[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6995-H6997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1345
LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2014
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3896
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Clarification Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL VESSEL.
(a) Definition.--Section 2 of the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 902) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (22) as paragraph (23); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22)(A) The term `recreational vessel' means a vessel--
``(i) being manufactured or operated primarily for
pleasure; or
``(ii) leased, rented, or chartered to another for the
latter's pleasure.
``(B) In applying the definition in subparagraph (A), the
following rules apply:
``(i) A vessel being manufactured or built, or being
repaired under warranty by its manufacturer or builder, is a
recreational vessel if the vessel appears intended, based on
its design and construction, to be for ultimate recreational
uses. The manufacturer or builder bears the burden of
establishing that a vessel is recreational under this
standard.
``(ii) A vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or
dismantled at the end of its life will be treated as
recreational at the time of
[[Page H6996]]
repair, dismantling for repair, or dismantling, provided that
such vessel shares elements of design and construction of
traditional recreational vessels and is not normally engaged
in a military, commercial, or traditionally commercial
undertaking.
``(iii) A vessel will be treated as a recreational vessel
if it is a public vessel, such as a vessel owned or chartered
and operated by the United States, or by a State or political
subdivision thereof, at the time of repair, dismantling for
repair, or dismantling, provided that such vessel shares
elements of design and construction with traditional
recreational vessels and is not normally engaged in a
military, commercial, or traditionally commercial
undertaking.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall--
(1) amend the regulations in section 701.501 of title 20,
Code of Federal Regulations, by deleting the text of
subsections (a) and (b) of such section and replacing it with
only the text of the definition of recreational vessel in
section 2(22) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act, as added by subsection (a); and
(2) make no further modification to such definition in
another regulation or any administrative directive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. 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.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 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
[[Page H6997]]
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. WALBERG. 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. PETRI. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3896, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________