CARE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The CARE Act of 2026 aims to align child labor protections in agriculture more closely with those in other industries, seeking to reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among young farmworkers.
What it actually does
The bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to significantly strengthen child labor protections, particularly for children employed in agriculture. It revises the definition of "oppressive child labor," raises the minimum age for most agricultural employment, repeals a waiver for hand harvest laborers, increases civil and establishes new criminal penalties for child labor violations, mandates data collection and reporting on work-related injuries to child farmworkers, and prohibits children under 18 from working as pesticide handlers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a long-standing disparity in child labor laws that has historically allowed children to work in agriculture at younger ages, for longer hours, and under more hazardous conditions than in other sectors. They emphasize the high rates of work-related fatalities and injuries among child farmworkers, the risks to their health and education, and vulnerability to abuse, asserting that these changes are necessary to protect vulnerable children.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that these changes could negatively impact family farms, particularly those relying on children's labor during peak seasons, or that it could reduce economic opportunities for older teenagers seeking agricultural work. They might also contend that existing regulations, if properly enforced, are sufficient, or that the bill imposes undue burdens on agricultural employers through increased penalties and reporting requirements.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3, amending Section 3(l) of FLSA
Redefining "Oppressive Child Labor"
This section revises the definition of "oppressive child labor" under the FLSA. It specifies that employment of 16-17 year olds in hazardous occupations, 14-15 year olds in jobs interfering with schooling or well-being, and any employment of children under 14 years of age, all constitute oppressive child labor. This effectively raises the general minimum age for employment and broadens the scope of hazardous work for older minors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change standardizes child labor protections across industries, eliminating loopholes that have historically allowed younger children to work in dangerous conditions, especially in agriculture. It aligns U.S. law more closely with international labor standards.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this broad definition could restrict legitimate work opportunities for older teenagers, or that it might be overly prescriptive for certain types of work that are not inherently hazardous.
Tradeoffs
Balances child protection with potential limitations on youth employment opportunities and employer flexibility.
Section 4(a), amending Section 13(c) of FLSA
Raising Minimum Age for Agricultural Work
This provision significantly changes the child labor exemptions for agriculture. It states that child labor provisions do not apply to employees under 18 working in agriculture only if they are employed by their parent on a parent-owned farm, outside of school hours. For other non-manufacturing/mining employment, the exemption applies to children under 16 working for a parent, provided the work is not hazardous. This effectively raises the general minimum age for non-family agricultural employment to 18.
Section 4(b), amending Section 13(c) of FLSA
Eliminating Hand Harvest Laborer Waiver
This section repeals a specific waiver in current law that allows 10- and 11-year-olds to work as hand harvest laborers for limited hours outside of school, with parental consent and certain conditions. Its removal means these younger children would no longer be legally permitted to perform such work.
Section 5, amending Section 16(e)(1) of FLSA
Stiffening Civil Penalties
This provision significantly increases the civil penalties for child labor violations. It sets a minimum penalty of $500 and a maximum of $15,000 per employee per violation. For violations resulting in serious injury, illness, or death of a minor, the penalty is set between $15,000 and $60,115, which can be doubled for repeated or willful violations. It also defines "serious illness."
Section 6, amending Section 16 of FLSA
Introducing Criminal Penalties for Severe Violations
This section introduces new criminal penalties for repeated or willful child labor violations that result in the death, serious injury, or serious illness of an employee under 18. Such violations would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine under Title 18, or both.
Section 7, inserting new Section 12A into FLSA
Mandated Data Analysis and Reporting
This section requires the Secretary of Labor to annually analyze data from various federal and state sources concerning work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths of children under 18 employed in agriculture. The Secretary must then submit a report to Congress summarizing this data, evaluating the status of child labor and hazards, and identifying potential violations. These reports must also be published online.
Section 8, inserting new Section 12B into FLSA
Mandatory Employer Incident Reporting
This provision mandates that employers report work-related serious injuries, serious illnesses, or deaths of employees under 18 in agriculture to the Secretary of Labor within 5 days of the event or discovery. The report must include employer/employee details and incident specifics. Failure to report incurs a civil penalty of $500 to $7,000 per violation.
Section 9
Banning Minors from Pesticide Handling
This section includes a Congressional finding that employing children under 18 as pesticide handlers is particularly hazardous. It then requires the Secretary of Labor to revise federal regulations (29 CFR part 570) within 30 days to explicitly prohibit the employment of children under 18 in any tasks defined as "handler" duties under existing EPA worker protection standards (40 CFR 170.3).
Defines "serious illness" as "any abnormal condition or disorder resulting from an event or exposure in the work environment," with illnesses on employer premises presumed work-related. This definition is crucial for triggering increased civil penalties and potential criminal penalties.
Section 5(3), adding subparagraph (C) to Section 16(e)(1) of FLSA
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms within the section where they are primarily used.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clear definition prevents ambiguity, ensuring that a broad range of work-related health issues affecting minors are covered by the enhanced penalties, thus strengthening protections.
Case against: Critics might argue the definition is overly broad, making it easier for employers to face severe penalties for conditions that may have complex or less direct work-related causation, potentially leading to disputes.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of severe penalties, potentially increasing employer liability for a wider range of health impacts on minors.
States that the employer reporting requirements take effect on the earlier of (1) the date the Secretary issues a rule under Section 10(a) or (2) 6 months after enactment.
Section 8(f), adding new Section 12B(f) to FLSA
Why it matters:Standard practice to place effective dates at the end of a section or bill.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a clear, relatively short timeline for implementation, ensuring that critical data collection begins promptly, while allowing the Secretary some flexibility to issue clarifying rules.
Case against: Some employers might argue that 6 months (or less if rules are issued sooner) is an aggressive timeline for implementing new reporting systems, especially for smaller agricultural businesses, potentially leading to initial non-compliance.
Estimated impact: Ensures rapid implementation of new reporting, potentially leading to a quicker increase in data availability on child farmworker incidents.