Technical corrections only. The differences between v3 and v4 are limited to procedural headers indicating the bill's passage in the House and referral to the Senate, along with the specific name of the House Clerk. There are no substantive policy changes to the bill's text.
To direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to update the policy of the Coast Guard regarding the use of medication to treat drug overdose, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. McDowell, Addison [R-NC-6]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 2351 aims to enhance the Coast Guard's ability to respond to opioid overdoses by mandating the availability of life-saving medication, improving data tracking, and ensuring congressional oversight.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to update its policy within one year to ensure medication like naloxone is available on all Coast Guard installations and in every operational environment to treat drug overdoses, including opioid and fentanyl overdoses. It also mandates Coast Guard participation in a federal tracking system for overdose incidents, requires an inter-agency agreement with the Department of Defense, and calls for a congressional briefing on the policy's implementation and substance abuse trends within the Coast Guard. Additionally, it makes technical amendments to existing law regarding controlled substances on vessels.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a critical and timely measure to protect Coast Guard members and personnel from the escalating opioid crisis, including accidental fentanyl exposure, by ensuring immediate access to life-saving medication like naloxone. They emphasize the importance of preparedness across all operational environments and installations, and the value of data tracking for developing effective substance abuse mitigation strategies and ensuring accountability.
Opponents contend
While direct opposition to providing life-saving medication is rare, potential concerns might include the administrative burdens and costs associated with procuring and distributing naloxone across all Coast Guard facilities and operational units, as well as the resources required for training, participating in a new tracking system, and inter-agency coordination. Some might also argue that existing policies are sufficient or that the focus should be more on prevention rather than treatment, though these are typically minor compared to the public health benefits.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any interested reader to comprehend its provisions quickly.
Section 1, amending Section 70503(a) of title 46, United States Code
Clarification of Controlled Substance Offenses on Vessels
This section makes technical amendments to existing federal law concerning controlled substances on 'covered vessels.' It clarifies and slightly broadens the scope of prohibitions related to manufacturing, distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or placing controlled substances on board such vessels. It also reaffirms the illegality of possessing or using controlled substances while on board a covered vessel.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue this amendment strengthens and clarifies existing law, making it more effective in combating drug trafficking and abuse on vessels, thereby enhancing maritime safety and security and providing clearer guidance for enforcement.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against technical clarifications of existing law, especially when aimed at combating illegal drug activities and enhancing maritime security.
Tradeoffs
This provision primarily aims for clarity and enforcement effectiveness, with minimal inherent tradeoffs beyond ensuring legal precision in combating illegal activities.
Section 2(a) and (b)
Mandate for Naloxone Policy Update and Availability
This provision directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to update its policy within one year to explicitly include the use of medication like naloxone to treat drug overdoses, specifically those involving opioids and fentanyl. The updated policy must ensure that naloxone or other similar medication is readily available to Coast Guard members on all Coast Guard installations and in every operational environment, ensuring a rapid response capability.
Section 2(c) and (d)
Coast Guard Participation in Overdose Tracking System and Inter-agency MOU
This section requires the Commandant to ensure the Coast Guard participates in a federal tracking system for overdose incidents, which was established under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. This participation must occur within one year of the bill's enactment or the system's establishment. Concurrently, it mandates that the Secretary of the department overseeing the Coast Guard (typically Homeland Security) and the Secretary of Defense finalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate the Coast Guard's access to this tracking system.
Section 2(e)
Congressional Briefing on Overdose Response and Substance Use
This provision requires the Commandant of the Coast Guard to provide a briefing to relevant House and Senate committees within two years of the bill's enactment. The briefing must cover the Coast Guard's use of naloxone and other opioids, progress on the updated overdose policy, the prevalence of illegal substance use (especially fentanyl) within the Coast Guard over the preceding five years, mitigation processes, and the status of the inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding.
This subsection provides a 'Rule of Construction' clarifying that for Coast Guard installations comprised of multiple facilities or units, naloxone or similar medication available at a single facility within that installation is considered available to all units, provided appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure access at all times during operations.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide clarifying language or exceptions that might otherwise be overlooked or misinterpreted in implementation. It aims to ensure practical and efficient implementation rather than being evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision offers necessary flexibility for the Coast Guard to implement the availability requirement efficiently, avoiding redundant stocking of medication at every single small unit within a larger installation, while still ensuring timely access through centralized arrangements.
Case against: Critics might argue that this 'rule of construction' could be interpreted to allow for less immediate access to naloxone in some sub-facilities if 'appropriate arrangements' are not rigorously defined and enforced, potentially undermining the intent of universal and rapid availability.
Estimated impact: Potentially reduces logistical burden and cost for the Coast Guard by allowing for centralized distribution within larger installations, while aiming to maintain a reasonable standard of access for all personnel.