HB6066, the CARE Act of 2025, would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to strengthen federal child labor protections, with a particular focus on agricultural work. The bill’s findings describe agriculture as an especially dangerous industry for children and state that existing exceptions have allowed younger children to work longer hours, in more hazardous conditions, and with less protection than children in other industries. It also highlights risks such as fatal injuries, exposure to dangerous equipment and pesticides, school disruption, and sexual harassment and abuse of farmworker girls.
The bill would revise the definition of “oppressive child labor,” narrow agricultural exemptions, and repeal a waiver provision for hand harvest laborers. It would increase civil penalties for child labor violations, including higher fines for violations causing serious injury, serious illness, or death, and would create criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment for repeated or willful violations that result in serious harm to a worker under 18. It also requires annual federal reporting on work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths involving children in agriculture, and imposes employer reporting requirements within five days of certain serious incidents.
In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Labor to prohibit children under 18 from serving as pesticide handlers under federal worker protection rules. It authorizes rulemaking to implement the amendments and specifies that the new protections apply prospectively after the relevant rules take effect. The bill also includes a non-preemption clause stating that it does not override state laws that provide greater protections or remedies for employees.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of child workers and especially critical of current agricultural labor exemptions. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the available context. The bill’s framing suggests its sponsors view the issue as a child safety, labor rights, and public health concern, while likely contentious points include the tighter limits on family farm labor, the repeal of existing agricultural exceptions, and the new reporting, penalty, and criminal enforcement provisions.
The bill would substantially amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by tightening federal child labor rules, especially in agriculture, and by adding new enforcement, reporting, and pesticide-related restrictions. It would change statutory definitions, alter agricultural exemptions, increase civil penalties, create a new criminal penalty for aggravated violations, and add new sections requiring federal analysis and employer reporting of serious child labor injuries, illnesses, and deaths. It would also direct the Department of Labor to revise regulations governing hazardous agricultural tasks, including pesticide handling. The bill expressly preserves stronger state protections, so it would set a federal floor rather than displace more protective state laws.
The bill is presented in a strongly reform-oriented and child-protection-focused manner, with findings emphasizing danger, exploitation, and inadequate enforcement in agricultural child labor. The available record contains no committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s text. Based on the language used, the measure is intended to address a perceived gap in federal protections and to increase accountability for employers in agriculture.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s impact on agricultural employers and family farms, especially the narrowing of exemptions that currently allow children to work in agriculture under certain conditions. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s tougher enforcement regime, including higher civil penalties, mandatory reporting, and criminal liability for repeated or willful violations causing serious harm. Stakeholders concerned with farm labor flexibility, parental authority on family farms, and regulatory burden may object, while child labor advocates, worker safety groups, and public health advocates are likely to support the changes.