[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3110-H3114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION RELATING TO ``UPDATE OF 
                 COMMISSION'S CONCILIATION PROCEDURES''

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of House 
Resolution 486, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing 
for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 
Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation 
Procedures'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 13

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's 
     Conciliation Procedures'' (86 Fed. Reg. 2974; published 
     January 14, 2021), and such rule shall have no force or 
     effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials on S.J. Res. 13.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 13, a 
Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, Conciliation Rule.
  This resolution will help ensure fairness for those who bring forth 
charges of unlawful workplace discrimination.
  When the EEOC has found that an employer likely violated the law, it 
is required under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to engage 
in conciliation before filing a lawsuit. This conciliation process is 
meant to be an informal and confidential opportunity for parties to 
settle a charge of discrimination in lieu of going to court.
  Unfortunately, in the final weeks of the Trump administration, the 
EEOC issued a final rule that imposed onerous new requirements on the 
conciliation process.
  Under the new rule, the EEOC must provide an employer with a written 
summary of the facts and the nonprivileged information the EEOC relied 
on to determine that the employer violated the law. Notably, the rule 
requires the EEOC to expose the identities of workers or groups of 
workers for whom relief is being sought unless they proactively request 
anonymity, and their witnesses.
  This new rule will put a thumb on the scale in favor of employers in 
cases where the EEOC found that they likely violated workers' civil 
rights. Specifically, the rule incentivizes employers to focus 
litigation on whether the EEOC failed to satisfy the rule's new 
requirements instead of whether the employer engaged in unlawful 
discrimination.
  In fact, on settlement--settlements had been more likely since the 
Supreme Court ruled that this conciliation process should be informal, 
unlike the rule that was promulgated late in the Trump administration. 
This will allow unscrupulous employers to drag out the conciliation 
process, possibly for years--and even avoid accountability altogether--
by just litigating over whether the EEOC complied with the conciliation 
rule rather than correcting the discriminatory process.

                              {time}  1430

  The EEOC rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in 
Mach Mining v. EEOC. It was a unanimous decision. It held that the EEOC 
must

[[Page H3111]]

have the discretion to use whatever informal means of settlement are 
appropriate in each individual case. However, under the new rule, a 
rigid conciliation process will apply across the board, one-size-fits-
all, in every case of workplace discrimination.
  This solution will likely lead to increased retaliation against 
victims of discrimination and witnesses, as well as needless delays in 
justice for workers. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. 
This is why civil rights leaders and worker advocates across the 
country have called on Congress to pass this Congressional Review Act 
resolution and restore fairness for victims of workplace 
discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative 
Policy from the Biden administration in support of this resolution.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 S.J. Res. 13--A joint resolution for congressional disapproval under 
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of 
   Commission's Conciliation Procedures''--Sen. Murray, D-WA, and no 
                               cosponsors

       The Administration supports Senate passage of Senate Joint 
     Resolution 13 to nullify the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission's (EEOC) recently promulgated ``Update of 
     Commission's Conciliation Procedures,'' which became 
     effective on February 16, 2021, under the Congressional 
     Review Act. The rule that S.J. Res. 13 would nullify imposed 
     onerous and rigid new procedures on the EEOC's obligation to 
     conciliate or ``settle'' meritorious claims of employment 
     discrimination, that risks unduly delaying and diverting 
     limited resources from agency efforts to investigate and 
     resolve meritorious claims of employment discrimination. The 
     rule increases the risk of retaliation by making it easier 
     for employers to demand the identities of those with 
     information about unlawful discrimination, which will likely-
     have a chilling effect on the willingness of victims and 
     witnesses to come forward. S.J. Res. 13 would nullify the 
     rule's unnecessary and burdensome standards that would likely 
     result in increased charge backlogs, and lengthier charge 
     investigation, resolution and litigation times. The 
     resolution will also ensure that EEOC has the flexibility to 
     tailor settlements to the facts and circumstances of each 
     case, thus increasing the likelihood of voluntary compliance. 
     The resolution will furthermore ensure that justice for 
     workers subject to discrimination is not delayed, or 
     potentially denied, due to costly and time-consuming 
     collateral litigation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 
the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 13, which 
negates a recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, 
rule. I urge Members to reject this misguided resolution.
  The rule in question, often referred to as the conciliation rule, is 
fair, increases transparency, reduces senseless litigation, and upholds 
a Federal statute.
  There are dozens of pressing problems demanding Congress' attention. 
Our southern border is being run over by drug dealers and human 
traffickers. America is vulnerable to cyberattacks from adversarial 
foreign nations, like China and Russia. Our children are months behind 
in their schoolwork because of Democrats' insistence on putting 
teachers' union leadership demands before students' interests.
  We could be addressing those problems, but Democrats are choosing to 
elevate the repeal of this commonsense rule before all those other 
immediate issues.
  Let's examine the facts of the matter. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 
requires EEOC to engage in conciliation. Before the EEOC can pursue 
court proceedings against an employer for a discrimination claim, the 
agency must work with the business to resolve the dispute.
  There are good reasons Congress established this requirement. 
Successful conciliations provide immediate relief to employees who 
suffered discrimination. Conciliations also save these employees time 
and money. Court cases are adversarial and can last years. Individuals 
who experience discrimination should not have to wait years for 
justice.
  Nothing in the regulation prohibits the EEOC from using the court 
system if conciliation fails. For over four decades, EEOC's 
conciliation process remained largely ineffectual and unaltered. 
Antiquated bureaucratic systems deserve scrutiny, and this opaque 
practice was long overdue for improvement.
  Prior to the rule's promulgation, a paltry 41 percent of the 
conciliations were successful. One out of every three employers 
declined to participate in this broken process.
  In 2015, the Supreme Court reprimanded the EEOC for its inadequate 
conciliation process, which included failing to communicate basic 
information about the alleged discrimination to employers. The mounting 
evidence of a failed conciliation process grew harder and harder for 
the EEOC to ignore. That is why the conciliation rule was issued on 
January 14, after an extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking.
  Under the rule, the core tenets of conciliation remain unchanged. 
Conciliation stays voluntary, does not favor either the employer or the 
worker, and protects individuals' privacy.
  The rule requires the EEOC to provide employers with basic but 
important information in support of the agency's findings, including 
simple underlying facts, the legal basis for the finding, an 
explanation of the monetary relief calculations, and whether the EEOC 
designated the case for a class of individuals.
  The rule also does not increase costs to taxpayers. EEOC is on the 
record saying its operating budget will absorb any minor costs 
associated with implementing the rule.
  In summary, S.J. Res. 13 harms the victims of discrimination; 
encourages the EEOC to pursue needless, combative, and expensive 
litigation; and turns the EEOC back into a politically driven, runaway 
bureaucracy.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res. 13, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee 
on Civil Rights and Human Services, and cosponsor of the House version 
of this resolution.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 13, a 
resolution to repeal a harmful rule from the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission that threatens to delay or potentially deny 
justice for individuals who face workplace discrimination.
  As chair of the Education and Labor Committee's Civil Rights and 
Human Services Subcommittee, I am pleased to co-lead the House 
companion to this resolution because far too many workers still 
experience workplace discrimination. The Civil Rights Act helps workers 
seek redress by directing the EEOC to engage in conciliation, which 
provides an opportunity for settlement before going to court.
  But the EEOC's new rule added burdensome requirements, and it gives 
employers unfair advantages in the conciliation process. Under the 
rule, the EEOC discloses confidential information, analysis, and even 
the identities of workers to employers, increasing the likelihood of 
retaliation.
  By passing this resolution, we can direct the EEOC to revert to its 
prior practices, which were upheld by the Supreme Court.
  Madam Speaker, I want to note that in the Mach Mining decision from 
the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015, the Court held that ``Every aspect of 
the Title VII's conciliation provision smacks of flexibility. To begin 
with, the EEOC need only to `endeavor' to conciliate a claim, without 
having to devote a set amount of time or resources to that project.''
  We can direct the EEOC to revert to those prior practices that were 
upheld and that better support the needs of workers.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for his leadership, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, Democrats have claimed that EEOC's conciliation rule 
could subject employees to retaliation. This claim could not be further 
from the truth.
  First, the rule explicitly states that employees may remain anonymous 
in the conciliation process if they so choose. In such cases, 
settlement discussions would proceed with the employee or employees 
making claims of discrimination remaining anonymous.

[[Page H3112]]

  Second, the existing statutes to which the conciliation rule applies 
all make it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee 
for filing a charge with EEOC or participating in EEOC proceedings. An 
employer would be compounding its legal exposure if it unwisely tried 
to act against employees for making a complaint to the EEOC.
  The claim that the conciliation rule will expose employees to 
retaliation is a red herring.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to state on the question of whether or not the 
individuals can be revealed, identifying the aggrieved individuals must 
take place, but not if the individual or individuals have requested 
anonymity. That means you have to know that you are about to be 
revealed. You have to proactively request anonymity. If you haven't 
gone through those steps, then you will be revealed.
  That is an unnecessary step. It puts people in unnecessary jeopardy, 
and I hope they would not subject that. It is not necessary. The EEOC 
has an obligation to do conciliation, but they need to do it on an 
individualized case, best aimed at settlement and based on an 
individual case, and reveal the information that is best for that 
purpose, and no more.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in 2015, the Supreme Court harshly criticized EEOC's 
conciliation process in the Mach Mining decision, which held that a 
court may review whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory obligation to 
engage in conciliation before filing a lawsuit.
  The agency claimed that two ``bookend letters'' were all that was 
needed to satisfy the statutory conciliation requirement, one at the 
beginning of the process announcing a finding of discrimination, and 
one at the end stating that conciliation had failed.
  The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the EEOC must disclose to 
the employer ``what practice has harmed which person or class, and 
provide the employer an `opportunity' to discuss the matter in an 
effort to achieve voluntary compliance.''
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 13 is a partisan maneuver to overturn an 
eminently reasonable regulation. Before the rule, the EEOC's 
conciliation process was out of date, opaque, and ineffective. 
Individuals subject to workplace discrimination should not have to wait 
years for justice.
  Employers are not asking too much when they request basic information 
about the EEOC's findings. The conciliation rule updates a broken 
system and is beneficial to both workers and employers.
  S.J. Res. 13 delivers a partisan victory for the Democrats' 
technocrat base.
  Madam Speaker, I reject S.J. Res. 13, and I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join me.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is our responsibility to reverse the EEOC's new 
conciliation rule. Before this harmful rule change, the EEOC's 
conciliation process was what it was meant to be, an informal, 
flexible, confidential opportunity to settle discrimination claims 
before going to court. That is what the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 
in 2015.

                              {time}  1445

  Now, the new conciliation rule is threatening to stack the process 
against workers by subjecting those who make discrimination claims to 
an increased risk of retaliation and allowing employers to hijack the 
process to focus on whether it failed to conciliate, not whether the 
employer violated the law.
  Simply put, this is an unnecessary new regulation which will, at 
best, delay justice for victims of discrimination and, at worst, open 
the door for collateral litigation, adding potentially years to the 
process before ever reaching the merits of the discrimination claim.
  That is why advocates of victims of discrimination support the 
resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights signed by 24 civil rights groups 
in support of the resolution.
                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2021.
     Re Support S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act 
         Resolution of Disapproval to Protect Workers from a 
         Harmful EEOC Rule
       Dear Representative: The undersigned 24 civil and workers' 
     rights organizations urge you to vote for S.J. Res. 13, a 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval to 
     undo a January 14, 2021, Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC) final rule that threatens to harm working 
     people seeking relief from discrimination and to impede the 
     work of the EEOC.
       The EEOC final rule made several changes to conciliation, 
     the process by which the EEOC tries to settle a charge of 
     workplace discrimination. Instead of ensuring that 
     discrimination charges are resolved fairly, the EEOC's final 
     rule imposes several new obligations and disclosures that:
       Significantly weight the conciliation process in favor of 
     employers;
       Delay justice and increase the likelihood of harm to 
     working people;
       Divert scarce EEOC staff time and resources away from 
     investigating discrimination; and
       Contravene controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
       The Senate passed S.J. Res. 13 on May 19, 2021. If the 
     House now passes this resolution, Congress could undo this 
     harmful rule and restore the status quo with respect to the 
     EEOC's procedures. A resolution of disapproval is an 
     appropriate exercise of Congress's power in this case, 
     because the CRA is the most expeditious and effective option 
     for addressing the negative impacts of the EEOC's final rule.
       The EEOC must be able to conduct its work efficiently in 
     order to be effective in its mission to prevent and remedy 
     workplace discrimination. This mission is even more critical 
     in the middle of a global pandemic that continues to have 
     severe economic repercussions for women, people of color, and 
     other marginalized communities, including a heightened risk 
     of job loss, health and safety hazards, and discrimination 
     based on sex, race, age, and disability.
       Individuals who experience discrimination on the job 
     already face significant hurdles to seeking redress, 
     including retaliation, lack of information about their 
     rights, and lack of access to legal assistance. When an 
     individual does file a charge of discrimination against their 
     employer with the EEOC, the agency collects information and 
     conducts an investigation. If the EEOC finds ``reasonable 
     cause'' to believe employment discrimination has occurred, 
     the parties are invited to participate in the conciliation 
     process, which seeks to settle or resolve the charges of 
     discrimination informally and confidentially, in lieu of 
     filing a lawsuit. Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt 
     resolution of charges informally before considering or 
     proceeding with litigation, and the EEOC may only pursue 
     litigation if conciliation has failed.
       The final rule will only deepen the barriers working people 
     face coming forward to report discrimination and obtain 
     justice. It requires the EEOC to grant the employer access to 
     details of the victim and witnesses' identity and 
     allegations, escalating the risk of retaliation for workers. 
     Claims of retaliation made up more than half of all charges 
     filed at the EEOC in FY 2020, and fear of retaliation 
     prevents many victims of discrimination from coming forward 
     and many witnesses from being forthright--something that may 
     be especially true during an economic crisis. The rule also 
     requires the EEOC to disclose critical information concerning 
     the EEOC's legal analysis of the case to employers, and 
     employers only. In other words, the EEOC would be required to 
     automatically tum over its case files to employers whom the 
     agency believes to have acted unlawfully, but not to the 
     working people who are seeking a remedy for the 
     discrimination they faced. This practice would exacerbate 
     resource and information inequities between the parties to 
     the benefit of employers only. Although the proposed rule 
     would allow disclosures to the charging party upon request, 
     many working people who file charges are unrepresented by 
     counsel and will not know to make such a request. The EEOC, 
     whose mission is to prevent and remedy discrimination, should 
     not, in its own procedural rules, disadvantage the very party 
     seeking to remedy discrimination.
       By imposing inflexible rules on the conciliation process, 
     the EEOC final rule also flouts congressional intent and is 
     inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. In its unanimous 
     2015 decision Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, the Supreme Court 
     explained that

[[Page H3113]]

     ``every aspect of Title VII's conciliation provision smacks 
     of flexibility,'' which allows the EEOC to tailor its 
     approach to conciliation in the way most appropriate in each 
     case. Without flexibility, the EEOC will be forced to divert 
     resources away from investigating and remedying workplace 
     discrimination and put them toward satisfying the final 
     rule's burdensome standards, resulting in increased delays at 
     the expense of victims of discrimination.
       In addition, the rules would saddle EEOC with wasteful 
     collateral litigation attacking the conciliation process, 
     prolonging harm to workers through increased delay. This 
     tactic was prevalent before Mach Mining, and that case itself 
     shows the potential impact: The workers in Mach Mining--women 
     excluded from coal mining jobs due to sex discrimination--
     were forced to wait nine years after the first charge was 
     filed for relief, in part because of unmeritorious employer 
     challenges to the conciliation process.
       By invoking the CRA and passing a resolution of 
     disapproval, Congress could quickly restore the status quo 
     with respect to the EEOC's conciliation procedures, 
     minimizing the harm to workers and eliminating the need for 
     the EEOC to expend its scarce resources either undertaking 
     rulemaking processes to rescind the conciliation rule or 
     implementing the onerous new procedures in the final rule, 
     and defending the sufficiency of the new conciliation process 
     in collateral litigation by employers.
       Importantly, application of the CRA to the final rule 
     ensures that the EEOC would be prohibited from promulgating a 
     ``substantially'' similar rule in the future that would 
     hinder vigorous enforcement of federal workplace 
     antidiscrimination laws. The final conciliation rule was both 
     procedurally and substantively flawed, raising concerns about 
     its integrity. As such, Congress's exercise of the CRA would 
     be warranted here.
       Accordingly, we urge you to support and vote for S.J. Res. 
     13, the CRA resolution of disapproval of the EEOC's final 
     rule. Please contact Gaylynn Burroughs of The Leadership 
     Conference on Civil and Human Rights at 
     [email protected], or Maya Raghu of the National 
     Women's Law Center at [email protected], if you have any 
     questions.
           Thank you,
       The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
     National Women's Law Center, A Better Balance, AFL-CIO, 
     American Association of University Women (AAUW), Anti-
     Defamation League, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, 
     AFL-CIO, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for 
     American Progress, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority, 
     Futures Without Violence, Institute for Women's Policy 
     Research, National Action Network, National Association of 
     Councils on Developmental Disablities, National Employment 
     Law Project, National Organization for Women, National 
     Partnership for Women & Families, National Workrights 
     Institute, Public Citizen, Sikh Coalition, TIME'S UP Now, 
     Women Employed, Workplace Fairness.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, we cannot allow employers to 
drag out the conciliation process rather than be held accountable for 
violating workers' civil rights.
  As I said at the beginning of this debate, justice delayed is justice 
denied. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
resolution and taking a critical step to ensuring that those who suffer 
workplace discrimination can get timely and fair justice.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for 
working with me on the House version of the resolution.
  I ask for the support of the House to pass the resolution to overturn 
the EEOC regulation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional 
Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval to undo an Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) final rule issued January 14, 2021 that 
threatens to harm working people seeking relief from discrimination and 
to impede the work of the EEOC.
  The EEOC final rule made several changes to conciliation, the process 
by which the EEOC tries to settle a charge of workplace discrimination, 
all of which harm employees.
  Instead of ensuring that discrimination charges are resolved fairly, 
the EEOC's final rule imposes several new obligations and disclosures 
that:
  1. Significantly weight the conciliation process in favor of 
employers;
  2. Delay justice and increase the likelihood of harm to working 
people;
  3. Divert scarce EEOC staff time and resources away from 
investigating discrimination; and
  4. Contravene controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
  The Senate passed S.J. Res. 13 on May 19, 2021, and by following 
suit, the House can ensure this harmful rule is rescinded and the 
status quo ante is restored with respect to the EEOC's procedures.
  The EEOC must be able to conduct its work efficiently in order to be 
effective in its mission to prevent and remedy workplace 
discrimination.
  This mission is even more critical in the middle of a global pandemic 
that continues to have severe economic repercussions for women, people 
of color, and other marginalized communities, including a heightened 
risk of job loss, health and safety hazards, and discrimination based 
on sex, race, age, and disability.
  Madam Speaker, individuals who experience discrimination on the job 
already face significant hurdles to seeking redress, including 
retaliation, lack of information about their rights, and lack of access 
to legal assistance.
  When an individual does file a charge of discrimination against their 
employer with the EEOC, the agency collects information and conducts an 
investigation.
  If the EEOC finds ``reasonable cause'' to believe employment 
discrimination has occurred, the parties are invited to participate in 
the conciliation process, which seeks to settle or resolve the charges 
of discrimination informally and confidentially, in lieu of filing a 
lawsuit.
  Title VII requires the EEOC to attempt resolution of charges 
informally before considering or proceeding with litigation, and the 
EEOC may only pursue litigation if conciliation has failed.
  The final rule will only deepen the barriers working people face 
coming forward to report discrimination and obtain justice by requiring 
the EEOC to grant the employer access to details of the victim and 
witnesses' identity and allegations, escalating the risk of retaliation 
for workers.
  Claims of retaliation made up more than half of all charges filed at 
the EEOC in FY 2020, and fear of retaliation prevents many victims of 
discrimination from coming forward and many witnesses from being 
forthright--something that may be especially true during an economic 
crisis.
  The rule also requires the EEOC to disclose critical information 
concerning the EEOC's legal analysis of the case to employers, and 
employers only.
  In other words, the EEOC would be required to automatically turn over 
its case files to employers whom the agency believes to have acted 
unlawfully, but not to the working people who are seeking a remedy for 
the discrimination they faced.
  This practice would exacerbate resource and information inequities 
between the parties to the benefit of employers only.
  The EEOC, whose mission is to prevent and remedy discrimination, 
should not, in its own procedural rules, disadvantage the very party 
seeking to remedy discrimination.
  By imposing inflexible rules on the conciliation process, the EEOC 
final rule also flouts congressional intent and is inconsistent with 
Supreme Court precedent.
  In its unanimous 2015 decision Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S.__, 
135 S. Ct. 1645, No. 13-1019 (2015), the Supreme Court stated that 
``every aspect of Title VII's conciliation provision smacks of 
flexibility,'' which allows the EEOC to tailor its approach to 
conciliation in the way most appropriate in each case.
  Without flexibility, the EEOC will be forced to divert resources away 
from investigating and remedying workplace discrimination and put them 
toward satisfying the final rule's burdensome standards, resulting in 
increased delays at the expense of victims of discrimination.
  By invoking the CRA and passing a resolution of disapproval, Congress 
could quickly restore the status quo with respect to the EEOC's 
conciliation procedures, minimizing the harm to workers and eliminating 
the need for the EEOC to expend its scarce resources either undertaking 
rulemaking processes to rescind the conciliation rule or implementing 
the onerous new procedures in the final rule, and defending the 
sufficiency of the new conciliation process in collateral litigation by 
employers.
  In addition, application of the CRA to the final rule ensures that 
the EEOC would be prohibited from promulgating a ``substantially'' 
similar rule in the future that would hinder vigorous enforcement of 
federal workplace antidiscrimination laws.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support S.J. Res. 13, the CRA 
resolution of disapproval of the EEOC's final rule and urge all Members 
to join me in voting for its passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.

[[Page H3114]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________