Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
This bill adds a new section to Title 14 authorizing automatic appropriations as necessary to continue pay and benefits for Coast Guard military members, certain civilian employees, and certain contract employees during a Coast Guard-specific funding lapse. It defines what constitutes a Coast Guard-specific funding lapse, sets when the authority terminates, and directs that the Anti-Deficiency Act apply with several enumerated exceptions.
Scope: liberals see broad protection; conservatives want military-only coverage.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted substantive change—authorizing sums as necessary to continue Coast Guard pay and certain benefits during a defined 'Coast Guard‑specific funding lapse'—and integrates that change into title 14 with relevant definitions and a termination rule.
This bill adds a new section to Title 14 authorizing automatic appropriations as necessary to continue pay and benefits for Coast Guard military members, certain civilian employees, and certain contract employees during a Coast Guard-specific funding lapse.
It defines what constitutes a Coast Guard-specific funding lapse, sets when the authority terminates, and directs that the Anti-Deficiency Act apply with several enumerated exceptions.
The Commandant must determine which civilian and contract workers qualify for continued pay under the statute.
Modest chance: narrow and sympathetic but raises separation-of-appropriations and precedent concerns; Senate procedure and political tradeoffs are key uncertainties.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted substantive change—authorizing sums as necessary to continue Coast Guard pay and certain benefits during a defined 'Coast Guard‑specific funding lapse'—and integrates that change into title 14 with relevant definitions and a termination rule. However, it provides limited procedural, fiscal, and oversight detail.
Scope: liberals see broad protection; conservatives want military-only coverage.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope: liberals see broad protection; conservatives want military-only coverage.
Generally supportive: protects Coast Guard personnel from suffering pay interruptions during appropriations gaps.
Views the bill as a targeted, practical safeguard for service members and supporting workers.
Cautiously supportive: appreciates protecting pay and readiness but cautious about the precedent of continuing automatic appropriations.
Seeks safeguards, clear limits, and cost transparency.
Skeptical or opposed: sees this as an expansion of executive spending authority that could erode congressional appropriations power.
May accept narrow protections for active-duty pay only, but resists broader automatic spending.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest chance: narrow and sympathetic but raises separation-of-appropriations and precedent concerns; Senate procedure and political tradeoffs are key uncertainties.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope: liberals see broad protection; conservatives want military-only coverage.
Modest chance: narrow and sympathetic but raises separation-of-appropriations and precedent concerns; Senate procedure and political tradeo…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a targeted substantive change—authorizing sums as necessary to continue Coast Guard pay and certain benefits during a defined 'Coast Guard‑specific fu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.