Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Clarification Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, first, as the prime sponsor of this legislation, let me thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and the talented staff on the Education and the Workforce Committee for their leadership and guidance in bringing forth this bipartisan piece of legislation.

This is a project that has been bipartisan from the start, and I think it is unfortunate that my colleague, although speaking in favor of the bill, has chosen to stray from the bipartisan commentary that we should be working together on this legislation.

The bill before us, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, would reinstate the intent of Congress to ensure that workers in the recreational marine repair industry have adequate workers' compensation coverage. That is the crux of the matter that is before us.

In 2009, Congress passed section 803 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which expanded an existing exception that allowed more recreational marine repair workers to receive workers' compensation coverage under State law, rather than under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. This was necessary because repair workers were simply not buying the more expensive policies and, thus, they were left undercovered. Businesses found that it was difficult for marine underwriters to determine what law their employees fell under. Therefore, section 803 expanded the exception for the recreational marine repair industry from the requirement to purchase higher cost workers' compensation insurance under the Longshore Act. And as part of this provision, a repair worker was required to be covered by the lower-cost State compensation insurance in order to take full advantage of the exception. As a result, more workers would be covered--a good thing.

The Recovery Act, signed into law in 2009, provided the clarity for workers to get the coverage they needed under State workers' compensation laws. And marine insurance underwriters began to write State policies because of this clarity.

Unfortunately, new regulations were issued in 2011 that adopted a definition of recreational vessel which was far more complicated and onerous than the existing law. In so doing, this new regulatory definition ran counter to what Congress intended. It contracted the exception, rather than expanding it to ensure that we could get more employees covered. It muddied the waters of when longshore coverage was required and when the new congressionally mandated exception to use State law applied. And as a consequence, these new regulations caused the underwriters to simply stop writing policies under State law, leaving many recreational workers in the same predicament that they were in before passage of section 803.

The bill that we are considering today establishes a workable definition for a recreational vessel. In doing so, it restores the intent of Congress in the original 2009 enactments to get coverage for these workers under less expensive State workers' compensation insurance. Put simply, this bill is about protecting jobs and keeping workers covered.

In Broward County, Florida, alone, there are over 90,000 jobs in the recreational marine industry. We are the yachting capital of the entire world in Broward capital, particularly in Fort Lauderdale.

These jobs allow workers to buy homes, provide for their families, and contribute significantly to local economies. And 95 percent of these marine businesses have fewer than 10 employees, Mr. Speaker. Congress intended in 1984 and in 2009 to make sure these workers and their families were covered. And this bill keeps that promise. It does so in a bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

At this time, I have no further requests for time. So in closing, I will, again, simply say that I appreciate Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller's support and the work of all of the Members who have significant marine industries in their congressional districts. I am really pleased that we are going to be able to finally make sure that the intent of Congress is carried out and that these marine workers, who are vital and a part of the backbone of so many economies, will have the coverage that they need, rather than forgoing that coverage, and

that we will be able to make sure that the employers who employ them will be able to provide less expensive coverage. It is a win-win, and I look forward to seeing it become law.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3896) to amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to provide a definition of recreational vessel for purposes of such Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3896.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3896, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of 2014, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The bill before us today provides an opportunity to correct a bureaucratic mistake by the Obama administration that is creating a great deal of confusion and anxiety among certain maritime employers, including a lot of small business owners.

For more than 85 years, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act has provided relief to maritime workers who sustain an injury or illness through work-related activity. Under current law, individuals who repair or dismantle recreational vessels, as well as those who build recreational vessels less than 65 feet long, are covered by an available State workers' compensation program, not the Federal Longshore Act.

It is a bit confusing, especially for maritime employers. In 2009, Congress tried to simplify the law by stipulating any maritime worker providing maintenance of recreational vessels is covered by a State workers' compensation program, regardless of the size of the vessel. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. The Obama administration issued regulations that further muddied the waters.

Now, employers are forced to engage in a complicated analysis to determine which employees are covered by which workers' comp program, Federal or State coverage. It is a mess that is forcing employers to spend even more time and money managing their workers' comp programs.

As the National Marine Manufacturers Association warns in a letter to Congress, the administration's regulatory approach has led to higher rates that could ``cause businesses to lay off employees or to decide to buy no insurance coverage for their employees at all.''

Members of Congress have raised concerns with the administration's implementation of the 2009 law and to no avail. So we are here once again, Mr. Speaker, clarifying what was already made clear in the hopes the Department of Labor will finally get it right.

H.R. 3896 amends the Longshore Act to define what a ``recreational vessel'' is in order to convey the true intent of the 2009 law. The bill cleans up any regulatory ambiguity and helps ensure maritime employers have access to affordable workers' compensation coverage for their employees.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3896, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I couldn't have said it better than my colleague from Florida. Having a district that borders the Great Lakes, having marinas and harbors in my district, having the opportunity to use the resources and to make sure that the intent of Congress is followed and that we have employees and employers who are treated fairly under workers' comp laws, that they are cared for completely at the lowest cost that we intended, with the original intent of Congress, this bill does that.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3896 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3896, a bill that would provide an important technical fix to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to ensure that workers in the recreational repair industry have access to affordable workers' compensation insurance.

In 2009, Congress expanded an exception for the recreational repair industry that allowed workers in that industry to purchase less expensive state workers compensation insurance. However, in issuing regulations for this expanded exception, the Department of Labor modified the definition of a recreational vessel in a way that actually narrowed the exception's scope. The complexity of this new definition has led insurance underwriters to stop issuing workers compensation policies for repair workers, leading many workers to go without coverage entirely.

H.R. 3896 would enact a definition of recreational vessel that more accurately reflects the intent of Congress. The bill is supported by the recreational marine and marine insurance industries and has the support of both the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

I want to thank Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Chairman Kline, and Chairman Walberg for their support and work on this bill, as well as the committee staff who worked diligently to see it through the process.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, south Florida has a booming marine industry, from our huge freighters to our Sunday boaters, generating over $8.9 billion a year to our local economy. So I am very proud to join with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kristy Hebert, owner of Ward's Marine Electric, in trying to fix a problem.

Businesses like Kristy's have to pay upward of $200,000 a year for providing recreational boat services, the same as companies that are providing services to 100,000-ton petroleum vessels. Obviously, the risks are different, and so H.R. 3896 is going to fix this problem. Workers are still going to be protected, and at an affordable cost for the employers.