Can anybody make any sense of this at all?

the USCG can’t maintain their ships to ABS standards? WTF?

[B]Administration opposes Coast Guard bill[/B]

By Pamela Glass
5/8/2014

The Obama administration is urging the Senate to reject a House-passed Coast Guard Authorization Bill, saying the legislation would weaken federal marine safety programs and increase costs to the Coast Guard.

In an April 17 letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Brian de Vallance, acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said the administration “strongly opposes” the House bill and urges the Senate to delete many aspects of that proposal.

“The bill would sharply increase the cost of shipping emergency food aid, potentially denying relief to more than 2 million persons in need annually,” he wrote. “Additionally, it would degrade federal marine safety regimes, increase risks within the maritime operational environment, and both increase the Coast Guard’s operating costs and prevent the service from realizing planned savings.”

Also, the letter said, the bill fails to include other Coast Guard legislative initiatives that are “critical to the Coast Guard’s response capacity.”

De Vallance says the Senate should strike the following provisions from the bill:

A requirement that the Coast Guard Commandant maintain vessels to American Bureau of Shipping classification even after delivery. “Based on past experience, this requirement would increase costs by more than $10 million annually and could delay the ability of the Coast Guard to repair vessels when they suffer certain casualties.”

A requirement that bars the use of Coast Guard vessels and aircraft to carry out international ice patrols unless the U.S. collects reimbursements for certain ice patrol-related costs that are performed. “If this had been in effect in fiscal year 2013, it would have placed some 94 million tons of commercial activity (including 3 million tons related to U.S.-flagged vessels) at risk in order to complete the collection of about $3 million that the U.S. government has temporarily elected not to collect from its allies. In the end, the risk could trigger an increase in Coast Guard search and rescue activities — operations that the United States would be obliged to provide that are more dangerous than the patrols themselves.”

A requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security exempt certain passenger vessels in the Virgin Island from  U.S. law so long as these vessels are in compliance with the safety regime of the United Kingdom. The administration raises the possibility of an “adverse impact” on vessel and passenger safety.

A requirement that Homeland Security, at the request of the owner or operator of an offshore supply vessel, delegate the certificate-of-inspection authorities to the very classification society that is in the vessel owner’s or operator’s direct employ. “Such a requirement would create a conflict of interest and the possibility of harm to lives and property.”

A requirement that 75 percent of all food aid be transported on U.S.-flagged ships, up from 50 percent under current law.  “This would increase costs of shipping food aid by about $75 million or more, funding that would otherwise allow more than 2 million people  — mainly those in emergency food crises  — to receive life-saving food.”

A permanent exemption for small commercial vessels of less than 75 feet in length from having to obtain permits from the Clean Water Act to discharge substances that are incidental to their normal operations. “The administration believes that discharges from small commercial vessels and fishing vessels pose the risk of an adverse cumulative effect on the waters of the United States.”

The letter also outlines other areas of concern, including provisions that would change the way the navigability of waterways is determined, require the Coast Guard to establish an exhaustive inventory of all its property and stop the Coast Guard from dismantling Long Range Navigation (LORAN-C) infrastructure.

Additionally, the administration wants to change how the Coast Guard would issue mariner licenses to veterans wanting to take jobs in the maritime industry. The House bill would allow the Coast Guard to issue a license to any applicant who has at least three months of qualifying service on military vessels within the 7-year period immediately before the date of application, regardless of the applicant’s veteran status. The administration wants to amend this language to apply to applicants who are former armed service members and who have at least five months of qualifying service within the previous five years before date of application. “The administration strongly believes that limiting the applicant pool to former military members and narrowing the recency requirements are in the best interest of maritime safety.”

The House passed the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 in April, and the administration’s letter is an attempt to influence the Democratic-controlled Senate as it develops its version of the legislation.

There are several no brainers in there. I don’t understand their opposition to this.

Is this a backdoor opening to USCG unlimited vessels next, (there really will be a need for the new GoM DP ticket)
the USCG’s 99grt measurement will henceforth just be called a ‘99’ so as not to confuse you that the vessel is 400ft long but only 99grt
things are looking up for the bayou boat builders

10 million more to do what any Normal vessel operator already does?

[QUOTE=z-drive;138488]10 million more to do what any Normal vessel operator already does?[/QUOTE]

I don’t know if the USCG is being painfully cheap or if they are saying they aren’t capable to maintaining the vessels to class

I also am not happy that the Administration is still trying to gut carrying at least some AID cargoes on US ships

[QUOTE=c.captain;138494]I don’t know if the USCG is being painfully cheap or if they are saying they aren’t capable to maintaining the vessels to class[/QUOTE]

I think that dumping class makes sense. Fair enough that the boats are built to IACS standards as far as possible but they are “public vessels” and don’t carry passengers or cargo for hire. They are military vessels doing military and “sekurity” work so let them do what they need to. It saves us money in the long run since class is absurdly expensive for small boats.

I also am not happy that the Administration is still trying to gut carrying at least some AID cargoes on US ships

I am very very unhappy to see the treasonous bastards trying to pull that off to please the scumbags who fatten their bank accounts with “campaign contributions.” The administration should be screaming bloody murder about a whole fleet of MARAD ships sitting idle instead of carrying government cargoes. They claim that American mariners are needed but they do everything they can to make sure none exist and those who saved their lousy ass in WW2 are cheated out of what they were promised. If money is so tight, maybe we should hire congress crooks from SE Asia or someplace where they are cheaper. Equally crooked but they work a lot cheaper and can save enough to go home and live like royalty instead of sucking up a taxpayer funded uber pension after a couple of years of thievery and living like royalty here.

I have no problem if they don’t keep them in class but don’t say they won’t be able to maintain them to class standards Which is how it sounds.

[QUOTE=z-drive;138506]I have no problem if they don’t keep them in class but don’t say they won’t be able to maintain them to class standards Which is how it sounds.[/QUOTE]

I read it as they don’t want to pay the costs to keep the surveys up to date. They go to civilian yards where the work is or can be done to class rules, it just has to be written in the contract. That doesn’t cost anything more except when it comes to buying certain equipment and obtaining certs for some stuff but paying a surveyor to show up and poke around is very expensive. There is nothing over the top in class rules except Bubba can’t use old coat hangers for welding rod and the yard can’t use wire from Home Depot or fill pitted plates with Bondo.

It sounds like a big part of the issue is that the CG doesn’t want to have to pay a surveyor to fly to Port Bumfukistan to sign off on the overspeed trip of a generator they had to fix under a palm tree. Can’t say as I blame them.

I wish there was a huge outrage about the “administration” trying to kill off what little remains of the USMM so some stockbroker can cream a couple more bucks off a dying cow. Maybe it’s time to have the MARAD administrator follow that sleazebag VA scumbag into obscurity. The shame is they would/will probably be back in DC in a couple of weeks as high priced lobbyists.

[QUOTE=Steamer;138515]It sounds like a big part of the issue is that the CG doesn’t want to have to pay a surveyor to fly to Port Bumfukistan to sign off on the overspeed trip of a generator they had to fix under a palm tree.[/QUOTE]

Port Bumfukistan? Is that near New Iberia?

I little further south past Abbeville.

You’re close. That would be Freshwater City.

of course, it is not just the Administration that wants to reduce the mandate to use US flagged vessels to transport AID cargoes. Good ol Senator Bob Corker, a great hater of labor, wants to completely gut it!

[B]U.S. Senators Set New Bid for Food Aid Overhaul[/B]

By Patricia Zengerle June 3, 2014

WASHINGTON, June 3 (Reuters) – Two U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation on Tuesday to end U.S. restrictions on international food aid programs, which they said would free up hundreds of millions of dollars per year and get aid to some 9 million more hungry people around the world.

U.S. Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, chairman of the Africa subcommittee, introduced the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014.

President Barack Obama’s administration has been pushing to overhaul the $1.4 billion U.S. food aid program for years. But his efforts have faced stiff resistance, especially from U.S. shipping companies that say they would cost jobs.

The program is restricted by laws requiring that most food be produced in the United States rather than purchased locally, which means it can cost more and take months to reach needy people, often arriving too late to be of much help in case of famine or disaster.

Half must also be transported on U.S. vessels, which can take months and double the cost. That restriction was loosened two years ago. Before 2012, three-quarters of all food aid had to be sent on U.S. ships.

“At a time when our budget is strained and U.S. resources are limited, Congress needs to find ways to be more efficient and effective with every dollar,” Corker said in a statement.

Coons said the reforms in the legislation had strong bipartisan support. They are generally favored by international aid organizations.

The bill would allow both U.S. and locally or regionally procured commodities, vouchers or cash transfers to be used for aid, depending on which is the most cost-effective option.

Backers of the measure said the effect on U.S. agriculture would be small, noting that U.S. food aid contributed only 0.86 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports from 2002-2011 and just 1.41 percent of net farm income.

The bill also would allow the U.S. Agency for International Development to ship food on whatever vessels were readily available. Studies have shown that the U.S. cargo preference requirement resulted in aid shipping at rates 46 percent higher than competitive market rates.

The bill also would end “monetization,” a requirement that 15 percent of all U.S.-donated food be sold first by aid organizations, producing cash that would fund development projects.

Sponsors of the legislation said eliminating monetization would save 25 cents out of every taxpayer dollar spent, and could feed 800,000 more people and free some $30 million per year.

The measure would also transfer current food aid authorities from the farm bill – a giant package governing U.S. agriculture – to the Foreign Assistance Act.

We all know that Corker hates American labor but WTF is up with this Chris Coons?

[QUOTE=c.captain;138560]

We all know that Corker hates American labor but WTF is up with this Chris Coons?[/QUOTE]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-aid-or-trade-the-nefarious-effects-of-u-s-policies/5357204

The cash Coons gets from the poultry industry isn’t chicken feed … Chicken prices are at record lows and he is looking for ways to repay his “contributors” for their support. He is just another of the scumbags who will sell American jobs and national security for a few dollars in his retirement account.*

  • While F’ing up the economy of the country that receives this “aid.” The whole deal with non-emergency food assistance is a farm lobby scam anyway. The same lobby that works so hard to repearl the Jones Act so they can ship their crap around for nothing and put another few tens of thousands of their customers on food stamps. None of these congressional criminals ever talk about those hidden subsidies and welfare to their corporate handlers.

[QUOTE=c.captain;138521]Port Bumfukistan? [/QUOTE]

Think it’s my cadet shipping MSC assignment.