version of a bill, and again, it's the will of a majority of the members of the body uh to accept that uh legislation. And I think the real story here, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, is that access access to the legislature, access to the lawmakers, when it's something that's going to help the people of Guam, it sits on the back burner.
But when people who stand to benefit, who stand to profit need something done.
Laned the the ink wasn't even done, wasn't even dry on the governor's signature of this bill, and already they introduced another bill, had a public hearing, wham bam, thank you, spam, done in within the space of a week.
Meanwhile, so many other pressing issues go unressed.
so many other pressing needs don't have access to senators.
They're not able to to WhatsApp senators, to call senators while we're in here in session to influence senators.
And I'm not saying that my colleagues shouldn't be accessible to these interests. I'm just saying be fair and provide that same access to the people of Guam Susia. Mr. Speaker, >> thank you very much, sir. On the bill, gentleman from sir, you're recognized.
>> Susi, Mr. Speaker, it's been an interesting conversation on the floor today. I rise in full support of Bill 302-38 and wanted to address some of the comments on the floor particularly pertaining to this government only or government and private sector access.
you know, yes, doctors, other professionals, other people who watch legislation do oftentimes chime in.
And it's interesting on this one because doctors in this instance were obviously well-known doctors and prominent doctors were on opposite ends on this issue particularly and let's just call it because they were the primary ones in the public hearing for 302-38.
Dr. Berg, Dr. Wen, Dr. shame.
All of them I had productive text with and have for many years and continue to because they are subject matter experts in the health field.
I particularly enjoyed my back and forth with Dr. Berg whom we ended up with.
Democracy is great. Nice working with you. We'll see what the future holds for any amendments going forward to the current public law.
And I think that's absolutely productive. But what is very clear is that there is a disparity at this point under the current public law.
To try to say that there's not is just simply not true.
One of the quotes I think is one of the most powerful ones from Dr. Sheay is can go Guam provide health care for the entire island of Guam without the private sector. If the answer is no, then Bill 302 must be supported to include the private sector. We must learn from the pandemic and the private sector stepped up and stayed open to help alleviate GH from the crowded situation. We must learn from the last two typhoons when public health closed. It was the private sector who opened for patients.
Mr. Speaker, I read in the paper today and I hope this works out well because it's relative to how we're talking about public and private health particularly as discussed by Dr. SH in the pandemic that there is a motion to mediation for the issue brought by AMC against the government for discrimination and non-proper payment under the emergency health powers act for which they provided over $2 million worth of services and haven't been compensated for when their clinics were basically commandeered uh to provide services. But what I want to note about that again because sometimes on this floor we forget as we sometimes want to talk about doctors and successful business people and others. Some of us have a little bit of a problem with it I think sometimes.
But we forget, we forget the kind of work that they actually do outside of having a profession that they worked hard to get to where they are to be a doctor or a business person or whatever else. that those people are the same people that not only pay dearly in taxes but give freely of their time often times to help this community and will step up at any time.
They're not villains, Mr. Speaker.
They're people who love this community.
In fact, one of them is running for office to try to bring his medical care expertise to the people of Guam. But getting back to the core of what we're talking about here, Mr. Speaker, the private sector doctors actually believe they have equal to or better supervision of what this program contemplates in bringing physicians to Guam who are not otherwise licensed in the US and certified by the US medical standards.
So to kind of say that it actually is liable for us to include the private sector, create liability perhaps.
You know, it's interesting because the government when it comes to claims has a threshold.
private sector and others they have a lot of risk.
I think that they do a great job in terms of ensuring their medical practice and I think they would continue to do a great job to ensure that their supervision in the specialty which with with which has to be the same discipline which was one of the key things that Bill 302 amends is critical in my humble opinion.
Yes, the government continues to need doctors in the specialty care.
I believe there's close to 200 doctors that either serve or practice or actually are licensed to practice or absolutely serve at the hospital to include tele medicine and the like. So there's a lot of physicians to provide care to our people. It's the specialties is where we start to get into the area of course exactly why and what our people need.
We know Mr. Speaker that most of our people that leave island generally don't leave island for primary care.
They leave island when they cannot get the services of cancer treatment of major surgery such as cardiac surgery and others that are very complicated and we don't have the population base to have those specialties at this time serving our island.
So, Mr. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the author once again for the work on this bill because just like the prior bill and the work that she's done on the legislation she does, she's very diligent.
She works hard. This bill was done in collaboration for with others also who run large clinics particularly for women's care. Dr. Thorp, the 7-day Adventist group, they concur.
They concur not only being able to avail of the program, but they concur with the amendments that have been put in bill 302-38.
Mr. Speaker, I voted to place the prior bill back into committee for a public hearing. It didn't preclude me from voting on the bill on the floor. Even though that had failed, I see an opportunity to continue to collaborate because truth be told, this bill 30238 enhances the current public law and takes care of some deficiencies that clearly exist.
I just don't see why we cannot come to a point where we agree that the private sector and the public sector will both gain and most especially the people of Guam will both gain by having this passed into law and let the medical community continue to work through this and work it out.
Even Dr. Ber when he said what he said on the record said, you know, I I do see it at some point.
Well, why not now?
Why not work to make it happen now?
We know that in the last couple of months I believe there's probably been some movement but with the passage of this bill into law I don't see why the complimentary factor to what is already public law cannot make things better make it stronger and provide better opportunities for our people in both the public and private setting. For that reason Mr. Speaker, I support bill 30238 and I ask my colleagues to please join Suzi.
>> Thank you very much. On the bill. On the bill. Are there any senators wishing to speak on the bill?
Gentle lady from you, you're recognized.
It's quite a dilemma we're in.
uh when the bill was trying to expand access to service on Guam and uh created two pathways also uh created a special pathway for doctors to work in the public health care settings on Guam including specifically GMH public health.
uh the private doctors want that pathway to be available to them as well in addition to the other pathway and of course we can see why that's no fault of theirs that's that's fine and I think uh we heard from the testimony that uh that may be available uh depending on how this goes. According to Dr. He said uh that the board had been working with the federation of state medical boards which is the national authority on physician lensure and regulation and their leadership senior regulatory and legal experts with extensive experience in legislative design worked to help structure the approach for Guam. Their recommendation was clear according to Dr. B implementation should proceed in a controlled manner within the public system with expansion considered only after sufficient experience and data have been obtained.
The current proposal departs from that guidance by accelerating the program into a more complex and less controlled environment. So that's really what we're debating here. And uh you know both sides give reasons why we should depart from that advice from the experts nationally.
And um but I I pay particular attention to other parts of the debate. Um where this the current law it gives what you might call an advantage to GH to hire through this track foreign licensed professionals.
Yes, it gives them an advantage and it gives a um that's where they're going to do the trial, right, that Dr. Berg describes. That's where they're going to do this period of uh close supervision, observation, and uh data and then decide whether to expand or not to everyone to all clinics.
But when they talked about why should we begin with GH Dr. Berg said according to national standards again the United States Department of Health and Human Services they no longer characterize Guam as a primary care physician shortage area. I found that very interesting. The designation uh does not mean Guam has enough physicians.
Additional providers would clearly benefit the community. What it reflects is that private sector has demonstrated the ability to recruit and retain primary care providers through ordinary means whereas the Guam Mara Hospital Authority has not. Determinations regarding staffing within the public system are made locally and it is clear that GMHA continues to face significant challenges in maintaining adequate physician coverage. Policy efforts should therefore remain directed toward addressing that need within the public system where the recruitment gap is most acute and where the program was designed to have its greatest impact. So the recruitment gap is acute at GH and conversely the services that GH are mandated to survive to provide are all of them. They have no luxury of saying no to pregnant women. They have no luxury of saying no to anything that they don't want to handle. They must handle all of them. And thus we must recruit all types of doctors at GH. That is our duty or we get really at the mercy of uh of anyone saying no. And we've seen this we've seen this play out on Guam.
and and as some of the previous speakers talked about um all the doctors would probably benefit from having such a program to recruit additional doctors for their clinics.
Uh but again Dr. Sabio who's works at in a private clinic and at GH he also said while some may assert that private institutions serve all patients irrespective of financial capacity the reality is that ultimate responsibility rests with GMH. GMH consistently serves the majority of uninsured and socially complex patients. a fact clearly reflected in daily census. The obligation places a strain on resources contributing to ongoing funding, staffing, and infrastructure challenges.
Uh we're 36 million short for the next budget year. In contrast, now you can imagine if GRMC went up to their creditors and said, "Hey, you know, we're 36 million in the hole. Can you give us more money?" You won't see that happening. and private institutions retain the discretion to limit patient volume, case complexity, service offerings, and payer mix. GH does not have that luxury. It serves all who comes through its doors. The government has both constitutional responsibility to promote general welfare and the authority to allocate resources in a manner that corrects market imbalances and regional disparities.
He goes on to say uh the risk undermining the government's ability if the if the bill pass this bill passes the risk they risk undermining the government's ability to attract and retain highly qualified foreign trained physicians. Public sector challenges include limited funding, aging facilities, outdated equipment already place the government institutions at a competitive disadvantage. Further limitations would only exacerbate these issues. Moreover, such amendments could inadvertently position government institutions as a training ground or pipeline for private clinics where physicians are recruited after undergoing rigorous credentiing and peer review within the public system.
And this would result in a net loss of government services, health services.
It's it's similar to the arguments that we have in in paying for scholarships for critically necessary positions in the public sector such as nurses and not being able in the end to recruit the nurses to the Guam Memorial Hospital.
We have to find pathways to bring these people to Guam Maro Hospital. Period.
And uh I support that we study this. I I mean I'm I'm I support taking the federal experts recommendations on it for a limited time instituting it at GH. In fact, they they are very very cautious in the original law to institute this and uh and then I'm hoping they will see they will work through all the kinks they're able to do it and we will see if GH has been able to keep these doctors or not. But to do this bill right now removes G any ability for GH to compete.
And so I guess you know yes we want doctors everywhere but when we have a mandate as a government that we are going to provide services that other clinics and hospitals can deny we must provide those services.
and we've put money towards recruitment.
We've put policy changes that they can set salaries and different things up there to try to boost their recruitment efforts. We've done scholarships, but it's we need more. And so this was one means really of boosting GH. Yes.
So, while they all um disagree that we should do that and that GMH should compete normally with all the other clinics on Guam, I think we should try it for a period of time and see if truly GMH can recruit. I do agree with some of the other suggestions such as, you know, maybe we make it a longer uh like a a path for permanency versus strictly a time period and then that's done. But there were other things in the bill. Well, I I really wanted to find out why they were removed. There were other protections in the bill that are so all the parts where they're changing it from only GH or public health to all doctors or clinics on Guam. I see that. But there were also parts of this bill that said that started to remove things like uh no license shall serve as a basis for endorsement, reciprocity or conversion to a full and unrestricted license under this chapter. So they are now removing all those restrictions and opening this up pretty much for full lensure.
And this is contrary to the recommendation again of the the federal the federation of state medical boards that has been working with Guam to implement this statute mas.
>> Thank you very much ma'am. on the bill.
On the bill. Are there any senators wishing to speak on the bill?
No other senators.
Senator Sis Matsini, would you like to close?
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And um I really wish the retiring speaker actually attended the public hearing on this bill so she could uh understand and ask questions to the medical community um that were present and sat there for several hours.
>> Mr. Speaker, >> um she is not recognized. I have the floor.
>> It's a point of professional privilege.
I need to be able to recognize it. Go ahead.
Yes, I do understand what they said. I can read the transcripts. I can watch the hearings. I have no problem understanding what was said and if she could understand my arguments against the bill, maybe that would be appropriate. Mr. Speaker, >> thank you.
>> You can.
>> I do understand her arguments, but again, I was just pointing out that if she had technical questions, she could have attended the public hearing as well as another speaker who was who was uh speaking out against the bill for several hours.
>> Personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that she had make any disparaging remarks towards you. Ma'am, >> nothing I said was disparaging. I didn't have any technical questions either, Mr. Speaker. Okay.
>> Thank you. Okay, we can proceed.
>> You can proceed, Senator S.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Um, I did want to point out because there were several things that were said and I just want to make sure the people who are watching understand again how we got here. Uh, we were in session. I want to say it was in March when the substit initial bill 206 uh was up for discussion.
A substitute bill was presented to the body around 10:30 at night and not everybody got a chance to thoroughly vet it. But we had asked the author of the original bill, was this vetted by the medical community?
and we understood that it was and it was moved to the voting file. No public hearing was held on the substitute version. The initial version created a pathway, one pathway for foreign medical graduates. When it was substituted, another pathway was introduced, the internationally trained physicians pathway. It was a bill from the governor merged into the original version of substitute, excuse me, bill 206 and again became substitute bill 206. So there were two pathways. One pathway had a public hearing. The other one did not.
So when we came into session the next day, I tried to move it back to the committee to allow for a public hearing to be held.
But apparently there was this huge rush that we have to get it passed. I I I don't know why when it wouldn't become law immediately. We wouldn't implement it immediately because it takes several months just to stand up the rules and regulations.
Afterwards, I got so many calls about the bill. I was accessible because that's what I'm supposed to be. I'm answering to the public, to constituents.
I don't know what's wrong with that.
Maybe some senators should be more accessible or participate in public hearings so they can hear from the people of Guam, especially on a bill like this, Bill 302.
If you truly truly cared, you would have been there and you would have sat there like I did and several other senators instead of coming here and complaining and making accusations and insinuations.
And also point of clarification, Dr. Thor from SDA, we did incorporate his amendments, a majority of them into this bill. We also incorporated amendments from the department of public health and social services who requested that we extended the timeline for the rules and regulations to be uh completed. It went from I believe it was 90 days in my bill to 120 days based on their recommendation.
And again, this bill was in collaboration with SDA, FHP, GRMC, AMC.
Yes, Dr. Tom Sheay also provided input.
This isn't something that I did on my own because I am not a doctor. So, what did I do? I got input from physicians.
I was accessible.
So again, Mr. Speaker, I humbly ask for your support as well as a support from my colleagues on the passage of Bill 302, which had a public hearing, which underwent full public scrutiny.
I move uh bill 302. I motion to move move bill 302 to the uh vote voting file. Point of point of information, Mr. Speaker.
>> I waited.
>> What's your point of information? Point of information is that just so that everybody knows and especially those who are listening that >> um ma'am the point of information as I articulated >> isn't that supposed to be a question I'm sorry I'm I can't hear you can you speak >> point of information as I articulated earlier according to our standing rules is an inquiry of information not a not a not providing information it's you're asking for information >> okay um then Mr. Mr. Speaker, if I may because when I put out my press release, I want to make it sure it's clear. So my inquiry is my query is she mentioned the author of the legislation said that nobody had an opportunity to review the bill that was submitted to my colleagues as substituted with both pathways in until 10:30 when because I I did submit it by 12:00 in the afternoon. What's the inquiry?
>> So that's my inquiry.
>> Did was your inquiry that everybody received the bill? What's your inquiry?
>> Well, my inquiry is because of the comment that was made. Uh the inquiry is that did not nobody here did not receive the uh substituted bill 206 >> and noted that that's my inquiry uh at 12:00 in the afternoon before it was voted on in the evening. So that was my inquiry.
>> Thank you. So noted we are there's a motion before us to to move the bill to third reading. There is an objection.
And all those in favor of moving the bill 302 to the third reading, please indicate by raising your hand. 1 2 3 4.
Motion passes.
Next bill.
Bill number 253-38 CR.
Senator Tailay.
I need to turn the boat.
One minute. Recess.
Sorry.
Legend is back from recess. Senator Tailay ma'am, you have the floor on bill 253-38.
Suzus Mossi like to make a motion to place bill number 253-38 COR as amended by the committee on land environment housing agriculture parks and infrastructure to the third reading and I'd like to speak on that motion.
>> Can you go and please read the title?
>> Yes. This is an act to add a new section 47113 to chapter 47 title 10 Guam code annotated relative to prohibiting and deterring seabed mining in the waters of Guam and the surrounding sea.
You can proceed.
So I want to thank first of all the committee for having the hearing on this bill and uh accepting uh some changes that were re recommended at that hearing uh into this amended version of the bill. So uh there were some changes made to the um legislative intent. There is a a provision added as recommended by the department of a that uh to define territorial marine waters. There is also uh a recommendation made that prior written notification is given and no objection is issued by the department of eggs for those exceptions.
And then there was uh another recommendation accepted in the amended version of the bill that that says the usage of Guam's ports, harbors, anchorages, and territorial waters as staging, supply or logistics bases for any vessel engaged in or contracted to engage in seabed mining operations in adjacent federal or international waters are prohibited unless authorized by both the government of Guam and the relevant federal authority following full consultation with the Department of Egg and affected communities.
And um the final recommendation that was accepted into this amended version is uh a empowering the port authority of Guam to act upon reasonable belief based on credible information obtained from any source uh and empowering department of a as well to require vessel operators seeking entry to certify compliance with this law. and then there's a penalty for violations.
So again, uh Susi to the sponsor, I mean to the committee chair for including those changes. And I want to thank uh all those who came to testify on this bill. And there were many uh community uh community support against seabed mining and the waters surrounding the Marianas and Guam is uh I think very clear and um uh it's it's it's unified. We're unified in this manner.
seabed mining. According to all the testimony on this and prior resolutions across the world, they show that seabed mining activities pose a significant risk of irreversible harm, including habitat destruction, sediment plumes, long-term destruction of deep sea ecosystems.
And Bow has now proposed to double the size of the area to be mined to now cover both sides of the Mariana's Island archipelago to come closer to Guam with their mining and to move it faster and to move it without any consultation with the governor or anyone really on Guam.
Those are really alarming movements and I think uh our community response really really should be as elevated as possible.
Um again, so our agencies including the University of Guam, Center for Ian Sustainability, uh EPSCORE, Department of A, EPA, they've really all stepped up and submitted very very strong opposition and testimony to help us all to oppose this as well.
So, this measure will take a a very proactive stance against uh the deep sea mining that they claim to be allowed to do because it's just outside of Guam's waters. So, we are pre prohibiting activity here in Guam that supports any of that activity. And it's a little bit uh indirect, but this is something that other states have done, including Hawaii, California, Oregon, the states along the western coast of the United States because of the critical damage that they recognize as well that could be imposed, including economic damages. I think for Guam, everybody concurs. These would be catastrophic.
Catastrophic beyond any cat catastrophe we have seen.
Irreparable meaning we cannot come back from it.
No money will bring us back from the loss of our ecosystems and our and that that's economics, let alone our way of life, our ability to call Guam home. We think we have an exodus now.
There will be no reason to stay on Guam if they are allowed to do this.
It will impact our cultural way of life.
It will impact traditional practices that we have actually carried on for thousands of years.
It will impact tourism.
I think the the impacts of that actually have not been put in writing.
They've only been speculated.
But what in our advertisements of what Guam is is going to be true without an ocean ecosystem that supports life.
Even Hawaii has tried to do this and they're all standing firm in these laws to ban seabed mining in their waters and to ban activity within their land and their waters that support seabed mining in any of the area surrounding.
So again, uh it's a hard topic to talk about if you really want to be uh thorough because there's so much to say, so destructive. But thankfully we've had so many in our community step up courageous, smart, and trying on all fronts to fight this, including with the federal government, including international under international law, including locally, including regionally.
And I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support this ban, to stand united, and to do more. We have to do much, much more because look, when we contributed 60,000 comments in regards to them mining just one side of the Mariana Archipelago, they didn't blink. They doubled that.
And then they doubled down on the speed in which they were going to proceed with licenses. And then they doubled down with any further public input which I believe the governor and everyone has requested.
They have not promised none.
So I ask my colleagues to stand united in this measure but to to think of ways to do more all kinds of ways. And I want to thank again these agencies that have stepped forth with recommendations that have stepped forth uh with backup science for us to rely on with predictions from around the world that we can rely on. I want to thank our neighboring countries, nations like Palao who have banned this way ahead of us because they could see that they were coming for our waters just on a very uh you know local level.
Sometimes we feel un you know our fishermen face such challenges already restrictions.
Our families face food shortages already.
Our economy faces such challenges already.
hard for us to attract tourists to a beautiful, beautiful island with a beautiful culture while we are being bombarded with disasters beyond our control.
This one is in the control of the United States.
We must do all we can to stop it.
And I believe we can. We should not lose hope. We should just give it everything we've got. So again thank you to my colleagues uh in advance for their support of this susi.
>> Thank you very much ma'am.
>> On bill number 253-38 co are there any of the senators wishing to speak? Gentle lady from the morning me recognized sus moi. Mr. Speaker and uh Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of bill 253-38 co. Uh the threat that deep sea mining possesses in our to our people is so significant and I will and it will totally have farreaching effects and consequences that will ripple not just across the island but our region.
And this will go on for generations.
This year, the people of Guam renewed their call, Mr. Speaker, for a moratorum on deep sea mining with resolution 132-38 and condemned Boom's intention to set up mining operations near Guam and the CNI.
Despite this outpour from our community and our government, Boom has nearly doubled the area now of interest.
Backed by this administration's executive order, the president's executive order to initiate deep sea mining off American shores. Boom pushes forward without any form of accountability to the people that this will directly impact.
Though our voices have fallen upon deaf ears, we are not without power in this situation. Bill 253-38 will prohibit the use of Guam's ports, harbors, and the territorial waters as staging supplies or logistics based for any vessel engaged in or contract to engage in deep sea mining in adjacent federal or international waters.
If we cannot influence the direction of the national policy with our authority as a body and as representatives of our people, we will deny Boom and any of its federal partners and contractors from using our shores against our best interest.
And I hope and pray that our brothers in the CNMI are also considering this same legislation and are already in the process of creating legislation for themsel that reflects bill 253-38.
So, I stand in full support as well as the the um stand in full support of the letter that was written where this body as well as the other executive bodies have signed in support of banning deep sea mining in our area.
So, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that and signing that letter.
And uh I thank most especially Senator Chilahi for authoring this important piece of legislation. Colleagues, I urge you to also rise in strong support of this bill 253-38.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill, on the measure. Any other senators wishing to speak on the measure?
Gentle lady from Pago Bay, ranking member, you are recognized. Not you, Chris, her.
Masi. Um, Mr. speaker for giving me the opportunity to rise and speak in support of this measure and thank the good uh senator from Jonia for putting this legislation together and and as I support this measure. Uh I want to note that in December uh the leadership of Guam was invited to come together to talk about this and really the the collaboration and the coming together of every single leader on this island of Guam saying before we can do anything you have to give proof. You have to you have to find out what the impacts are. You have to find out what is really going to what the effects are.
And in that effort, when you get 65,000 comments coming up in a very short time to saying we're an opposition and the leaders in America are not listening. Where do we go from here?
What do we need to do? What do we need to say to get our voices heard?
When you look at the background, Mr. Speaker, that deep sea mining has not happened anywhere on a commercial level.
So many of its impacts on the environment, ecosystem, biodiversity are still unknown.
We still need to look and inquire about the baseline data before we can even understand how this deep sea mining might affect our own oceans.
Our own oceans, Mr. Speaker, that is the livelihood and the food chain sustainability for our people here.
We know and it was stated that deep sea mining technologies are still under development by startups. their technologies are not yet proven or at a scale to successfully and safely extract minerals. Mr. Speaker, we are at a meeting maybe a couple of months ago and the experts and the scientists that were here when we had that meeting at the Guam museum at the Guam Museum had told us that whatever is touched the recovery time for that area to come back to normal or to where it is today will take years even decades and decades for for it to just come back to normal.
I don't know, Mr. Speaker, as I look at what we've been blessed with, the oceans that surround us, you know, I had a really good friend, president for that matter, say to me, "Though the waters in this region didn't separate us. It's through our similarities of culture and understanding that bind us together as one.
I say, Mr. speaker that until we get proven data that could help us or support us, you can't and you should not touch what we've been blessed with.
There's so much more out there that needs to come together from all the leaders around not just this region but even around the world on what can we do, what can what will happen. We don't even have to look far about how our island of Guam is being hit.
by the typhos and the earthquakes because of what man made technologies that some you know some are good some are not good at all and this is one piece of legislation that I'm my heart, my mind tells me that if I don't support this, I would be doing an injustice to our community.
Mr. Speaker, we literally import over 90ome% of our commodities that come here to survive and to live.
For generations, we were blessed with an ocean that surv supported our livelihood and our food sustainability.
We should not touch what is vital to to us to survive because somebody wants to take what's there for their own personal gain. I don't think so. I can go on and on. There's so much information that's being provided as I speak now of my e techn modern technology will tell you that there's so much that we can receive in seconds and everything that's coming in right now is telling me that this bill is very important to show the people of the world that we cannot we cannot have people come in and touch our waters and that and the waters and the oceans that surround us here.
So yes, Mr. Speaker, I will stand and rise in support of this measure and until somebody can prove me differently until technology can be shared that will not hurt or take away from our people. And if there is financial support out there that will do that, it will benefit Guam to its fullest and not hurt anybody else.
especially as we look at our generations to come. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in support of this measure and really ask the author of this bill to see if I can be included.
My daughter, but I support the efforts, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much, ma'am. On the bill.
On the bill. Any other senators wishing to speak on the bill?
No.
wishing to speak on gentleman from EP recognized >> Mr. Speaker and Buenes again to the people of Guam and thank you for the opportunity to rise uh in strong support of this uh measure really want to commend the author for her leadership on this issue when uh news of the federal government's uh desire to pill for our oceans broke on Guam when all of the leaders were uh dealing with the emotions and responding to the information. It was the leadership of uh the author of this bill that united the people's house, united senators on both sides of the aisle to speak in unison, to speak in one voice, to communicate to the federal government with our resolution that we do not consent to deep sea mining.
Kalenfugo, you know, we all unite like that and we we defend Guam as one. It's a good lesson on so many other different issues that our our island and our people face.
So when Boem came back and and doubled the area that they want to deep sea mine in.
It was again Senator Turahi's leadership through this bill when many of us were wondering what could we do.
Could we do anything?
It was the author's leadership that put this bill through and really kind of did the only thing we're able to do in terms of amending our local laws to allow the Port Authority of Guam to delay or deny vessels having anything to do with deep sea mining from docking in our waters to disallow the issuance of permits associated with deep sea mining. These are real tangible things that we can do to our laws to hopefully not delay but deter deep sea mining in its entirety.
I think it's a it's a signal to our representative in the Congress.
introduce a bill truly protect our waters and do it with the colleague from the NMI with this measure, Mr. Speaker, and the resolution that we have passed.
Outside of advocacy and activism and and continued dedication to fighting this issue of deep sea mining, I'm not sure there's there's much else we could do to amend the laws on our books.
And so again, I just rise in support and commend the gentle lady from Ja for her leadership on this issue, for providing real tangible uh solutions and actions that uh we as a a people of Guam can support and use to fight this threat not just to our oceans but to our very way of life.
Mr. Speaker, >> thank you very much. on the bill. On the bill. Any other senators wishing to speak on the bill? No other senators?
Senator Tailay, you won't close.
Again, uh I'm grateful that the body allowed this bill to be put on the agenda, although it wasn't originally on the agenda because I do believe it's urgent and I believe we have to act consistently that this is urgent and one of our number one priorities and that we are going to stay united on it because any any dent in that I believe will have even worse repercussions. And the repercussions we've already heard are irreversible, catastrophic in many, many ways.
I want to thank before I forget all the nonprofits and all the individuals who really have led us in so much of this.
They have been ahead of us on these issues. Senator Paris did this a couple years ago and I just want to thank all of them because in my mind that was so far away, not going to happen to us.
And now we are seeing what all islands believed that would not happen to them such as American Samoa, TiMai and Guam. The reality has really flipped.
We cannot afford petty arguments over anything.
I was out there protesting one day because I say we resort to every means.
I wanted bow to know that it's not just a few individuals on Guam, but it's everyone on Guam who opposes this.
They need to see and feel that all the way over there.
Every member of Congress needs to know that they are the ones who can control this, who can stop them, who can make an exception like has been made in certain places according to Carla Leonerero and former senator adviser to the governor on this issue.
And that's what I think we should get at the very least an exception to the US policy to allow this mining in our area.
We should stand by international efforts to put a moratorum on seabed mining because of the impacts to islands like ours. We should back up our neighbors in every way possible.
And I was trying to get my mind around 69.1 million acres. That's what they want.
69.1 million acres to to dig up in our oceans as close as 46 miles. So, we know that Guam is 30 miles long and they want to dig 46 miles off of that. Very, very close.
Guam apparently is 130 acres. No, Guam is 130,000 acres.
So I tried to use that to imagine what 69 million acres might look like and I couldn't.
That's 530 Guams.
279 billion square meters.
530 Guams. That's the size of the ocean that they want to explore 46 miles from us. Not explore.
mine 69 million acres surrounding the Mariana Archipelago is 52.27 million American football fields.
It's massive.
Even if they did one acre, I think we would feel the impacts. Maybe if they did a 100 acres or a thousand or even one million, but they want to do 69 million acres, 46 miles off of Guam and off of every island in the Mariana Archipelago.
So, none of us none of us is going to be spared.
Not a single industry on Guam will be spared.
And we're while we're trying to paint buildings in Tuman, our oceans will not sustain life.
So again, I urge my colleagues for their support. I again thank the entire community for their strong stance and their leadership in this regard. No to see mining. No, Mr. Speaker.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Oh, you to allow me, Mr. Speaker, to add co-sponsors. Yeah. I' I'd like to motion um Senator Muna Barnes, any other senators, all the senators present who would like to be sponsors? Uh I I'd like to add them and I'd hope that they'd support this. Senator Parkinson, Senator Sabrina, Senator T's already on here. Um so any other senators that would like situs mossi, Mr. Speaker, >> are there any senators in this chamber that do not want to be sponsors? You don't want to be SP. Okay.
Okay.
>> I'm sorry. There was a question if there is anyone who does not want to be >> if there are any senators that do not want to be sponsors. There is one.
>> There is one. Yes.
>> Who's who is that, Mr. Speaker?
>> I will name the senators that in the hall that are going to be sponsors.
Okay.
>> And third reading file.
>> First first the first motion. Okay. Um, there was a motion to place Senators Tina Rose Muna Barnes, Senator Will Parkinson, Senator Sabrina Sas Matanani, Senator Chris Dyes, and myself as co-sponsors to the to the bill. Are there any objections to that?
No objections. Ordered.
>> Susi, Mr. speaker and colleagues and thank you also to the original sponsors, Senator Paris, Senator Barnett, Senator Titigu, Senator Calvo, and Senator San Augustine as well. Uh, with that, I'd like to renew my motion that this bill, as amended, be placed on third reading.
>> On the motion on the motion to place bill number 253-38 CO as amended by the committee and further amended on the floor to the third reading. Are there any objections?
No objections. I don't think so. So ordered.
Okay, colleagues, we've exhausted all all our bills and so um according to the clerks, we will be able to be a to vote on the on on the bills um tomorrow morning. So we're going to go ahead and recess until 11:00 a.m.
tomorrow morning. 11 a.m. tomorrow for Okay. for voting. All right. 11 11:00 a.m. Okay. So now we stand in recess.
相关推荐
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
