S 140 Amendments Accepted by House – CG Authorization

Yesterday the House accepted the Senate amendments to S 140 that effectively turned that bill into the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018. The action was taken on a voice vote. A similar voice vote was taken on S. Con. Res. 51 to officially change the enrollment of S 140 to reflect the change in purpose of the bill. The Senate amendments were considered under the suspension of the rules process with limited debate and no floor amendments.

Typically, we see very limited ‘debate’ on bills considered under suspension of the rules; a couple of people from both sides of the aisle praising the bipartisan effort to craft and pass the bill. The S 140 debate yesterday was something of an exception to that process. There was some opposition expressed to §834 of the bill that reinstates the fire safety exemption for the Delta Queen (starting with Rep. Garamendi on page H 9648). It was not enough debate to derail (or significantly slow) passage of the bill, but it was an actual policy discussion.

Senate Passes S 140 – 2018 CG Authorization

Yesterday the Senate adopted substitute language (S Amendment 4054) for S 140 which changed that bill to the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act. The new version of this bill is basically a reorganization of the sections of the US Code that are applicable to the Coast Guard. Most of it is way over my head, but it will certainly mess with the way people will reference sections of the code that they have been working with for years.

There are two sections that caught my attention:

§ 514. Backup national timing system [pg S6849]; and

§ 602. Maritime Security Advisory Committees [pgS6853]

Section 514 looks very much like S 2220, the National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2017. Like that bill it would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a land-based alternative to the GPS timing signal generally based upon the old LORAN navigation system.

Section 602 would completely rewrite 46 USC 70112, the current authorizing language for both national and local MSACs. I do not follow the CG real closely, but the changes do not appear to be significant.

The revised bill goes back to the House. It is possible that the bill could be dealt with under the same unanimous consent process that was used earlier this week for HR 3359. It depends on if there are any controversial measures buried in the revised Senate language. It does not look like it from the way the bill slipped through the Senate.