[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10089-H10093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REVERSING SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ADAMS FRUIT VERSUS BARRETT

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1715) respecting the relationship between workers' 
compensation benefits and the benefits available under the Migrant and 
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1715

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. WORKERS' COMPENSATION.

       (a) Amendments.--
       (1) Section 325 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
     Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-392) is repealed.
       (2) Section 504(d) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
     Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1854(d)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     where a State workers' compensation law is applicable and 
     coverage is provided for a migrant or seasonal agricultural 
     worker, the workers' compensation benefits shall be the 
     exclusive remedy for loss of such worker under this Act in 
     the case of bodily injury or death in accordance with such 
     State's workers' compensation law.
       ``(2) The exclusive remedy prescribed by paragraph (1) 
     precludes the recovery under subsection (c) of actual damages 
     for loss from an injury or death but does not preclude 
     recovery under subsection (c) for statutory damages or 
     equitable relief, except that such relief shall not include 
     back or front pay or in any manner, directly or indirectly, 
     expand or otherwise alter or affect (A) a recovery under a 
     State workers' compensation law or (B) rights conferred under 
     a State workers' compensation law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(2) shall apply to all cases in which a final judgment has 
     not been entered.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF STATUTORY DAMAGES.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 504 of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1854) is 
     amended by adding after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) If the court finds in an action which is brought by 
     or for a worker under subsection (a) in which a claim for 
     actual damages is precluded because the worker's injury is 
     covered by a State workers' compensation law as provided by 
     subsection (d) that--
       ``(1)(A) the defendant in the action violated section 
     401(b) by knowingly requiring or permitting a driver to drive 
     a vehicle for the transportation of migrant or seasonal 
     agricultural workers while under the influence of alcohol or 
     a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) and the defendant 
     had actual knowledge of the driver's condition, and
       ``(B) such violation resulted in injury to or death of the 
     migrant or seasonal worker by or for whom the action was 
     brought and such injury or death arose out of and in the 
     course of employment as determined under the State workers' 
     compensation law,
       ``(2)(A) the defendant violated a safety standard 
     prescribed by the Secretary under section 401(b) which the 
     defendant was determined in a previous judicial or 
     administrative proceeding to have violated, and
       ``(B) such safety violation resulted in an injury or death 
     described in paragraph (1)(B),
       ``(3)(A)(i) the defendant willfully disabled or removed a 
     safety device prescribed by the Secretary under section 
     401(b), or
       ``(ii) the defendant in conscious disregard of the 
     requirements of section 401(b) failed to provide a safety 
     device required under such section, and
       ``(B) such disablement, removal, or failure to provide a 
     safety device resulted in an injury or death described in 
     paragraph (1)(B), or
       ``(4)(A) the defendant violated a safety standard 
     prescribed by the Secretary under section 401(b),
       ``(B) such safety violation resulted in an injury or death 
     described in paragraph (1)(B), and
       ``(C) the defendant at the time of the violation of section 
     401(b) also was--
       ``(i) an unregistered farm labor contractor in violation of 
     section 101(a), or
       ``(ii) a person who utilized the services of a farm labor 
     contractor of the type specified in clause (i) without taking 
     reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor 
     possessed a valid certificate of registration authorizing the 
     performance of the farm labor contracting activities which 
     the contractor was requested or permitted to perform with the 
     knowledge of such person,

     the court shall award not more than $10,000 per plaintiff per 
     violation with respect to whom the court made the finding 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), except that 
     multiple infractions of a single provision of this Act shall 
     constitute only one violation 

[[Page H 10090]]
     for purposes of determining the amount of statutory damages due to a 
     plaintiff under this subsection and in the case of a class 
     action, the court shall award not more than the lesser of up 
     to $10,000 per plaintiff or up to $500,000 for all plaintiffs 
     in such class action.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to all cases in which a final judgment has not 
     been entered.

     SEC. 3. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       Section 504 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1854), as amended by section 2, is 
     amended by adding after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) If it is determined under a State workers' 
     compensation law that the workers' compensation law is not 
     applicable to a claim for bodily injury or death of a migrant 
     or seasonal agricultural worker, the statute of limitations 
     for bringing an action for actual damages for such injury or 
     death under subsection (a) shall be tolled for the period 
     during which the claim for such injury or death under such 
     State workers' compensation law was pending. The statute of 
     limitations for an action for other actual damages, statutory 
     damages, or equitable relief arising out of the same 
     transaction or occurrence as the injury or death of the 
     migrant or seasonal agricultural worker shall be tolled for 
     the period during which the claim for such injury or death 
     was pending under the State workers' compensation law.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE.

       (a) Migrant Workers.--Section 201(a) of the Migrant and 
     Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1821(a)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (7) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding after paragraph 
     (7) the following:
       ``(8) whether State workers' compensation insurance is 
     provided, and, if so, the name of the State workers' 
     compensation insurance carrier, the name of the policyholder 
     of such insurance, the name and the telephone number of each 
     person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the 
     time period within which such notice must be given.

     Compliance with the disclosure requirement of paragraph (8) 
     for a migrant agricultural worker may be met if such worker 
     is given a photocopy of any notice regarding workers' 
     compensation insurance required by law of the State in which 
     such worker is employed. Such worker shall be given such 
     disclosure regarding workers' compensation at the time of 
     recruitment or if sufficient information is unavailable at 
     that time, at the earliest practicable time but in no event 
     later than the commencement of work.''.
       (b) Seasonal Workers.--Section 301(a)(1) of the Migrant and 
     Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1831(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (G) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding after 
     subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) whether State workers' compensation insurance is 
     provided, and, if so, the name of the State workers' 
     compensation insurance carrier, the name of the policyholder 
     of such insurance, the name and the telephone number of each 
     person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the 
     time period within which such notice must be given.

     Compliance with the disclosure requirement of subparagraph 
     (H) may be met if such worker is given, upon request, a 
     photocopy of any notice regarding workers' compensation 
     insurance required by law of the State in which such worker 
     is employed.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect upon the expiration of 90 days 
     after the date final regulations are issued by the Secretary 
     of Labor to implement such amendments.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY INSURANCE.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 401(b)(3) of the Migrant and 
     Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1841(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The level of insurance required under paragraph 
     (1)(C) shall be determined by the Secretary considering at 
     least the factors set forth in paragraph (2)(B) and similar 
     farmworker transportation requirements under State law.''.
       (b) Regulations.--Within 180 days of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     promulgate regulations establishing insurance levels under 
     section 401(b)(3) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
     Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1841(b)(3)) as amended by 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect upon the expiration of 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act or upon the issuance of final 
     regulations under subsection (b), whichever occurs first.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1715 clarifies the relationship between workers' 
compensation benefits and the private right of action available under 
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act [MSPA].
  H.R. 1715 reverses the Supreme Court's ruling in Adams Fruit Company, 
Inc. versus Barrett. In that case the Supreme Court held that 
agricultural workers covered by MSPA could sue for actual damages over 
injury or death under the private right of action provided under the 
act, even though the workers are covered for those injuries under State 
workers' compensation law. In so doing, the Supreme Court rejected the 
principle of the exclusivity of workers' compensation, which is a 
fundamental rationale and underpinning for workers' compensation in 
this country.
  As a result of this decision, many agricultural employers in this 
country face liability for injuries suffered by farm workers even 
though they have provided workers' compensation coverage for these 
workers. At the same time, and because not all States require workers' 
compensation coverage of farm workers, the dual liability of 
agricultural employers above and beyond workers' compensation insurance 
serves to discourage more agricultural employers from providing 
workers' compensation coverage for farm workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 1715 in May, along with a bipartisan 
group of cosponsors: Representatives Fazio, Ballenger, Andrews, Fawell, 
Stenholm, Hoekstra, Thurman, Funderburk, and Dooley.
  The Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee voted to report 
H.R. 1715 as introduced on July 22. As introduced, H.R. 1715 was a 
single section bill that simply reversed the Adams Fruit decision and 
provided that where State workers' compensation is applicable and 
coverage is provided, workers' compensation shall be the farm workers 
exclusive remedy and the employer's sole liability under MSPA for 
bodily injury or death.
  Subsequent to the committee's passage of the bill, several weeks of 
intensive negotiation took place among the staffs of Republican and 
Democratic Members along with representatives of national agricultural 
employer groups and farm workers organizations. As a result of those 
negotiations, I am today offering a substitute to H.R. 1715 which has 
the support of not only myself and the other cosponsors of H.R. 1715, 
but of Members who had concerns with the original bill.
  The substitute bill has five sections. Section 1 is similar to the 
language of the original H.R. 1715, and reverses the Adams Fruit 
decision. Section 2 provides for increased statutory damages under MSPA 
under certain limited circumstances described in the bill. Section 3 
provides for tolling of the statute of limitations on actions brought 
under MSPA during the time period in which a claim under State workers' 
compensation is pending. Section 4 requires disclosure of information 
regarding workers' compensation coverage to migrant or seasonal 
agricultural workers. Section 5 requires the Department of Labor to 
determine the level of liability insurance required of employers 
engaged in transportation of migrant or seasonal agricultural workers.
  I believe that the concerns with this legislation as it was passed by 
the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee have been 
addressed in the substitute that is being offered today. I want to 
especially thank several Members for their efforts and willingness to 
work with us in forging this bipartisan agreement: Mr. Clay, Mr. Owens, 
Mr. Berman, and Mr. Miller, along with the group of original cosponsors 
of H.R. 1715 that I have already mentioned.
  For those who may later be reading these comments, I also want to 
call attention to the fact that a more extensive joint statement of 
legislative intent reflecting the understandings of myself, Mr. Clay, 
Mr. Ballenger, and Mr. Owens regarding this substitute to H.R. 1715 is 
printed in the Congressional Record of Friday, October 13, 1995.
  It is my hope and expectation that we will quickly pass H.R. 1715 
today and that the Senate will likewise pass it on a bipartisan basis 
and send the bill to the President for his signature. Again, I want to 
thank many Members from both sides, and particularly Mr. Clay, Mr. 
Owens, Mr. Berman, and Mr. 

[[Page H 10091]]
Fazio for their willingness to work with us to reach this bipartisan 
agreement on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. I want to express my 
appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee, Mr. Goodling, and to the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Work Force Protections, Mr. Ballenger, for their 
willingness to seek consensus with the ranking member of our committee, 
Mr. Clay, and myself on this legislation. I also want to acknowledge 
the efforts of three gentlemen from California, Mr. Miller, Mr. Berman, 
and Mr. Fazio. The efforts of all three gentlemen have been 
instrumental in the development of the amendment before us.
  The legislation before us is a compromise. Those of us who have 
sought to represent the interests of farm workers have had to make 
difficult concessions. Nevertheless, unlike the bill reported by 
committee, the amendment before us also contains important provisions 
to ensure that H.R. 1715 reflects the interests of farmworkers as well 
as growers. Among other provisions, the amendment provides for 
notification of farmworkers of their rights under State workers' 
compensation laws, tolls the statute of limitations while State 
workers' compensation claims are pending, and enhances statutory 
damages for certain egregious violations of the Migrant and Seasonal 
Agricultural Workers Protection Act. I refer my colleagues to page 
E1943 of the Congressional Record of last Friday, October 13, in which 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] placed a definitive 
explanation of the amendment before us.

  I fully support the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
believe this legislation now merits the support of my colleagues. I 
urge the House to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1715.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1715, a bill to 
clarify the relationship between workers compensation benefits and the 
private right of action for certain job-related injuries under the 
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act [MSPA]. In the 
1990 decision on the Adams Fruit case, the Supreme Court interpreted 
MSPA to provide for a private right of action for certain job-related 
injuries, even if the individual was covered by workers compensation at 
the time of the injury.
  H.R. 1715 would reverse the Supreme Court's ruling, which essentially 
permits migrant and seasonal farmworkers to seek dual remedies. 
Agricultural employers could be exposed to potentially enormous 
liability for damages, in spite of the fact that they have contributed 
into the workers compensation system. The purpose of workers 
compensation is to provide a prompt and reasonable remedy to the 
injured worker without delay or expense. Employers pay into workers 
compensation programs to avoid being exposed to additional liability. 
Moreover, in States where agricultural employers are not required to 
provide workers compensation for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the 
Supreme Court's decision may act as a disincentive for employers to 
provide coverage for those workers.
  I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Goodling's substitute 
amendment to H.R. 1715. This package of legislative changes to MSPA is 
fully supported by agricultural employers and farmworker organizations. 
Not only will this amendment permanently reverse the Adams Fruit 
decision, it also adds provisions to MSPA which encourage employers to 
provide safe transportation for farmworkers. This bipartisan agreement 
has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I commend the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodling, as well as Mr. Clay and Mr. 
Owens for their success in forging a compromise on this important 
issue.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairman 
Goodling for allowing me the opportunity to address the House in 
support of H.R. 1715, a bill to overturn the Supreme Court's decision 
in Adams Fruit versus Barrett. And I also want to thank you for all 
your hard work and dedication in bringing this measure before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1990 the Supreme Court, in handing down the Adams 
Fruit decision, held that injured farmworkers may bring a private right 
of action under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection 
Act. This was allowed Seven though the workers had already received 
workers compensation benefits for those same injuries. The implications 
of this decision have been quite troubling.
  First, this decision undermines the exclusivity of workers 
compensation as a remedy--both in the context of agricultural law and 
beyond. The workers comp system was designed to be a trade in which 
employees forego the right to a tort remedy in exchange for expeditious 
relief without questions of liability or contributory negligence. The 
Adams Fruit decision does an end-run around this important bargain and 
opens up employers to costly litigation and open-ended liability for 
workplace injuries they thought they were insuring themselves against.
  Second, it is important to note that farmworkers will also suffer if 
the Court's decision is allowed to stand. The Adams Fruit decision 
removes an incentive for agricultural employers to provide workers 
compensation coverage. In several States, farmworker coverage on 
workers comp remains optional. The Court's decision provides employers 
in those States with little reason to exercise that option. For injured 
farmworkers, lengthy, costly, and uncertain suits are no substitute for 
the quick and dependable relief of workers compensation.
  The bill before us today, Mr. Chairman, ensures that the integrity of 
this crucial remedy remains available to all farmworkers and all 
employers. By reversing Adams Fruit and reaffirming the exclusivity of 
workers compensation, this legislation returns us to Congress' original 
intent in enacting the statute's current remedial scheme.
  This bill is good for agricultural workers and it is good for 
agricultural employers. I urge my colleagues to support this measure 
and I look forward to seeing this bill passed by the House today.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time, and I rise in support of the compromise version of 
H.R. 1715, a bill that addresses the Supreme Court decision in the 
Adams Fruit case.
  The bill as originally introduced would have prohibited farmworkers 
from both receiving workers compensation and suing in court for 
violations under MSPA [the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act]. The compromise bill we are considering today would 
achieve that purpose, while at the same time providing some needed 
safeguards for farmworkers and some deterrence to would-be violators.
  I offered in committee an amendment to strengthen the deterrence in 
the bill by addressing egregious violations of the law, and I am 
satisfied that the essence of my amendment was incorporated in the 
compromise version of this bill.
  The bill changes the current statutory damages from $500 dollars to 
$10,000 dollars for egregious cases in which a worker was injured or 
killed in an accident where alcohol or drugs were involved, where an 
employer has a history of violations, where the employer willfully 
makes a vehicle dangerous, or where the employer uses an unregistered 
farm-labor contractor.
  The increase in statutory damages is very much needed to provide a 
deterrence against violations. As we all know, farmworkers are some of 
the most exploited workers in America: kids are used in the fields in 
clear violation of child labor laws; workers are crammed into grossly 
unsafe, uninsured vehicles that have no seats or safety belts and are 
injured, maimed and killed; work-cite sanitation is poor or 
nonexistent; and wages are skimmed by unscrupulous farm-labor 
contractors.

[[Page H 10092]]

  Enhanced penalties in H.R. 1715 provides needed deterrence to some of 
these violations, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], 
for yielding and for his help during these negotiations, and I also 
thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. 
This is a very fair and balanced bill. It has taken a number of years 
to get calibrated so that we can pass it on suspension.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, and 
the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bill Clay, and the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Major Owens, and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Cass 
Ballenger, for seeing this effort through to conclusion this year. But 
I also want to thank my friends, the gentlemen from California, Messrs. 
Howard Berman, George Miller, and Cal Cooley, for working so diligently 
in the last Congress and on into this one to find the right balance so 
that we could come to closure on this very important issue for 
agricultural employers and for farmworkers.
  Leon Panetta, Rick Lehman, and Austin Murphy, former Members of this 
body, contributed greatly during their tenure here. In fact, this is 
the result of 5 years of discussions, but it is a bill that needed to 
be enacted because it reverses a Supreme Court decision in the Adams 
Fruit case that unfairly placed agricultural employees in the United 
States and employers in an untenable position.
  Mr. Speaker, agricultural employers were the only people who were 
eligible both to be sued in court under the tort liability system and 
required to provide worker's compensation coverage so that they could 
be sued for workplace injuries by their employees. That double jeopardy 
needed to be repaired, and, in doing so, we have written a bill that 
also benefits farmworkers by removing any disincentives to supplying 
worker's compensation, also encouraging employers to maintain safe 
transportation practices, the area that was most at issue in terms of 
these kinds of problems.
  Mr. Speaker, it did so by creating four new areas where increased 
damages are available for transportation related violations. It gives 
the Secretary of Labor authority to establish appropriate levels of 
vehicle insurance, given the fact that the Interstate Commerce 
Commission levels have made it difficult for some involved in 
farmworker transportation to obtain insurance.
  This is a bill that will make sure that farmworkers truly get to 
exercise their remedy under workers compensation. I think it is a good 
bill. It certainly is long overdo. I would hope the administration 
would support it and the President sign it into law. I would ask my 
colleagues in both parties to sign off on what the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Owens, has described as a cease-fire in the war between the 
sides on this committee and, I think, a fine example of bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1715, a bill that would 
reverse the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams Fruit Company 
versus Barrett case. The Supreme Court held that an action for damages 
under the migrant and seasonal agricultural worker protection was 
preserved and could be maintained by injured farm workers, even though 
the farm workers were covered under State workers' compensation for the 
same injuries suffered in the course of employment.
  I commend Chairman Bill Goodling and ranking member Bill Clay of the 
Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee for bringing this bill 
to the floor along with ranking member Major Owens and Chairman Cass 
Ballenger of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Howard Berman 
has also played a leading role in crafting this compromise. But it is 
also some measure of how long we have been at this that I also want to 
recognize three former members--Leon Panetta and Rick Lehman from my 
home State of California, and former subcommittee chairman Austin 
Murphy--all three of whom were instrumental in moving forward with this 
compromise during the last Congress.
  This bill is the product of 5 years of extensive discussion between 
representatives of agriculture and farmworkers from throughout the 
United States. It is a balanced bill, stemming from two hearings before 
the former Education and Labor Committee, one of which I participated 
in in California along with then chairman Austin Murphy and my 
California colleagues Cal Dooley, Rick Lehman, Howard Berman, and 
George Miller. A more recent hearing was held this past summer here in 
Washington. So the issues addressed in this legislation have been 
thoroughly considered by the committee and the problems raised are 
addressed in a balanced way that reflects the realities of the 
agricultural workplace.
  The cornerstone of the bill is the reversal of the Adams Fruit 
decision, which unfairly places agricultural employers throughout the 
United States in the position of being the only employers in America 
who can be mandated under State law to provide workers' compensation--
it is mandatory in my own State of California--yet still be sued for 
unlimited damages in State court for the workplace injuries already 
compensated under the workers' compensation system.
  The decision by the Supreme Court in 1990 was very unfortunate. I 
felt it was important to respond quickly and strongly, and we 
temporarily reversed the decision in 1992 as part of the legislative 
branch appropriations bill, Public Law 192-392.
  The legislation before us makes permanent what we accomplished in 
1992. Workers' compensation will now be the exclusive remedy for 
workplace injuries where workers' compensation is provided. 
Agricultural employers will now be treated the same as all other 
employers in this country. If workers' compensation is not provided, 
however, workers will have the right to sue for actual damages under 
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act [MSPA].
  In addition to providing equity to agricultural employers, this 
legislation also benefits farmworkers. Because of the transient nature 
of migrant farmworkers, workers' compensation is very beneficial to 
them because it provides immediate medical, disability, or death 
benefits. Without such benefits they would have to sue in a location 
far from their homes and wait with uncertainty for several years before 
the court system resolved their claim. Yet with the Adams Fruit 
decision, agricultural employers in a number of States which make the 
providing of workers' compensation by employers voluntary have no 
incentive to provide it, because they still can be sued. But as a 
result of this legislation, employers will be encouraged to provide 
workers' compensation to farmworkers.
  This bill will also encourage employers to maintain 
safe transportation practices for their workers. It elevates the 
statutory damages available to migrant and seasonal farmworkers if 
those subject to MSPA engage ignore the existing transportation safety 
requirements of MSPA. The bill creates four new areas where increased 
damages are available for transportation-related violations. Whatever 
deterrence to unsafe practices was created by the Adams Fruit decision 
will be offset more than adequately by the availability of the new 
transportation-safety provisions.

  Finally, the bill gives the Secretary of Labor the authority to 
establish the appropriate levels of vehicle insurance coverage to be 
required under MSPA. Currently, the Secretary has to follow ICC-
mandated levels. The ICC levels have made it difficult for those 
involved in farmworker transportation to obtain insurance, thus 
exposing them to liability and preventing farmworkers from getting 
needed protection. This provision will allow the Secretary of Labor to 
balance the need to protect farmworkers' health and safety against 
undue burdens to agricultural employers and associations and farm labor 
contractors.
  In short, this legislation is an excellent product. It treats 
agricultural employers the same as other employers, it encourages the 
provision of workers' compensation to farmworkers, and it encourages 
transportation safety--a source of many injury claims arising under 
MSPA. It is evenhanded and fair. While we have taken a long time 
getting here, the final product is worth the wait. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  I will also ask the President to sign it, and I believe the 
administration has given a strong indication in this regard. Secretary 
of Labor Robert Reich sent a letter to the Economic and Educational 
Opportunities Committee during its hearing on H.R. 1715, the 
predecessor to this bill, this past summer and indicated his support 
for the intent of the legislation in reversing the Adams Fruit 
decision. He also indicated that farmworker reforms should be a part of 
it, and the committee has responded to his request. I believe the bill 
meets the Secretary's and the administration's concerns. It reverses 
Adams Fruit and contains farmworker reforms. I urge my colleagues to 
support this long and bipartisan effort, and I look forward to seeing 
it signed into law.

[[Page H 10093]]

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee and my colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens, 
and the gentleman from Missouri, Bill Clay, for all of their help in 
bringing us to this point. I want to make a few comments.
  This bill is a very different bill than the bill that was originally 
introduced or the bill that came out of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunity, or whatever that committee is now called. 
There are a couple of points to make.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia kept talking 
about the Adams Fruit decision as if it was wrong, because State law 
somehow would, because State law somehow would preempt Federal law; 
that is the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. 
The court decision was the recognition, everyone knows, that Federal 
law preempts State law.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there were many weaknesses in that 
Federal law and some of which we have addressed. This is no longer a 
bill that allows a grower in a State which has no coverage for farm 
workers or only partial coverage for farm workers or only voluntary 
coverage for farm workers to avoid workers compensation and also to 
immunize himself from any lawsuit. That particular issue has been 
affected and dealt with through the amendments.
  It is also no longer a bill which leaves the inadequate penalty 
structures of the existing Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act, because, in the context of this particular Congress, 
and in this situation, this seemed to me like, and others, like the 
best possible arrangement that we could get in terms of the two 
different needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this compromise and urge its adoption.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, we are called the Golden Opportunity 
Committee.
  Mr. BERMAN. I assume golden not having any reference to age?
  Mr. GOODLING. Grimes Golden, Golden Delicious.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his correction of 
my earlier remarks and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1715, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________