Advocate Summary

Issue:  Recreation Marine Employment Act
Advocate:  Office of Representative Anthony Keller (R-FL) - Jaclyn Norris
Date of Interview: 7/29/02

Basic Background
This actually came up about four months or five months into his term, he doesn’t have much of the effected marinas in his district but he is on the main group came to us knowing he was on the  Education and Workforce committee and the Education and Workforce committee has jurisdiction on workforce protection and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. So they came back to the Congressman and approached him again and he said he has a friend that is involved in boat building and he said I’ll look into it. 

Prior Activity on the Issue 
None mentioned.

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
So I started working with the coalition on the staff level a lot. So we started moving along got some draft language put together and then started circulating that among the coalition. I then contacted Jim Davis’s office as a Democrat because he had a lot of interests with the recreational marina industry and so you know that gave us a Democratic perspective on it. So we just sort of started going back and forth with it, do you see problems, is it too broad with the language and then we finally introduced the bill. And then from there once the bill was introduced we finally sat down with – the majority staff on the committee already knew about it and I had worked with them – unfortunately I should have sat down with the minority staff director early on in drafting it, but I kind of figured working with Jim Davis’s office I would have had a lot of Democratic ideals in there. But the minority staff director, without my knowledge had been around in 1983 when they had first amended the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act back then. So even though I had gone through the committee records and read through the language to figure out, well how did they get the 65 feet, is that an arbitrary line that they drew – I was trying to figure out why they had done things back then and though it’s not in committee records or in committee language he was like “the intent of the committee…” so he’s describing what the intent was. He doesn’t feel the intent was ever to be fully exempted we differ on that. So we are now trying to work with him, so we can get to the point that he will moderate his stance because it is definitely an unintended consequence – and the footage is not a good indicator of what should be exempted or not. So right now what is happening is I got the coalition lawyer to come with me and sit down with the minority staff director to kind of figure out – can we do this – my boss’s intention was to move it by suspension and just kind of get it through if we had bipartisan support, because we already have support from (Robert E.) Andrews (D-NJ) that serves on that committee as a Democrat and we have a Republican on the committee, and (John A.) Boehner’s (R-OH) staff is very willing to sit down and look at the issue with us. And we have Martin Frost who is the Democratic Caucus chairman – it was a totally bipartisan effort and in no way were we trying to make it partisan. So we though well, since it’s been an open process we’ll move it through suspension get it signed off and move it. But once we sat down with the minority staff director we realized that was not going to be possible, so sitting down with him he threw out some questions to us, “I need some answers, some data, - if we pull out the whole recreational marine industry, what’s it going to do to the premiums for the Longshoremen” and we said well it’s our understanding that they’ve separated the two premiums so even though it is under the same act, they keep the pools separate, because the industry knows how to keep its books separate. So he said he needs more data, so right now the industry is putting that together for him.

And then once someone inquired about it I’d send them a memo that sort of went through a rough draft of what the problem was with the current law and what we intended to do with the legislation. And then we had a draft. So the coalition is trying to do some grassroots and get more feedback. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
Once that is pulled together, it should be like this week, so once that is done we are going to sit down with him again and we hope that we’ll be able to get the minority staff director, the majority staff director, myself and some other interested members to go down to Florida and actually tour a big ship yard, a big boat builder, a large marina, a small marina, just try to say this is the reality of what this bill does, even though this is a small marina and it houses boats maybe up to only 70 feet they have to buy Longeshore because the way the coast guard and the Department of Labor interprets the law right now, even though it is 65 feet, they are bringing it down to 55 feet in some instances on certain boats. So we are trying to show the reality of it and the hardship it places on these people. I had a call from a dock builder last week, a guy down in our district and he said, he got on the website of the National Marine Manufacturers and he said you know I’m a dock builder, I put boardwalks down, and because I don’t have coverage under the longshore act, I can’t get any work and he said you know I’m not dealing with big boats, but just because I’m on US navigatable waters, if I don’t have this coverage they can’t hire me because it’s a liability – so there are a lot of unintended consequences of the law. 

So we are still pushing hard and we will continue to, with appropriations season coming up we don’t know if we will be able to get a vote this year but we will try. 

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
we already have support from (Robert E.) Andrews (D-NJ) that serves on that committee as a Democrat and we have a Republican on the committee, and (John A.) Boehner’s (R-OH) staff is very willing to sit down and look at the issue with us. And we have Martin Frost who is the Democratic Caucus chairman – it was a totally bipartisan effort and in no way were we trying to make it partisan.

We’ve been trying to work concentrations with the coalition you know, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, kind of coastal states and try to strategize and not make it just broad where you get random co-sponsors, we wanted to get ones that we thought were important to have on as co-sponsors before we went and met with the staff. So we really worked hard to get first of all anyone on the committee that would have a vested interest in the bill. So we got Andrews on he’s from New Jersey a Democrat, we got Shaw from Florida he’s been another driving force, he’s not on the committee but he is just someone that has been very vocal about it, Jim Davis became the other Democrat from Florida we thought would be good, and mark Frost came on from Texas so that’s how we started out. 

Targets of Direct Lobbying
[Early on these were targets, became supporters – therefore above as well]
We’ve been trying to work concentrations with the coalition you know, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, kind of coastal states and try to strategize and not make it just broad where you get random co-sponsors, we wanted to get ones that we thought were important to have on as co-sponsors before we went and met with the staff. So we really worked hard to get first of all anyone on the committee that would have a vested interest in the bill. So we got Andrews on he’s from New Jersey a Democrat, we got Shaw from Florida he’s been another driving force, he’s not on the committee but he is just someone that has been very vocal about it, Jim Davis became the other Democrat from Florida we thought would be good, and mark Frost came on from Texas so that’s how we started out.  

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
Not applicable.

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
Recreation Marine Employment Coalition – headed up by the National Marine Manufacturers Association. 

The lawyer for the coalition knows the Democratic policy well and he has a number of contacts on the Democratic side so that has been very helpful. 

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
None mentioned.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
Mainly that the intent of the Longshoremens and Harbor Workers Compensation, when it was enacted back in like 1927 I think was to protect longshoremen, workers working on huge ships. Boat building is a different process and they shouldn’t be required to have this same type of insurance. In ’72 they did exempt them which was good but they put the footage in, back then that worked but the recreational marine industry has grown and recreational boats are bigger today, the industry wasn’t even really there back then. My father is a boater and we’ve always had boats and every couple of years we get a new one and they always get bigger, the industry is growing. The 65 foot cut off probably came from the regulations regarding a captain’s license – you need a captain’s license if you are operating a vessel over 65 feet. So they probably drew on definitions from the Coast Guard and the Department of labor. We think the definition should be based on the intent of the builder, if the craft is operated principally for pleasure use. Big ships were built for a different intent. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
So that it has unintended consequences, the industry ran different economic numbers and this is a pro-job bill not a industry special interest bill.  Small mom and pops are going out of business because they can’t afford this insurance. 

He wants to know how the law is going to effect the unions and labor, the longshoremans union. But we had an insurance analyst look at it and it seems to be a pretty easy argument, the recreational marine industry isn’t unionized and the insurance industry keeps the pools separate so pulling out the marinas, and boat and dock builders won’t effect the longshoreman’s premiums.  So we just need to make sure that they know the answers, that it won’t affect the unions. Just because the lead sponsor is a Republican red flags go up. 

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
[Not really opposition but hesitation from Democratic committee director]

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
The minority staff director is saying that the intent of the 1983 rule was not to exempt a 300 foot yacht with a helicopter pad, but that’s a bit extreme, the majority of recreation vessels, even the larger ones are not 300 foot yachts with helicopter pads.

He wants to know how the law is going to effect the unions and labor, the longshoreman’s union. But we had an insurance analyst look at it and it seems to be a pretty easy argument, the recreational marine industry isn’t unionized and the insurance industry keeps the pools separate so pulling out the marinas, and boat and dock builders won’t effect the longshoreman’s premiums.  So we just need to make sure that they know the answers, that it won’t affect the unions. Just because the lead sponsor is a Republican red flags go up. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
None mentioned.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
None mentioned.

Described as a Partisan Issue
[No – Democrats are hesitant but not opposed]

Venue(s) of Activity
House Education and the Workforce Committee

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
[Hoping to have bill voted on before the end of the year]

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Opposed to the status quo, working to exempt the recreational marine industry from Longshoremen insurance requirements.

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
I graduated from Penn State, and I came straight to the Hill, I was a district aid for McCollum, then a legislative correspondent for Keller, and then I worked hard and would finish my LC work and ask if there was anything I could do to help out the LA’s and I did a good job, and then I got really lucky and a LA position came open and because I knew the work because I had been doing it in addition to my LC work, I was a natural replacement, so now I am a legislative aid on Education and Workforce issues.

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous