[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION (EEOC) AND THE OFFICE OF
FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
PROGRAMS (OFCCP)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-857 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia Van Taylor, Texas
Kim Schrier, Washington Steve Watkins, Kansas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Ron Wright, Texas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Donna E. Shalala, Florida William R. Timmons, IV, South
Andy Levin, Michigan* Carolina
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
David J. Trone, Maryland Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUZANNE BONAMICI, OREGON, Chairwoman
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona James Comer, Kentucky,
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Ranking Member
Kim Schrier, Washington Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Pennsylvania
David Trone, Maryland Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Susie Lee, Nevada Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 19, 2019............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Comer, Hon. James, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil
Rights and Human Services.................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown Barnes, Ms. Cindy, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Dhillon, Ms. Janet, Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission................................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Leen, Mr. Craig, Esquire, Director, Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor..... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Additional Submissions:
Ms. Brown Barnes:........................................
Report: Progress Made on GAO Recommendations to Improve
Nondiscrimination Oversight, but Challenges Remain..... 70
Table 1: Status of GAO's September 2016 Recommendations
to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.. 71
Table 2: Status of GAO's November 2017 Recommendations to
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)................................................. 72
Questions submitted for the record by:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio
Lee, Hon. Susie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada........................................ 79
Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington.................................... 78
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Ms. Brown Barnes......................................... 83
Ms. Dhillion............................................. 86
Mr. Leen................................................. 107
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES.
OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION (EEOC) AND THE OFFICE OF
FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
PROGRAMS (OFCCP)
----------
Thursday, September 19, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:17 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Suzanne Bonamici
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bonamici, Schrier, Hayes, Lee,
Comer, Stefanik, and Johnson.
Also Present: Representatives Scott, and Foxx.
Staff Present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Emma Eatman,
Press Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Labor Policy Advisor; Ariel
Jona, Staff AssistantStephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications
Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Assistant to the Staff Director;
Richard Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Office
Aid; Janice Nsor, Oversight Counsel; Veronique Pluviose, Staff
Director; Carolyn Ronis, Civil Rights Counsel; Banyon Vassar,
Deputy Director of Information Technology; Jonathan Walter,
Labor Policy Fellow; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of
Member Services and Coalitions; Cate Dillon, Minority Staff
Assistant; Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce Policy;
Jeanne Kuehl, Minority Legislative Assistant; John Martin,
Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Minority
Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications
Director; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Ben
Ridder, Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. The Committee on Education and Labor
will come to order. Welcome, everyone. I note for the
Subcommittee that Congressman Walberg of Michigan is permitted
to participate in today's hearing with the understanding that
his questions will come only after all members of the
Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are present have
had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
I note that a quorum is present. The Committee is meeting
today in an oversight hearing to hear testimony on examining
the policies and priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, EEOC, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs, OFCCP.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7c, opening statements are
limited to the Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear
from the witnesses sooner and provides all members with
adequate time to ask questions.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today's hearing will examine the policies and priorities of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, and the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OFCCP. These
are the two primary agencies responsible for combating
workplace discrimination and harassment and their oversight is
as necessary today as ever before.
Today the median Black worker earns only 75 percent of the
wage earned by the median White worker. One in four LGBTQ
workers reports experiencing some form of discrimination in the
workplace. And more than 60 percent of workers over the age of
45 report seeing or experiencing age discrimination in the
workplace.
My home State of Oregon has one of the most rapidly aging
populations in the country, and I have heard from workers,
particularly those in the technology industry, who believe they
have been dismissed from or denied employment because of their
age. The technology sector is one of the fastest growing
sectors in our economy and the lack of racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity is particularly noteworthy. In 2017 the
Government Accountability Office found that women hold only 19
percent of senior officer and manager positions. Representation
is similarly low for Asian, Hispanic, and Black workers.
Our workforce is becoming increasingly diverse, yet women,
people of color, older workers, workers with disability, and
LGBTQ workers are still experiencing persistent discrimination
in the workplace, including pay disparities, limited
opportunities, and often times harassment.
The EEOC was established more than 50 years ago under the
Civil Rights Act. It enforces the Federal laws that prohibit
workplace discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national
origin, age, disability, or genetic information. OFCCP's
mission is to make sure Federal contractors and subcontractors
promote diversity through affirmative action and enforce anti-
discrimination laws for companies receiving taxpayer dollars.
It is the responsibility of both agencies to help protect
workers from discrimination. Unfortunately, we have seen both
the EEOC and the OFCCP take actions that further the Trump
Administration's efforts to undermine and roll back civil
rights protections.
We should be doing everything we can to promote fairness in
the workplace, but the Trump Administration seems to be taking
us backward, not forward in this important effort. The
President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposed a 13 percent cut
to OFCCP and his fiscal year 2020 budget proposed nearly a $24
million cut to the EEOC's budget. These drastic proposed cuts
send a clear message about the value, or lack thereof, this
Administration places on the protection of civil rights. That
message has been reiterated through its policy decisions.
In 2017 the Administration took the extraordinary step of
filing an amicus brief in direct opposition to the EEOC in a
case regarding the sexual orientation and gender identity
protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC
appears to be adopting the Administration's lax approach to
workplace discrimination. The Commission has not filed any new
cases of sex-based discrimination related to gender identity or
sexual orientation since September of 2017. And although it
cleared the notorious case backlog, its ability to do so while
employing fewer people raises serious questions about how
rapidly cases are being closed. And most recently, many of us
were dismayed by EEOC's announcement that it would stop
collecting pay data that would help the EEOC and OFCCP staff
identify and address pay disparities based on gender, race, and
ethnicity.
In 2016 the EEOC stated that the expanded pay data
collection was necessary for the enforcement of Title VII,
Executive Order 11246 and the Equal Pay Act. The decision to
end the collection of pay data is an unprecedented setback for
the enforcement of civil rights laws.
With respect to the OFCCP, the Administration's record is
not much better. In July, Politico reported that from fiscal
year 2017 to fiscal year 2018, the OFCCP conducted on average
977 compliance evaluations per year. That is about one-quarter
the rate during the Obama Administration. The same reporting
found that the Agency has investigated only 9 percent of the
discrimination complaints received, compared to 21 percent
under the Obama Administration.
Additionally, in August the Department of Labor issued a
new proposal to dramatically broaden the ability of Federal
contractors to use religion as a basis to discriminate in
hiring. This will open the door to Federal contractors
discriminating against LGBTQ individuals, people of color,
women, or even those with varying religious beliefs, upending
the government's compelling interest in preventing the use of
taxpayer funds to perpetuate otherwise unlawful discrimination.
During today's hearing we will explore the rollback of
these civil rights protections. And as our workplace becomes
increasingly diverse, we need the EEOC and the OFCCP to get
back on track.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their time today.
And I yield to Ranking Member Comer for his opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairwoman Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Civil Rights and Human Services
Today's hearing will examine the policies and priorities of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the E-E-O-C, and the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or the O-F-C-C-P.
These are the two primary agencies responsible for combatting
workplace discrimination and harassment, and their oversight is as
necessary today as ever before. Today, the median Black worker earns
only 75 percent of the wage earned by the median white worker. One in
four LGBTQ workers reports experiencing some form of discrimination in
the workplace. And more than 60 percent of workers over the age of 45
reporting seeing or experiencing age discrimination in the workplace.
My home state of Oregon has one of the most rapidly aging
populations in the country, and I have heard from workers, particularly
those in the technology industry, who believe they have been dismissed
from or denied employment because of their age. The technology sector
is one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy, and the lack of
racial, ethnic, and gender diversity is particularly noteworthy. In
2017, the Government Accountability Office found that women hold only
19 percent of senior officer and manager positions. Representation is
similarly low for Asian, Hispanic, and Black workers.
Our workforce is becoming increasingly diverse, and yet women,
people of color, older workers, workers with disabilities, and LGBTQ
workers are still experiencing persistent discrimination in the
workplace including, pay disparities, limited opportunities, and
harassment.
The EEOC was established more than 50 years ago under the Civil
Rights Act. It enforces the federal laws that prohibit workplace
discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disability, or genetic information. OFCCP's mission is to protect
federal contractors and subcontractors, promote diversity through
affirmative action, and enforce anti-discrimination laws for companies
receiving taxpayer dollars.
It is the responsibility of both agencies to help protect workers
from discrimination. Unfortunately, we have seen both the EEOC and the
OFCCP take actions that further the Trump Administration's efforts to
undermine and roll back civil rights protections.
We should be doing everything we can to promote fairness in the
workplace. But the Trump Administration seems to be taking us backward,
not forward, in this important effort. The President's Fiscal Year 2019
budget proposed a 13 percent cut to OFCCP, and his Fiscal Year 2020
budget proposed a nearly $24 million cut to the EEOC's budget. These
drastic cuts send a clear message about the value, or lack-thereof,
this Administration places on the protection of civil rights, and that
message has been reiterated through its policy decisions.
In 2017, the Administration took the extraordinary step of filing
an amicus brief in direct opposition to the EEOC in a case regarding
the sexual orientation and gender identity protections under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act.
The EEOC appears to be adopting the Administration's lax approach
to workplace discrimination. The Commission has not filed any new cases
of sex-based discrimination related to gender identity or sexual
orientation since September 2017. And although it cleared the notorious
case backlog, its ability to do so while employing fewer people raises
serious questions about how rapidly cases are being closed.
And most recently, many of us were dismayed by EEOC's announcement
that it would stop collecting pay data that would help the EEOC and
OFCCP staff identify and address pay disparities based on gender, race,
and ethnicity. In 2016, the EEOC stated that the expanded pay data
collection was necessary for the enforcement of Title VII, Executive
Order 11246, and the Equal Pay Act. The decision to end the collection
of pay data is an unpresented setback for the enforcement of civil
rights laws.
With respect to OFCCP, the Administration's record is not much
better. In July, Politico reported that from Fiscal Year 2017 to Fiscal
Year 2018, the OFCCP conducted, on average, 977 compliance evaluations
per year--about one quarter the rate during the Obama Administration.
The same reporting found the agency has investigated only nine percent
of the discrimination complaints received, compared to 21 percent under
the Obama Administration.
Additionally, in August, the Department of Labor issued a new
proposal to dramatically broaden the ability of federal contractors to
use religion as a basis to discriminate in hiring. This will open the
door to federal contractors discriminating against LGBTQ individuals,
people of color, women, or even those with varying religious beliefs,
upending the government's compelling interest in preventing the use of
taxpayer funds to perpetuate otherwise unlawful discrimination.
During today's hearing we will explore the rollback of these civil
rights protections. As our workplace becomes increasingly diverse, we
need the EEOC and OFCCP to get back on track.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their time today, and I yield
to Ranking Member Comer for his opening statement.
______
Mr. COMER. Yielding? The Committee Republicans have long
been committed to policies and laws that empower Americans to
achieve success. No one should ever be denied an opportunity
because of unlawful discrimination. That is why there are
important protections under Federal law to prevent workplace
discrimination.
While we agree our Nation's nondiscrimination laws must be
properly enforced, workers and entrepreneurs should not be held
back by burdensome regulations, excessive red tape, and
overzealous enforcement actions.
Under the Obama Administration, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Committee, or EEOC, significantly expanded the
employer information report, the EEO-1, to require businesses
to collect and report employee pay data. Since 1966 the EEOC
has required employers with 100 or more employees to submit
demographic data annually. Before the Obama scheme was
proposed, pay data was never part of the EEO-1 report, and for
good reason. In 2017 the Trump Administration argued this
mandate was unnecessarily burdensome and lacked practical
utility. Job creators from around the country weighed in and
voiced their concerns with this extreme regulatory mandate. Not
surprisingly, the EEOC recently estimated that the burden of
collecting and reporting EEO-1 information with pay data for
2018 would be $622 million, a significant increase from EEOC's
2016 estimate of $53.5 million annually. This led EEOC to
conclude that the supposed benefits of collecting and reporting
pay data did not outweigh the cost of burdens placed on our
Nation's job creators.
But it is not all bad news coming from the EEOC. Currently
the Commission, which is also responsible for investigating
charges of discrimination against employers, has the lowest
backlog of pending charges in over a dozen years. Committee
members on both sides of the aisle have long raised concerns
about the Agency's backlog, so this is a promising step in the
right direction. When American workers turn to the Federal
Government for help, they should receive their due process in a
timely manner.
And we are seeing more good news from the Department of
Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or
OFCCP. OFCCP is tasked with enforcing nondiscrimination and
affirmative action requirements for Federal contractors.
Religious organizations have been discouraged from seeking
Federal contracts. So the OFCCP has proposed a rule that will
clarify the protection retained by religious organizations that
contract with the Federal Government. If adopted, the rule will
encourage more employers of all backgrounds, to participate in
the Federal contracting system and reaffirms our commitment to
protecting religious freedoms of all Americans.
The purpose of America's nondiscrimination laws and the
agencies enforcing them is to give all Americans equal
opportunities to succeed. EEOC and OFCCP play important roles
in helping to prevent and combat unlawful discrimination, but
they should also be encouraged to prioritize policies that are
responsible and effective so our Nation's job creators can
flourish and America's workplaces can be free from
discrimination.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Comer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Civil Rights and Human Services
``Committee Republicans have long been committed to policies and
laws that empower all Americans to achieve success. No one should ever
be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination. That is
why there are important protections under federal law to prevent
workplace discrimination.
While we agree our nation's nondiscrimination laws must be properly
enforced, workers and entrepreneurs shouldn't be held back by
burdensome regulations, excessive red tape, and overzealous enforcement
actions.
Under the Obama administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), significantly expanded the Employer Information
Report-- the EEO-1--to require businesses to collect and report
employee pay data. Since 1966, the EEOC has required employers with 100
or more employees to submit demographic data annually. Before the Obama
scheme was proposed, pay data was never part of the EEO-1 report, and
for good reason. In 2017, the Trump administration argued this mandate
was ``unnecessarily burdensome'' and ``lacked practical utility.''
Job creators around the country weighed in and voiced their
concerns with this extreme regulatory mandate. Not surprisingly, the
EEOC recently estimated that the burden of collecting and reporting
EEO-1 information with pay data for 2018 would be $622 million; a
significant increase from EEOC's 2016 estimate of $53.5 million
annually. This led EEOC to conclude that the supposed benefits of
collecting and reporting pay data do not outweigh the costs and burdens
placed on our nation's job creators.
But it's not all bad news coming from the EEOC. Currently the
Commission, which is also responsible for investigating charges of
discrimination against employers, has the lowest backlog of pending
charges in over a dozen years. Committee Members on both sides of the
aisle have long raised concerns about the agency's backlog, so this is
a promising step in the right direction. When American workers turn to
the federal government for help, they should receive their due process
in a timely manner.
And we are seeing more good news from the Department of Labor's
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). OFCCP is tasked
with enforcing nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements
for federal contractors. Religious organizations have been discouraged
from seeking federal contracts, so the OFCCP has proposed a rule that
will clarify the protections retained by religious organizations that
contract with the federal government. If adopted, the rule will
encourage more employers, of all backgrounds, to participate in the
federal contracting system, and reaffirms our commitment to protecting
religious freedom for all Americans.
The purpose of America's nondiscrimination laws, and the agencies
enforcing them, is to give all Americans equal opportunities to
succeed. EEOC and OFCCP play important roles in helping to prevent and
combat unlawful discrimination, but they should also be encouraged to
prioritize policies that are responsible and effective so our nation's
job creators can flourish, and America's workplaces can be free from
discrimination. ``
______
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Ranking Member Comber. All
other Members who wish to insert written statements into the
record may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. on October
2, 2019.
I will now introduce our witnesses.
Craig E. Leen serves as the Director of the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the U.S. Department of
Labor. Prior to serving at OFCCP, Mr. Leen was the City
Attorney of Coral Gables, Florida, where he was the General
Counsel and Chief Legal Officer.
Janet Dhillon is the 16th Chair of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Committee. Chair Dhillon was nominated by President
Donald J. Trump on June 29, 2017 and sworn in on May 15, 2019.
Chair Dhillon practiced law in the private sector for more than
25 years.
Cindy Brown Barnes is a Director in the Government
Accountability Office's Education, Workforce, and Income
Security team. She oversees the employment and training
portfolio. Mrs. Brown Barnes has more than 30 years of service
performing financial, forensic, and performance audits of
Federal agencies and programs.
Instructions to the witnesses--we appreciate all of you for
being here today and we look forward to your testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7d and Committee Practice, each of
you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5 minute
summary of your written statement.
Let me remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of
the U.S. Code Section 1011, it is illegal to knowingly and
willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing,
document, or material fact presented to Congress or to
otherwise conceal or cover up a material fact.
Before you begin your testimony please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you--I am afraid I
didn't set a very good example this morning--so it will turn on
and the Members can hear you. As you begin to speak the light
in front of you will turn green, after 4 minutes the light will
turn yellow to signal that you have 1 minute remaining. When
the light turns red your 5 minutes have expired and we ask that
you please wrap up.
We will let the entire panel make their presentations
before we move to Member questions. When answering a question,
please again remember to turn your microphone on.
I will first recognize Director Leen.
TESTIMONY OF CRAIG LEEN, ESQUIRE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. LEEN. Madam Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the critical work of OFCCP. I believe strongly in its
mission and I am honored to serve as its Director.
In this Administration, OFCCP is vigorously pursuing its
mission to enforce the civil rights protections for Federal
contractors in Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and VEVRRA. These authorities touch
approximately one-quarter of America's workforce. OFCCP is
dedicated to ensuring equal employment opportunity for these
workers and protecting against discrimination based on race,
color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion,
national original, disability, and veteran status, as well as
enforcing pay transparency.
Indeed, in the past two calendar years, OFCCP recovered a
record $45 million in monetary remedies, significantly more
than any previous administration in any 2 calendar years. OFCCP
is as efficient and effective as it has ever been.
A few words about myself and my passion for this work. I am
the father of a daughter and son who were each diagnosed with
autism as young children. In particular, my daughter, Alex, who
is 14 years old, has profound autism and a substantial
intellectual disability. I have struggled and fought for
accommodations for my daughter for over a decade on an almost
daily basis, and through these efforts became involved as an
advocate in the disability community. I have seen through this
experience the challenges individuals with disabilities face
obtaining accommodations and being treated inclusively. Indeed,
this experience led me here to OFCCP with the determination to
make a positive impact for people with disabilities.
There is much to be done and the numbers are startling. For
people with disabilities, the labor force participation rate is
approximately 20 percent compared to 60 percent generally. The
unemployment rate is typically double the general unemployment
rate, and the wage gap is approximately 30 percent. To address
these numbers and to ensure that people with disabilities are
treated inclusively by contractors, OFCCP is making Section 503
compliance a primary focus of the Agency.
As part of this effort, I have ordered 500 Section 503
focused reviews, which are presently ongoing. These reviews are
all on site at corporate headquarters across the country and
are a comprehensive look at disability inclusion and
nondiscrimination. More Section 503 focused reviews will be
included in future scheduling lists.
The Agency has also posted helpful guidance on its website,
with training materials and best practices in disability
inclusion. If we find violations in these reviews, we will
remedy them. We will also encourage contractors to adopt best
practices to avoid potential future violations. We then will
publish a report detailing our findings to help other
contractors and companies generally.
The Rehabilitation Act was the first Federal statute
focused on eliminating employment discrimination based on
disability status and I am proud that we are making it a
central focus of OFCCP's enforcement program.
This autumn, I am ordering 500 VEVRRA focused reviews as to
veterans, veterans with disabilities and military spouses, with
the list being released around Veteran's Day. We will then do
focused reviews on promotions to ensure that all Americans have
a fair chance to advance in employment and to address a number
of the groups of people that you have talked about previously,
women, women of color, people with disabilities, trying to make
sure that they can advance in employment.
The Agency is fully committed to enforcement. The most
recent scheduling list included 3,500 establishments made up of
2,500 compliance reviews, 500 focused reviews, and 500
compliance checks, the largest list in many years. Of course,
enforcement and compliance assistance go hand in hand. The
Agency is also focused on providing assistance to stakeholders
and contractors through its new online help desk and opinion
letter programs.
In providing compliance assistance, OFCCP will continue to
focus on providing transparency, certainty, efficiency, and
recognition.
I would like to briefly draw attention to our efforts to
increase efficiency. OFCCP has addressed its backlog of aged
cases, cases over 2 years old, cutting its case rate by a third
in the past 2 years. More efficiency leads to the ability to
conduct more reviews and help more workers.
I would like to conclude where I began, with people with
disabilities. These Americans make up about 20 percent of our
population and have not been fully included in employment for
too long. Individuals with disabilities are a significant
untapped source of skills and talent and our country would be
greatly benefitted by helping ensure their full employment.
OFCCP is doing its part, and will continue to do so.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Mr. Leen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Leen.
I now recognize Chair Dhillon for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JANET DHILLON, CHAIR, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Ms. DHILLON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify here today on behalf of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. I serve as Chair of the
EEOC, along with Commissioners Victoria Lipnic and Charlotte
Burrows, and General Counsel, Sharon Gustafson. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the plans for
the Agency and the challenges that we face.
I would like to thank the Committee and the Subcommittee
for their support of the EEOC, and I look forward to working
with all of you and all Members of Congress to achieve the
mission of the EEOC, to prevent and remedy unlawful employment
discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the
workplace.
I have been at the Commission now for just over 4 months,
and I am still learning about many aspects of the Commission's
role. In my prior professional roles, I have seen the EEOC in
action and the positive impact that it has made on workforces
across the country. As Chair, I want to build on the Agency's
legacy and continue to tackle workplace discrimination while
striking a careful balance between enforcement and compliance
assistance.
To further build on this legacy, I am starting with several
principles which are outlined in the written testimony that I
have submitted. I will note a few highlights here.
First, the EEOC must continue to provide excellent customer
service. We must be responsive to employees who raise
discrimination claims. An employee's decision to bring a charge
can be in many instances a courageous act, but an act that can
also be very stressful for that individual and their family. We
owe it to these employees, as well as everyone else involved,
to honor their courage by swiftly addressing their concerns.
Too often the sad reality is that justice delayed is justice
denied. Evidence can be misplaced, memories will fade. The
opportunity to quickly stop and remedy a discriminatory
practice can also be lost, potentially to the detriment of
other employees. So it is critical that our private sector
charges and our Federal complaints hearings, and appeals are
handled promptly and fairly. To do so, we must continue to
effectively manage our workload across all program offices.
Second, the EEOC will continue to work vigorously to
protect vulnerable workers. To that end I have established an
internal task force to take a closer look at vulnerable workers
and the effectiveness of our current enforcement and education
efforts. I have challenged this task force to step back and
look at everything fresh and see if there are things that we
can do better to maximize our effectiveness with these
populations.
Third, the Agency will continue to focus on its use of
alternative dispute resolution and conciliation to achieve the
Agency's mission. The EEOC's successful and popular mediation
program is a means by which we can promptly resolve charges and
bring benefits to victims of discrimination. In fiscal year
2018, the Agency conducted more than 9,000 mediations, which
resulted in nearly $166 million in benefits being paid to
victims of employment discrimination. Conciliation efforts are
another way for the EEOC to effectively enforce Federal
employment antidiscrimination laws. Conciliation is a
voluntary, informal, and confidential process that occurs once
the EEOC has determined that there is reasonable cause to
believe that discrimination has occurred. The Agency has an
obligation to attempt to resolve findings of discrimination
through conciliation before the Agency considers litigation.
And we will remain focused on ensuring that our efforts are
fair and taken in good faith.
Finally, litigation is an important tool in our toolbox,
but I believe it is a tool of last resort. When it does become
necessary, EEOC's litigation will be conducted in accordance
with the highest ethical standards.
In conclusion, discrimination threatens equal opportunity,
it holds people back from pursuing their dreams, and despite
the progress that we have made as a nation, bias in employment
still happens far too often. We must continue to work together
to bring America to a place where everyone has a fair chance to
work, to provide for their families, and to contribute to our
economy and our society.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Dhillon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you for your testimony, Chair
Dhillon.
I now recognize Miss Brown Barnes for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF CINDY BROWN BARNES, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. BROWN BARNES. Chair Bonamici, Senior Republican Comer,
and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today
to discuss our prior work across three GAO reports, examining
the challenges facing the Federal Government, and overseeing
employers' compliance with equal employment opportunity
requirements.
Today I will discuss the progress OFCCP and EEOC have made
in implementing 12 recommendations from our 2016 report on
strengthening OFCCP's oversight of Federal contractors and our
2017 report to increase equal employment opportunity in the
technology sector. I will also discuss the exemptions sought by
faith-based grantees from nondiscrimination laws related to
religious based hiring.
In our September 2016 report on OFCCP, we found that
weaknesses in OFCCP's compliance evaluation process limited its
ability to ensure that Federal contractors comply with
nondiscrimination provisions. We made six recommendations, as
you can see from the table on the screen. OFCCP has taken
action to fully implement the first three of our
recommendations; however, OFCCP has not fully implemented the
remaining recommendations, four, five, and six on the screen.
I want to highlight recommendation number five, involving
monitoring of the affirmative action plans. We found that OFCCP
relies significantly on voluntary compliance by Federal
contractors, and this approach cannot ensure that contractors
were complying with basic requirements to develop and maintain
an AAP. An AAP is a management tool that includes practical
steps to address underrepresentation of women and minorities,
such as goals for expanding employment opportunities to these
groups, and instances in which they are underrepresented.
OFCCP's regulations generally that cover contractors
prepare and maintain an AAP within 120 days of contract
commencement and update it annually. At the time of our review,
we found that OFCCP had no process for ensuring that
establishment met these requirements.
OFCCP has taken steps to address this recommendation, such
as developing a web-based portal to allow contractors to upload
their AAPs to assist OFCCP in reviewing and prioritizing
resources, among other actions. However, OFCCP needs to obtain
OMB approval to fully implement this recommendation.
In our November 2017 report on diversity in the technology
sector, we found that weaknesses in EEOC's and OFCCP's
oversight efforts impact their ability to ensure
nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity in the
technology sector. Specifically, we found that while the
estimated percentage of minority technology workers had
increased from 2005 to 2015, there have been statistically
significant increases in the number of Asian and Hispanic
workers, but no growth either for females or black workers.
As a result of our work, we made five recommendations to
OFCCP and one to EEOC, as you can see from table 2 on the
screen. Of the five recommendations made to OFCCP, the Agency
has fully implemented the one focused on requiring contractors
to desegregate demographic data for the purpose of setting
placement goals in the AAP.
I want to highlight the recommendation from EEOC at the
bottom of the table. EEOC has taken some action towards
addressing missing industry code data, which has broader
implications in the technology sector. However, EEOC has not
fully implemented this recommendation.
EEOC cannot analyze charge data by industry to help
identify investigation and outreach priorities. As a part of an
effort to overhaul its data system, EEOC has begun developing
an employer master list that will provide a source of employer
information, including industry codes. This will enable EEOC to
focus on industries with EEO disparities.
In our October 2017 report on faith-based grantees, we
found that few grantees sought an exemption based on the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We found that from 2007
through 2015, 9 of the 117 potentially faith-based
organizations certified that they were exempt from
nondiscrimination laws related to religious based hiring.
Thank you. This concludes my prepared statement.
[The statement of Ms. Brown Barnes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you for your testimony.
Under Committee Rule 8a we will now question witnesses
under the 5 minute rule alternating between the parties.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Americans are living and working longer, and we must do all
we can to make sure they are protected from age discrimination.
According to recent data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the percentage of retirement age Americans
in the labor force has doubled since 1985. Unfortunately, age
discrimination in the workplace is still disturbingly
pervasive, and it is a significant factor in older workers'
long-term unemployment. According to an AARP survey released
last year, three in five older workers reported seeing or
experiencing age discrimination on the job.
Earlier this year, this Committee approved the bipartisan
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, or POWADA.
The bill would amend our four core civil rights laws, the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act, the anti-retaliation
provision of Title VII of Civil Rights Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to make a
Congressional intent clear. Any unlawful discrimination in the
workplace is unacceptable.
Chair Dhillon, the Gross v. FBL Financial Services decision
applied the ``but for'' standard to age discrimination,
requiring the EEOC to demonstrate that age was essentially the
sole factor leading to an adverse employment action. Yet, under
other civil rights law, such as Title VII, the motivating
factor test is applied.
How does having different standards influence the EEOC's
efforts and outcomes? And would the legislation this Committee
passed, the POWADA bill, Protecting Older Workers Against
Discrimination Act, how would that strengthen the EEOC's
ability to enforce the ADEA?
Ms. DHILLON. Well, thank you, Chairwoman, for that
question.
Certainly, age discrimination cases and claims and charges
are a focus of the EEOC's effort. In fact, in the most recent
fiscal year, over 22 percent of the charges that we received
involved allegations of age discrimination. So, I agree with
you that it is a significant issue and the Commission is
focused on remedying age discrimination cases.
I can't support or not support a particular piece of
legislation. I can say that obviously the ``but for'' standard
is a higher standard. But that does not mean that the
Commission is any less committed to investigating, and where
appropriate, litigating charges of age discrimination. You have
my commitment, and I know you have the commitment of my fellow
commissioners, as well as our General Counsel and all the
staff, that we take age discrimination charges very seriously
and we pursue them vigorously.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. But you agree that the motivating
factor test would be easier to prove a case of age
discrimination?
Ms. DHILLON. It is a lower standard. It is a lower
standard, yes.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you. I request unanimous consent
now to submit a letter into the record from former EEOC chair
Jenny Yang and former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez.
Without objection. I have the letters introduced.
According to this letter from the former EEOC Chair and
General Counsel, ``The Agency's 2017 efforts to update the
enforcement guidance on unlawful harassment were critical
because, according to the letter, the EEOC's guidance on
harassment has not had a comprehensive update for over 20
years. As the MeToo Movement has brought nationwide attention
to the pervasive problem of workplace harassment, the demand
for up to date guidance is even greater.''
The letter also notes that the enforcement guidance ``was
the product of extensive research, analysis, and deliberation
informed by public hearings, public testimony, public input,
and the work of the task force.''
The comment period for guidance closed on March 21, 2017,
yet there is still no final guidance issued.
Chair Dhillon, where is the guidance and the review process
and when will it be finalized? And I ask that question because
in the wake of the MeToo Movement we would like to have some
specific examples of how the EEOC is using its enforcement
tools, including strategic enforcement in addressing and
preventing harassment in the workplace.
Ms. DHILLON. Thank you, Chairwoman, for your question. And
I am glad that you called out the work of the task force, and
particularly the efforts of former Acting Chair Lipnic, who
convened that task force and issued a very comprehensive and,
frankly, in my opinion extremely well done work on the problem
of harassment in the workplace. And I would note that she was
far ahead of the curve because that was issued well over a year
before the MeToo Movement came into public consciousness.
On our website, we have that task force report, we also
have tools for employers and employees on how to address sexual
harassment and harassment claims and allegations of
discrimination. And these are all very helpful tools and I
would encourage people to look at them and consult with them.
The guidance itself is still in the OMB process.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Do you have any sense of when that
will be completed?
Ms. DHILLON. I do not.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. And I now request unanimous consent to
enter letters into the record from the Human Rights Campaign
relevant to this hearing.
Without objection.
I yield back the balance of my time and recognize Mr. Comer
for your questions. Excuse me, I am sorry, recognize Ms.
Stefanik from New York for your questions.
Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Chairwoman Bonamici.
I want to focus on women in the workplace. Today there are
nearly 75 million women working in the United States, the most
ever. Of the 2.8 million jobs created within the past year, 58
percent have gone to women. Women are graduating college at a
higher rate than their male counterparts, 56 percent of degrees
conferred last year, and women are increasingly their family's
primary breadwinners. We must address unique challenges facing
women in the workforce.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Wage Equity Act and
have earned co-sponsorships of over 50 of my colleagues. My
bill, the Wage Equity Act, addresses the gender pay gap and
reinforces equal pay for equal work by creating a self-audit
system to encourage businesses to proactively conduct a pay
analysis audit and identify any potentially unlawful pay
disparities. It allows businesses to quickly rectify any of
these disparities while being protected from lawsuits.
So, my question for Chairwoman Dhillon and Director Leen,
do you believe that the creation of such a self-audit system
would be beneficial to enhance employer compliance and address
unlawful pay disparities?
Mr. LEEN. Thank you for that question. Pay disparities
based on race or gender, or any of the protections we enforce,
are problematic. And when they are caused by discrimination,
they are illegal. I would tell you I can't speak specifically
as to a particular piece of legislation, but I can tell you
that OFCCP is doing that already with Federal contractors. We
require Federal contractors every year to assess their
compensation and to make sure that there are not unexplainable
pay disparities based on gender and race.
Typically, what we do is they look to see the size of the
gap, and if it is more than two standard deviations and it
can't be explained by a legitimate business reason that is
nondiscriminatory, they need to fix it. If they don't fix it,
then we come in and we make them fix it.
Ms. STEFANIK. So, the concept of a self-audit system, we
are trying to incentivize businesses if they identify a pay gap
to close that pay gap.
Ms. Dhillon, do you have any comments on that?
Ms. DHILLON. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Again, like Mr. Leen, I cannot comment on a particular
piece of legislation or proposed legislation, but what I can
say is that I do believe that employers do want to do the right
thing. And by and large they do want to pay their employees
fairly. So, I think anything that encourages them along those
lines could be helpful. And I certainly look forward to working
with you and working with your staff, and any kind of technical
assistance that we can provide we would be happy to do so.
Ms. STEFANIK. Sure. Setting aside the specifics of the
bill, perhaps I should have said that at the end, the concept
of a self-audit, so incentivizing businesses to look at their
data proactively, reaching out to the EEOC to make sure that if
there are disparities they are closing those potential pay
gaps. Is that concept something that you think would be helpful
in terms of making sure businesses are doing right by the law,
which from my perspective, when I visit businesses, they are
trying to do that. The concept of a self-audit. Based upon
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, this is not a novel concept.
Many states have self-audit systems in place.
Mr. LEEN. OFCCP has a lot of experience in this area and it
is certainly a best practice to do a self-audit every year. For
Federal contractors, though, it is required by law.
Ms. STEFANIK. Great. Best practice, that is great. So I
think that data would be helpful.
My next question is through the Federal contractors,
because they are required to do that every year, how is that
more beneficial than the broad data collection in the EEO-1 in
regard to identifying these pay discrepancies?
Mr. LEEN. Well, the EEO-1 data, that basically asks for
sort of average data about salaries based on gender, for
example, in nine categories. So what OFCCP--when we do an
audit, we get much more specific data.
Ms. STEFANIK. Right, more nuanced data.
Mr. LEEN. Well, it is by--it is very granular, it goes all
the way to the person. And we are able to do regression
analyses based on job title or job group. That sort of data
allows us to make a finding of discrimination.
More generalized data typically can't be used to make a
finding of discrimination.
Ms. STEFANIK. Great. With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Representative Stefanik.
Now I recognize Dr. Schrier from Washington for 5 minutes
for your questions.
Dr. SCHRIER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses today.
I am going to direct my questions today to you, Chair
Dhillon. I was concerned to hear that the EEOC at the end of
this month is going to stop collecting data that would help
identify and address pay disparities based on gender, race, and
ethnicity. And we have talked a lot about equal pay for equal
work. And in this Committee, I told my own story about coming
out of residency having earned $4.00 an hour and was so excited
to have a job offer that I immediately just said, sure, I will
take it, only to find out later that some of my colleagues, all
male, had the good sense to negotiate a higher salary. And, of
course, when you start with a higher salary, then any increases
from then just compound it.
But mine is just an anecdote and I don't think we can make
decisions based on anecdotes and conjecture. And that is why I
really think we need to collect this data. And it sounds, from
your testimony, that it is really clear that you acknowledge
that there are systemic disparities in pay related to gender
and race, whether intentional or not.
And so my question is, why would we stop getting this data
when data helps us make decisions?
Ms. DHILLON. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for your
question.
Currently the EEOC is under court order to collect the EEO-
1 component 2 pay data, and that data collection is ongoing
pursuant to the court order. Earlier this month the Commission
filed--or submitted to the Federal Register required
documentation under the Paperwork Reduction Act seeking
permission from the OMB to collect data for the next 3 years.
So we go to the OMB and we need to get permission through the
Paperwork Reduction Act process in order to be allowed to
collect data in the future. And in going through that, we have
to actually make a showing to the OMB, we have to balance the
burden that will be placed on the people who we are asking to
provide the data against the utility.
In the notice that we filed in the Federal Register for
public comment last week, what the Commission said was that on
a going forward basis we were not seeking authorization to
collect pay data, the so-called component 2 data. And the
reason for that, as laid out in the notice, was really two-
fold.
First of all, relying on our data scientists and
statisticians at the EEOC, they did a burden analysis of the
ongoing component 2 pay data collection and concluded that the
burden to the responding community, to the employers, was about
10 times--actually more than 10 times higher than had
originally been estimated. So we had to take that into account.
Then we looked at the utility of that data, particularly as
compared to the heightened burden, and concluded that we
couldn't seek--under the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, we could not seek additional authorization to
collect the data. I have concern--
Dr. SCHRIER. In the interest of time, I am surprised that
it is that burdensome, and simply because Congresswoman
Bonamici and I were just at Nike, I visited Starbucks, they
have voluntarily--like Miss Stefanik was talking about--they
voluntarily collected this data just because they wanted to do
their own self-improvement, which is very noble. But I also
don't think that we can just depend on the kindness and the
goodness of businesses to collect this data. I cannot imagine
that in this day of computers and data entry that it would be
really that hard to collect this. And I notice that there was
no comment period, so the public was not invited to comment. Is
that because you--
Ms. DHILLON. Congresswoman, the 60-day notice has been
filed and so the public does have an opportunity to provide
comments. We solicit comments on that, on what was put into the
Federal Register.
Dr. SCHRIER. And then one last question, given that Nike
and Starbucks are able to do this so easily, have you been able
to identify some better practices that perhaps they are using,
perhaps other industry is using, to get at the root of this
information? Because it may be a burden for companies, but it
is really a burden for people who are systematically being paid
less than they should be paid. Is there a better way to get
this information?
Ms. DHILLON. Well, I think there is a better way to do a
pay data collection. And, in fact, during the comment period in
2016, a number of groups and employers made suggestions to the
EEOC, which unfortunately were not adopted. What the Commission
said in the Paperwork Reduction Act notice that was submitted
to the Federal Register, is that we are committed to going
through a rulemaking, a Title VII rulemaking, which in my view
is what should have been done in 2016, to allow for robust
public comment and input into how we craft a pay data
collection that, while there is going to be a certain level of
burden involved, it is not undue burden, but at the same time
collects data that is useful to the EEOC in its enforcement
mission.
Dr. SCHRIER. Thank you. I see we are out of time.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Representative.
They have called votes on the floor. Before we go to the
floor, I am going to recognize Dr. Foxx, the Ranking Member of
the Full Committee, for 5 minutes for your questions. And after
Dr. Foxx's questions, we will recess until immediately after
the last vote and then return to the Committee.
Dr. Foxx.
Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. And I want to
thank our witnesses for being here today. I think we have
superbly prepared and talented people here today. And I want to
appreciate all three of you for your comments and for your
willing to serve in the positions that you are in.
Chair Dhillon, congratulations to you on your confirmation
and thank you for being here.
In its final year, the Obama Administration proposed EEOC
collect this employee pay data, which has been the subject of
the conversation recently. My understanding is the collection
would increase the data fields provided by employers in each
EEO-1 report 20-fold, from 180 to 3,660 fields. As you
indicated, your new cost estimate for employers to complete and
submit this revised report with pay data is $622 million, more
than 11 times higher than the Obama Administration's estimate.
Do you agree that requiring additional reporting of
employee pay data to the Federal Government not only creates
enormous compliance costs, but also raises significant privacy
and confidentiality concerns for workers and businesses?
Ms. DHILLON. Yes, Congresswoman, I agree with you.
Mrs. FOXX. And I am glad to hear that you think there is a
better way to do this.
I would like to explore with you whether the pay data the
court is now requiring EEOC to collect will have any value. In
his court declaration in April, EEOC's chief data officer
raised significant concerns about the data's validity and
reliability, calling attention to such issues as to whether the
data would enable valid comparisons within and between
employees. He also stated that EEOC never conducted a true
pilot study on collecting pay data, even though the National
Academy of Sciences in 2012 recommended the completion of a
true pilot study before embarking on a full-scale collection of
pay data.
Do you share the EEOC chief data officer's concerns
regarding the utility of the pay data collection?
Ms. DHILLON. Congresswoman, yes, I do. And in particular,
the point that you raised about the lack of a pilot study is
something that is of significant concern to me. The National
Academy of Sciences in 2012 actually made six recommendations
for a pay data study. The EEOC unfortunately only adopted one
of those recommendations.
Mrs. FOXX. Right.
Director Leen, thank you again for testifying. I would like
to congratulate you on the proposed rule regarding the
religious exemption for Federal contractors that OFCCP
published last month.
At a hearing in June in this Committee, Republicans found
themselves defending religious liberty. Republicans will always
stand up for religious freedom, but it was disheartening to see
it under attack. OFCCP's proposed rule relates to the religious
exemption for Federal contractors based on the First Amendment,
recent Supreme Court decisions and Title VII Civil Rights Act.
Do you view the proposed rule as making new law or merely
restating and clarifying existing law?
Mr. LEEN. Thank you for that question. I have to be a
little limited in what I can say about the proposed rule
because it is a pending proposed rule.
We have received over 109,000 comments on the rule and we
are looking at them, and we are open-minded, and we are
considering how to move forward.
I can answer your question, though, based on what we have
said in the preamble of the NPRM, which is that the intent is
to clarify. My Agency does not make law, Congress makes law.
Mrs. FOXX. Well, thank you very much for that. We
celebrated Constitution Week this week and I think it is
extraordinarily important that we never lose sight that the
Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment and the very
first right is the freedom of religion. And I think that is
something we must remind people of all the time.
Thank you all very much, again.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman BONAMICI. Thank you, Representative Foxx. And
now the Committee will be recessed. We have two votes. It
should be probably 20-30 minutes and we will resume after the
last vote is concluded.
The Committee is in recess.
[Recess]
Mrs. HAYES. The Chair will continue to recognize Members
for 5 minutes.
And next we have Chairman Scott from Virginia for
questioning.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you.
Chairman Dhillon, you have had several questions on the pay
data, how can you effectively, proactively do anything about
pay discrepancies without the data?
Ms. DHILLON. Congressman, thank you for your question.
The EEOC enforces compensation discrimination laws now, we
investigate charges, we conciliate charges, where appropriate,
we bring litigation to obtain relief for charging parties. In
addition, we engage in substantial outreach efforts, educating
employers and employees as well, and then we have resources on
our website. So I think that the Agency is actively and
aggressively enforcing compensation discrimination laws.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Leen, you have a proactive obligation, how
would pay data help you fulfill your mission?
Mr. LEEN. Congressman, we receive the pay data, as I
mentioned, that is much more specific through our neutrally
scheduled audits. So the pay data we typically get is the pay
by employee, by race, and gender. And we are able to put those
employees into pay analysis groups, run regression analyses,
and then determine whether there is a statistically and
practically significant finding. And then we require them to
fix it.
What I was mentioning before was we could not do that with
the EEO-1 component 2 pay data because it is too general. So
for us, we are going to continue to focus on the data that we
get in our neutrally scheduled audits.
Mr. SCOTT. You get more specific information than the
component 2 data?
Mr. LEEN. Yes, much more specific.
Mr. SCOTT. Then why is it so expensive to just do the
little component 2 data?
Mr. LEEN. Well, I can tell you from the perspective of
OFCCP that when they have to provide us this data, it is when
they have been neutrally scheduled for an audit, which does not
occur every year. It occurs whenever we include them on the
scheduling list. There are costs associated with OFCCP
compliance that we are keenly aware of and we try to reduce.
But typically that is--you sign up for that by being a Federal
contractor. That is something you agree to do affirmatively in
taking the Federal--in basically being in the Federal
procurement system. And it is only when you are audited that
you have to provide us that information.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Let me ask another question on religious
discrimination. If someone has strong religious views, it is my
understanding that they can discriminate now?
Mr. LEEN. Congressman, absolutely not. They cannot
discriminate just because they have strongly held religious
views.
Mr. SCOTT. Okay. What does the new guidance allow them to
do that they couldn't do before?
Mr. LEEN. The new proposed guidance, which is a pending
rule making, so I am limited as to what I can say, provides
clarifying definitions related to the present regulation that
is already in OFCCP's regulations, which are based on Title
VII. And the proposed rule would provide additional
definitions, as well as an interpretive rule, which basically
says that the rule would be interpreted to the full extent of
the Constitution.
Mr. SCOTT. You are aware of the organization in South
Carolina that is running a child placement agency that is
discriminating based on religion with Federal money?
Mr. LEEN. Mr. Scott, what I would--what we do is if they
are a Federal contractor and they are discriminating against
their employees, we would prevent that. And the way we do that
is if a complaint was made, we would go in and we would fix it,
or if we neutrally schedule them for audit.
Mr. SCOTT. So if it is a Federal contractor they are not
able to discriminate based on religion?
Mr. LEEN. They are not able to discriminate based on
religion against their employees. Unless there is--the
religious exemption applies, and then they are allowed to
favor--they are--under the current religious exemption, they
are allowed to favor employees based on religion. That
exemption goes all the way back to Title VII.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, does religion include favoring people who
belong to their particular church?
Mr. LEEN. Yes.
Mr. SCOTT. And if it is an all White church, that pretty
much excludes a lot of different groups, wouldn't it?
Mr. LEEN. If it were--the point--I don't know if I agree
with the premise there. We don't allow discrimination based on
race, even if religion is given as the reason for that. That is
in the preamble to the NPRM. We cite to the Bob Jones
University case. And, in fact, that principle applies to every
protected group that OFCCP protects. You cannot discriminate
against someone based on their gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, national origin, race, based on disability status,
based on veteran status, because of religion. That we do not
permit.
Mr. SCOTT. I am sorry, just for clarification, did you say
that sexual orientation is a protected class?
Mr. LEEN. Yes, it is. It is a protected class for OFCCP
because it is expressly included in our executive order.
Mrs. HAYES. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. COMER. Thank you.
Director Leen, thank you for testifying today. OFCCP's
proposed rule clarifying the religious exemption for Federal
contractors states that religious organizations provided
previous feedback to OFCCP that they were hesitant to bid on
Federal contracts because of uncertainty surrounding the scope
and application of the religious exemption.
Could you elaborate on those concerns? And do you believe a
rule clarifying the religious exemption will encourage more
organizations to participate in the Federal contracting system?
Mr. LEEN. Yes. I can elaborate on that a little bit. I am
limited again in talking about the proposed rule based on the
fact that it is pending. I can talk about what is in the
preamble, and I can tell you a little bit about some of the
goals that are expressed in the preamble.
So, for example, you asked about religious organizations.
Very few--the percentage of Federal contractors that are
religious organizations is quite low, it is less than 1
percent. So we are not talking about a huge group of companies
to begin with.
In addition to that, there has been a concern because of
the lack of clarity in OFCCP's regulations that a religious
organization that wishes to be a Federal contractor is not
exactly certain as to what that entails. And, in fact, there is
a concern by some religious contractors that have been
expressed to me, that they have to actually sacrifice a portion
of their religious character in order to be a Federal
contractor. That concern I have. I have that concern. Religious
discrimination is a problem, be it against an individual based
on their religious beliefs, or a religious organization. The
First Amendment does not allow discrimination based on
religion.
So that is a concern. It is 1 of the 10 protections OFCCP
is entrusted to protect, just as important as the other 9.
Mr. COMER. Director, we have heard from employers that
OFCCP enforcement and interpretations of the law and its
purview vary widely from regional office to regional office.
This can be especially challenging for companies that operate
in multiple states around the country.
What are you doing to supervise OFCCP's regional offices to
ensure they interpret and apply the law consistently and
fairly?
Mr. LEEN. We are taking several actions in that regard.
First, we issued what is called the preliminary determination
notice directive, and that directive ensures that whenever
OFCCP is going to issue a preliminary finding, that has been
reviewed by both career staff and myself in the national office
to make sure that what we are doing is consistent across all
regions and that there is substantial competent evidence
supporting what action we are taking.
In addition to that, we are--it has been--let me tell you,
it has been a focus of--we have quarterly senior leadership
meetings with our regional directors, it is a focus of mine in
every one of those meetings that you can't be treated
differently in Miami than you are being treated in Seattle. We
need to be strict in enforcing the law, but we need to be
equally strict in enforcing the law. And we also need to make
sure that we are achieving remedies in all parts of the country
in the same way. It shouldn't depend on who the Regional
Director is.
Mr. COMER. Chair Dhillon, you discussed in your testimony
that EEOC has made significant progress in addressing and
reducing the charge backlog. This is welcome news since members
of this Committee on both sides of the aisle have been critical
of the EEOC's inability to keep the backlog at a manageable
level, resulting in protracted investigation and litigation
that creates unnecessary uncertainty for workers and employers.
I agree with you that justice delayed is justice denied.
With this in mind, could you elaborate on what EEOC is doing to
ensure discrimination charges are investigated fairly and
resolved promptly?
Ms. DHILLON. Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate your
kind words and I know that all the hardworking employees at the
EEOC very much appreciate it, because it has been an enormous
effort.
One of the changes or enhancements to the process that EEOC
embarked on under Acting Chair Lipnic's leadership and that I
affirm and support, is paying more attention at the intake
stage. So when an employee comes to the EEOC with a concern,
they can schedule an appointment or they can come in on a walk-
in basis and an investigator can sit with that employee and
talk to them about what their concern is. And what that does it
is gives the EEOC very early on an opportunity to appropriately
direct that potential charge. It may be the case that
particular employee has a complaint that is covered by a law
that the EEOC does not enforce. So rather than taking a charge
and going through the process, we can instead swiftly direct
that employee to where they need to go to get appropriate
redress. It may be that when the employee understands the
process, including the fact that their employer is going to be
notified, they may decide they do not want to proceed at that
point.
So the intake process has been a valuable part of helping
us to manage our inventory.
Mr. COMER. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. HAYES. Thank you.
I now recognize from Nevada, Miss Lee.
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being
here and dealing with our vote situation.
Listen, earlier this week this Committee in a bipartisan
manner passed the Older Americans Act, which provides critical
nutrition, legal, and transportation services for older
Americans, which comes obviously at a time when we are
experiencing a shift in our national age demographics as more
and more baby boomers are retiring. Which brings me to think
about the future of work and the number of dynamics that we
must evaluate, especially in terms of worker protections.
In my home State of Nevada, we have well known industries
that drive our economy. And as every industry is unique, there
are always cases that affirm the need for robust worker
protections and an overseer of equity in our workplace. As an
example, we have Deborah Jeffries, who has been a cocktail
server at Bally's Las Vegas Hotel and Casino benefitting from a
union contract through Culinary Union 226. She has been able to
work no matter her age, which has been an important factor for
many companies within the industry who consider it when they
are hiring. And as an example, another local casino was just
sold and its cocktail servers were all terminated and not
rehired because of their age. Deborah obtained her same pay as
her male counterparts and has seniority and pay and will
eventually retire with security and dignity.
Chair Dhillon, as you said earlier, age discrimination
charges are about 20 percent of the charges the EEOC receives.
Earlier this year, as the Chair Bonamici talked about, we
passed a bipartisan, again POWADA, the Protecting Older Workers
Against Discrimination Act. Have you reviewed POWADA? And, in
your view, will this legislation strengthen EEOC's ability to
enforce Age Discrimination in Employment Act?
Ms. DHILLON. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Lee, for your
question.
As I did testify earlier, charges related to age
discrimination claims are a substantial part of the EEOC's
charge inventory. Indeed--
Ms. LEE. A yes or no, will it--
Ms. DHILLON. I can't comment on a particular piece of
legislation. What I can say is that myself, my fellow
commissioners, indeed, the entire commission, is motivated and
devoted to pursuing these kinds of claims. And if there is
additional legislation that is passed, we are committed to
enforcing that law as well.
Ms. LEE. Okay. Would you mind providing EEOC's views in
writing with respect to that for the Committee?
Ms. DHILLON. We can certainly provide technical assistance
to the Committee.
Ms. LEE. Thank you.
As Ranking Member Comer just talked about, in 2008 you had
1,968 FTEs, you reduced your backlog by 19.5 percent, which is
incredible. What is even more surprising is according to a
report from Politico yesterday, you had on average 758
investigators in 2018, which was down from 825 that EEOC had on
average during the Obama Administration.
How, with these limited resources--you spoke about more
attention given at intake, were there any other factors that
led to this reduction and how were you able to achieve that?
Ms. DHILLON. Well, Congresswoman, I saw that Politico piece
as well and I actually reviewed some data and I don't
completely agree with the figures that Politico cited. We
currently have 765 investigators. We added investigators on
staff during fiscal year 2019 and also added investigators on
staff in 2018.
But in addition to the intake process, I think the backlog
has been managed down so that we now have a workable inventory.
What that allows our investigators and our attorneys to do is
to tackle the charges when they are new. And it is easier to do
because memories are clearer, the evidence is more readily
available, and so you can move charges through the process more
effectively and more efficiently because the events are still
fresh in people's mind.
So I think that part of our ability to effectively manage
our inventory now is a function of the fact that the backlog
has been reduced. And that is due to a tremendous amount of
hard work by all of the employees of the EEOC. And I really
think that they should be commended for their work
Ms. LEE. Thank you.
Madam Chair, before I end, I just would like to submit into
the record letters from the Washington Lawyers' Committee
sharing workers' experience that detail women of color and
workers with disabilities' cases being dismissed or being given
the right to sue letters in such little time that it is hard to
imagine that these claims could have been investigated. It may
be because of your intake procedure, but I would like to enter
those into the record.
Mrs. HAYES. Into the record without objection.
I now recognize from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.
I want to start by thanking the panelists for their efforts
to fight against unlawful discrimination. Some of you have done
it for many years and our country is better off because of your
efforts, so thank you.
I also want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for
having this hearing. I think the First Amendment is a beautiful
part of the American experience and I think protecting
religious liberty has long been a fantastic powerful part of
our country's history. So I am glad to continue that
conversation.
A question for Ms. Brown Barnes and then, Mr. Leen, you
could feed in as well.
But I was intrigued by the 2017 GAO study that did
interviews with six faith-based Federal grantees. And all six
of those organizations indicated that, you know, maintaining
their religious character was important to them. And if there
are any key takeaways from that report, whether it was
interviews or any particular insights that you have, I would be
interested in them.
Ms. BROWN BARNES. The key takeaways is that they felt that
coreligionists, or those that share their belief and faith,
help them accomplish their mission.
Mr. JOHNSON. I mean it seems to me that would be important
for secular organizations too, right? I mean let us have a
purpose drive approach toward the mission of this nonprofit, or
of this corporation. I mean let us have a shared end in sight.
So I would think that is not of importance only to religious
organizations, but all organizations. Is that right, you think?
Ms. BROWN BARNES. Yeah, I think that is right, but we just
heard specifically that in order to do or provide the type of
services, the type of community outreach, the things that they
were doing, that it was helpful for them to have
coreligionists.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, sure.
Mr. Leen?
Mr. LEEN. What is important to me, relating to religious
organizations that are Federal contractors or which to be
Federal contractors, is to ensure that we are following recent
Supreme Court precedent, executive orders, guidance from the
Attorney General, that we are following the First Amendment.
That is important to me.
So we have proposed a rule. We have received over 109,000
comments. I am limited in what I can say, other than that,
because I need to look at those comments to make sure that we
are considering everything that should be considered in
proposing a rule.
As stated, though, in the preamble, religious liberty is a
core liberty, a core freedom. As I mentioned before, the
executive order expressly mentioned 10 protections, religion
being one of them. Title VII had a religious exemption. So this
is something that goes back many years. So really all the way
back to the Bill of Rights.
Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, I think that is well said and we will
pick up there. And I am not asking you to speculate on where
the rules would go of course, but rather about the rules in
their proposed format.
You know, we had the strongly bipartisan 1993 Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, we have had a number of Supreme Court
decisions.
Mr. Leen, my assumption would be the proposed rules are in
alignment with those decisions and those Congressional acts.
Care to elaborate?
Mr. LEEN. Yes. That is the intent of the proposed rule, to
be consistent with applicable law and to clarify our
regulations, OFCCP's regulations, to be consistent with
applicable law.
We are open-minded, we certainly want to get it right, so
that is why we are going to take a look at the comments and
then make a decision as to how to proceed. But that is the
intent of the proposed rule.
Mr. JOHNSON. Ms. Dhillon, I wanted to give you a bite at
the apple.
You know this is something that EEOC doesn't deal with
maybe quite as much, the topics we have had, but I don't want
to shut you out if you have got something to offer.
Ms. DHILLON. Well, I am familiar with OFCCP's NPRM at a
high level. Certainly interested in watching the process as it
unfolds and as the comments come in, and I applaud them for
going through the appropriate rule making process. I think it
is the right way to handle an issue like this.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thanks very much to all the panelists.
And I yield back.
Mrs. HAYES. Thank you.
And now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Thank you all so much for being here.
According to a 2016 report by the Economic Policy
Institute, my home State of Connecticut is second only to New
York in terms of statewide income inequality. In order to
address pay discrimination and income inequality, we need the
data.
So, Chair Dhillon, in your responses to several of the
Senate Help Committee Ranking Member Murray's questions during
your September confirmation hearings, you stated, and I quote
``Pay discrimination is a serious issue and an appropriate
focus of the EEOC efforts. I believe that transparency of pay
data is a useful tool.'' Do you still believe that transparency
of pay data is a useful tool?
Ms. DHILLON. Yes, I do.
Mrs. HAYES. In that same confirmation hearing, in response
to Ranking Member Murray's question, he asked, and I quote,
``Will each of you commit to me that you will make finalizing a
transparent pay data collection by the EEOC a priority and that
it will be finished in a timely manner?'', to which you
responded yes. Do you still hold that belief to be true?
Ms. DHILLON. Yes, I do.
Mrs. HAYES. So given that you have discontinued the
component 2, will you be conducting a pilot program so that we
can continue to collect pay data?
Ms. DHILLON. Congresswoman, thank you for your question. We
are continuing to collect component 2 pay data. To be clear, we
are under court order to do so and the EEOC is complying with
that court order and will do so, so long as the order is in
effect.
What the EEOC has done is, pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the PRA, we have indicated that we do not
continue--we do not--we are not asking OMB to grant us the
authority to continue to collect component 2 pay data in the
future. Instead, as we indicated in the PRA, what we intend to
do is go through a Title VII notice of rule making process so
that we can solicit input and develop a type of data collection
that meets our obligations under the PRA, which is to minimize
the burden to the entities who are required to respond while
matching that burden against the utility of the data to the
EEOC.
I do think that a pilot would be part of that. And, in
fact, that was one of the recommendations made by the National
Academy of Sciences in 2012. The EEOC did not adopt that
recommendation and did not conduct a pilot study in connection
with the 2016 PRA, but I believe that a pilot study would be
appropriate.
Mrs. HAYES. And you have also stated here today, and in the
notice of information collection that was published, it says
that there is an undue burden for collecting this type of
information. Are you aware that the EEOC went through 6 years
of analysis, significant interagency consultations, and
multiple lengthy notice and comment periods during the issuing
of component 2? I am sorry--yes, of component 2? Have you
reached out and used any of that data or contacted the outside
vendors or any people who collected this information
previously?
Ms. DHILLON. Congresswoman, I reviewed the comments that
were submitted in 2016. It was not a notice and comment rule
making process under the APA, as I believe it should have been.
Instead, it was a 60-day PRA notice and in response to that
groups submitted comments. And I have reviewed those comments.
And the comments pointed out concerns that the respondent
community had both with the utility and with the burden.
In terms of the burden, in 2016, the EEOC calculated the
burden at being approximately $53 million. But what they did
was they calculated the burden at the employer level. So they
treated every employer the same, regardless of size, regardless
of the number of employees that they would have to report on,
regardless of the configuration of their payroll systems, their
HRIS systems, if they even have those kinds of systems in
place. They assumed the burden to every employer was the same.
Fast forward to the PRA notice that we submitted last week,
at my direction our data scientists and our statisticians redid
the burden calculation and they calculated the burden per
report that an employer needed to complete because in some
cases, if any employer has more than one establishment, they
have to file multiple reports. And if an employer is going to
submit additional reports, it stands to reason that the burden
is higher. And, in fact, when that calculation was rerun, it
was determined that the burden was 10 times higher than had
originally been calculated.
I would also note that the burden analysis that was
conducted as part of the PRA notice that was submitted last
week is consistent in methodology with what the EEOC previously
did up until 2016. In 2016 the EEOC changed its approach. We
went back to the prior approach in connection with the Federal
Register notice.
Mrs. HAYES. Thank you.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that I submit a
letter into the record from the Examining Policies and
Priorities of Equal Opportunity Commission Office.
Without objection, so ordered.
I think that concludes all of our Member questions for
today. I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee
practice, materials for submission for the hearing record must
be submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following
the last day of the hearing, preferably in Microsoft Word
format. The materials submitted must address the subject matter
of the hearing. Only a Member of the Committee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents
longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
an internet link that you must provide to the Committee Clerk
within the required timeframe, but please recognize that years
from now that link may no longer work.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their
participation today. What we have heard is very valuable.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for you and we ask the witnesses to please respond to those
questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
14 days in order to receive those responses.
I remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee
practices, witness questions for the hearing record must be
submitted to the Majority Committee Staff or Committee Clerk
within 7 days. The questions submitted must address the subject
matter of the hearing.
I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his
closing statement.
Mr. COMER. Well, thank you. And I want to again thank the
witnesses for coming to testify today. It is clear from the
testimony heard here today that the Trump Administration,
including the EEOC and OFCCP, continues to combat
discrimination in the workplace. I am encouraged by the
seriousness with which Chair Dhillon and Director Leen take
their obligations to enforce nondiscrimination laws.
I applaud the EEOC's recognition that the current employer
pay data collection is a burdensome and costly mandate on job
creators and a threat to the privacy of American workers.
Furthermore, one of the things that makes America
exceptional is the First Amendment, including its protection of
the free exercise of religion.
I am encouraged by OFCCP's proposed rule to protect the
religious freedom of Federal contractors and I hope the final
rule will be finalized swiftly.
Thank you again for your testimony and I yield to the
Chairwoman.
Mrs. HAYES. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for the purposes of making a closing
statement.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. The
EEOC and OFCCP's enforcement tools are critical to protecting
American workers from discrimination. As our workplace becomes
more diverse and as our society confronts pervasive issues like
harassment and implicit biases, workers will increasingly rely
on effective enforcement to defend their rights to be free from
discrimination.
Today's hearing highlighted recent policy shifts at the
EEOC and OFCCP that raise serious questions about the agencies'
commitments to fulfilling their responsibility to workers
across America.
Although this hearing is coming to a close, our oversight
of these agencies will continue. Women, people of color, older
Americans, workers with disabilities, and the LGBTQ community
need our advocacy and oversight efforts to persist.
I hope our witnesses will do everything they can to get
these agencies back on track.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Ms. Brown Barnes follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ms. Brown Barnes responses to questions submitted for the
record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ms. Dhillion responses to questions submitted for the
record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment 1A: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
116HPRT41267/pdf/CPRT-116HPRT41267.pdf
Attachment 1B: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
116HPRT41268/pdf/CPRT-116HPRT41268.pdf
Attachment 2A: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
116HPRT41280/pdf/CPRT-116HPRT41280.pdf
Attachment 2B: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
116HPRT41281/pdf/CPRT-116HPRT41281.pdf
[Mr. Leen responses to questions submitted for the record
follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]