Mr. Speaker. I plead with my colleagues in the House and with the wellintentioned authors of this amendment to look at the specifics of one part of the preferential motion now before us. and that is section 4 titled "Procedural safeguards for agricultural litigation." What this section does in all its parts is put forth a series of onerous. unprecedented burdens on one specific type of plaintiff that applies to no other plaintiff. no other clients of legal services programs. no individuals. corporations anywhere in this country. and that one particular type of plaintiff that will now have a whole series of new procedural obstacles is a migrant farmworker eligible for Legal Services Program because of his impoverished status who will now be faced with a series of restrictions that no other plaintiff anywhere is obligated to comply with. What is the nature of these new obstacles? The bill puts in a doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. There already is a doctrine of administrative remedies well known in administrative law applicable in all of the States of our country and all the courts of our land. It says where there is a reasonable administrative remedy. a nonfrivolous. speedy alternative to court litigation. the plaintiff is required to exhaust it. That applies to everyone including migrant farmworkers. All of a sudden now if this amendment were to pass and become law. if this motion were successful. only migrant farmworkers will have any and all. are the exact terms of the language. administrative remedies that might be put in front of them before they have access to the court. It will not apply to the tenant going after a landlord in a landlordtenant matter. It will not apply to one spouse going after another in a childsupport case. It will only apply to migrant farmworkers suing their employers because they believe that one aspect of their employment relationship. and a law that protects them in that employment relationship. the class of workers that everyone has to acknowledge are the least sophisticated. least likely to know about all of the available alternatives that they have. this is a barrier that they will now face only. This Just is not fair. There is a prohibition on solicitation here. The Supreme Court has held that as to nonprofit corporations providing legal services. the general restrictions on solicitation do not apply. All of a sudden now this prohibition will reappear for one type of nonprofit legal operation. a legal services program. and for only one type of plaintiff. and that is the migrant farmworker plaintiff who seeks to sue an agricultural employer. This is holding out an unfair situation. So one might say: "Why do they need to solicit?" How many farmworkers. how many migrant farmworkers are going to know the detailed nature of every aspect and the protection of the law that they have managed to get. and there are not that many. that might exist in Federal legislation or State legislation? How many migrant farmworkers live on the property of the grower or in the farm labor contractor or farm labor camp where they have no access to any kind of legal services representation? This says that after one farmworker has come forth and pointed out that that grower may be violating his legal obligations to provide adequate and decent and safe and sanitary housing or to provide a minimum wage. if one farmworker comes forth to a legal services lawyer and says. "Can we do anything about this." that lawyer cannot go to other farmworkers in that farm labor camp and seek to find out if this is a practice and pattern that deserves the kind of legal attack that it should have. Mr.