Congressional oversight hub

Congress funds the EEOC. Congress can ask whether it works.

This page gives constituents and congressional staff direct routes to the committees and official information sources relevant to workplace enforcement.

Start here

Who has a reason to look?

Committee assignments change. The links below lead to official, current congressional pages rather than relying solely on static names.

Senate

Employment & Workplace Safety Subcommittee

As of August 2026, the official Senate roster lists Sen. Jim Banks as chair and Sen. John Hickenlooper as ranking member of the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee.

Verify current membership ↗
Congressional scorecard

See the record, member by member.

This directory covers every currently serving member of Congress. Scores use only individual, recorded votes on the two arbitration measures below; they are not endorsements or predictions.

H.R. 963 — FAIR Act of 2022House Roll Call 81. A “Yea” supports restricting forced arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust and civil-rights disputes.
H.R. 4445 — Ending Forced Arbitration ActHouse Roll Call 33. The Senate passed it by voice vote, so no individual Senate vote exists.
ScorePercentage of eligible recorded votes cast “Yea.” “No score” means there was no individual vote to attribute. Votes by current senators who served in the House in 2022 are labeled.

Loading congressional records…

MemberPartyServiceFAIR ActEnding Forced Arbitration ActScoreSupports reform

Verification standard: “Confirmed” appears only after a member or their official congressional office provides a documented statement supporting EEOC or forced-arbitration reform. An unchecked box means “not confirmed,” not “opposed.” Roster snapshot: August 15, 2026.

Constituent route

Contact your own members too.

Congressional offices are especially responsive to constituent matters. Use the official House and Senate tools to identify your representatives, then send a concise evidence-based request for oversight.

Questions worth asking

Concrete oversight questions for the EEOC.

01

What are the median, 75th-percentile and 90th-percentile waits from inquiry to intake interview, nationally and by field office?

02

How many potential charging parties receive an intake appointment after a relevant statutory filing deadline would otherwise expire?

03

What minimum investigative actions are required before a charge can be closed, and how is compliance audited?

04

How often are charging-party witnesses contacted, and how often are employer records requested before a no-cause closure?

05

How many charges have been pending for more than 6, 12, 18 and 24 months?

06

What office-level metrics are used to detect unusually long intake or investigation delays?

07

What recourse exists when a charging party believes material evidence was not investigated?

08

What share of retaliation and disability charges receive merit-factor resolutions, and how does that vary by office?

For staff

Three-minute briefing

  1. Demand: EEOC received 88,201 new charges in FY2025 and almost 270,000 inquiries.
  2. Inventory: 49,807 private-sector charges remained pending at year-end.
  3. Outcome: EEOC reports 17.5% of FY2025 resolved charges had merit-factor outcomes favorable to charging parties.
  4. Open question: Public national reports do not disclose enough office-level information to evaluate intake waiting time or investigative steps in individual cases.
  5. This project: collect standardized charging-party reports, publish methodology, and compare user experiences against official data.
Open primary sources