[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 163 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4592-H4597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2020

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 5309) to prohibit discrimination based on an 
individual's texture or style of hair, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5309

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Creating a Respectful and 
     Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020'' or the ``CROWN Act 
     of 2020''.

[[Page H4593]]

  


     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Throughout United States history, society has used (in 
     conjunction with skin color) hair texture and hairstyle to 
     classify individuals on the basis of race.
       (2) Like one's skin color, one's hair has served as a basis 
     of race and national origin discrimination.
       (3) Racial and national origin discrimination can and do 
     occur because of longstanding racial and national origin 
     biases and stereotypes associated with hair texture and 
     style.
       (4) For example, routinely, people of African descent are 
     deprived of educational and employment opportunities because 
     they are adorned with natural or protective hairstyles in 
     which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in 
     locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros.
       (5) Racial and national origin discrimination is reflected 
     in school and workplace policies and practices that bar 
     natural or protective hairstyles commonly worn by people of 
     African descent.
       (6) For example, as recently as 2018, the United States 
     Armed Forces had grooming policies that barred natural or 
     protective hairstyles that servicewomen of African descent 
     commonly wear and that described these hairstyles as 
     ``unkempt''.
       (7) In 2018, the United States Armed Forces rescinded these 
     policies and recognized that this description perpetuated 
     derogatory racial stereotypes.
       (8) The United States Armed Forces also recognized that 
     prohibitions against natural or protective hairstyles that 
     African-American servicewomen are commonly adorned with are 
     racially discriminatory and bear no relationship to African-
     American servicewomen's occupational qualifications and their 
     ability to serve and protect the Nation.
       (9) As a type of racial or national origin discrimination, 
     discrimination on the basis of natural or protective 
     hairstyles that people of African descent are commonly 
     adorned with violates existing Federal law, including 
     provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 
     et seq.), section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 
     1981), and the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.). 
     However, some Federal courts have misinterpreted Federal 
     civil rights law by narrowly interpreting the meaning of race 
     or national origin, and thereby permitting, for example, 
     employers to discriminate against people of African descent 
     who wear natural or protective hairstyles even though the 
     employment policies involved are not related to workers' 
     ability to perform their jobs.
       (10) Applying this narrow interpretation of race or 
     national origin has resulted in a lack of Federal civil 
     rights protection for individuals who are discriminated 
     against on the basis of characteristics that are commonly 
     associated with race and national origin.
       (11) In 2019 and 2020, State legislatures and municipal 
     bodies throughout the United States have introduced and 
     passed legislation that rejects certain Federal courts' 
     restrictive interpretation of race and national origin, and 
     expressly classifies race and national origin discrimination 
     as inclusive of discrimination on the basis of natural or 
     protective hairstyles commonly associated with race and 
     national origin.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Federal Government should acknowledge that 
     individuals who have hair texture or wear a hairstyle that is 
     historically and contemporarily associated with African 
     Americans or persons of African descent systematically suffer 
     harmful discrimination in schools, workplaces, and other 
     contexts based upon longstanding race and national origin 
     stereotypes and biases;
       (2) a clear and comprehensive law should address the 
     systematic deprivation of educational, employment, and other 
     opportunities on the basis of hair texture and hairstyle that 
     are commonly associated with race or national origin;
       (3) clear, consistent, and enforceable legal standards must 
     be provided to redress the widespread incidences of race and 
     national origin discrimination based upon hair texture and 
     hairstyle in schools, workplaces, housing, federally funded 
     institutions, and other contexts;
       (4) it is necessary to prevent educational, employment, and 
     other decisions, practices, and policies generated by or 
     reflecting negative biases and stereotypes related to race or 
     national origin;
       (5) the Federal Government must play a key role in 
     enforcing Federal civil rights laws in a way that secures 
     equal educational, employment, and other opportunities for 
     all individuals regardless of their race or national origin;
       (6) the Federal Government must play a central role in 
     enforcing the standards established under this Act on behalf 
     of individuals who suffer race or national origin 
     discrimination based upon hair texture and hairstyle;
       (7) it is necessary to prohibit and provide remedies for 
     the harms suffered as a result of race or national origin 
     discrimination on the basis of hair texture and hairstyle; 
     and
       (8) it is necessary to mandate that school, workplace, and 
     other applicable standards be applied in a nondiscriminatory 
     manner and to explicitly prohibit the adoption or 
     implementation of grooming requirements that 
     disproportionately impact people of African descent.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to institute 
     definitions of race and national origin for Federal civil 
     rights laws that effectuate the comprehensive scope of 
     protection Congress intended to be afforded by such laws and 
     Congress' objective to eliminate race and national origin 
     discrimination in the United States.

     SEC. 3. FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--No individual in the United States shall 
     be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 
     or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or 
     activity receiving Federal financial assistance, based on the 
     individual's hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture 
     or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular 
     race or national origin (including a hairstyle in which hair 
     is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, 
     braids, Bantu knots, and Afros).
       (b) Enforcement.--Subsection (a) shall be enforced in the 
     same manner and by the same means, including with the same 
     jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated in title 
     VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), 
     and as if a violation of subsection (a) was treated as if it 
     was a violation of section 601 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``program or activity'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000d-4a); and
       (2) the terms ``race'' and ``national origin'' mean, 
     respectively, ``race'' within the meaning of the term in 
     section 601 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and ``national 
     origin'' within the meaning of the term in that section 601.

     SEC. 4. HOUSING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--No person in the United States shall be 
     subjected to a discriminatory housing practice based on the 
     person's hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or 
     that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race 
     or national origin (including a hairstyle in which hair is 
     tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, 
     braids, Bantu knots, and Afros).
       (b) Enforcement.--Subsection (a) shall be enforced in the 
     same manner and by the same means, including with the same 
     jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated in the 
     Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and as if a 
     violation of subsection (a) was treated as if it was a 
     discriminatory housing practice.
       (c) Definition.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``discriminatory housing practice'' and 
     ``person'' have the meanings given the terms in section 802 
     of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3602); and
       (2) the terms ``race'' and ``national origin'' mean, 
     respectively, ``race'' within the meaning of the term in 
     section 804 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3604) and ``national 
     origin'' within the meaning of the term in that section 804.

     SEC. 5. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

       (a) In General.--No person in the United States shall be 
     subjected to a practice prohibited under section 201, 202, or 
     203 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et 
     seq.), based on the person's hair texture or hairstyle, if 
     that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated 
     with a particular race or national origin (including a 
     hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, 
     locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros).
       (b) Enforcement.--Subsection (a) shall be enforced in the 
     same manner and by the same means, including with the same 
     jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated in title 
     II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as if a violation of 
     subsection (a) was treated as if it was a violation of 
     section 201, 202, or 203, as appropriate, of such Act.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``race'' and 
     ``national origin'' mean, respectively, ``race'' within the 
     meaning of the term in section 201 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e) and ``national origin'' within the meaning of the term 
     in that section 201.

     SEC. 6. EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Prohibition.--It shall be an unlawful employment 
     practice for an employer, employment agency, labor 
     organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling 
     apprenticeship or other training or retraining (including on-
     the-job training programs) to fail or refuse to hire or to 
     discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate 
     against an individual, based on the individual's hair texture 
     or hairstyle, if that hair texture or that hairstyle is 
     commonly associated with a particular race or national origin 
     (including a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or 
     tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, 
     and Afros).
       (b) Enforcement.--Subsection (a) shall be enforced in the 
     same manner and by the same means, including with the same 
     jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated in title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 
     seq.), and as if a violation of subsection (a) was treated as 
     if it was a violation of section 703 or 704, as appropriate, 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 2000e-3).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section the terms ``person'', 
     ``race'', and ``national origin'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e).

     SEC. 7. EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.

       (a) In General.--No person in the United States shall be 
     subjected to a practice prohibited under section 1977 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981), based on the person's hair 
     texture or hairstyle, if that hair

[[Page H4594]]

     texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a 
     particular race or national origin (including a hairstyle in 
     which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, 
     cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros).
       (b) Enforcement.--Subsection (a) shall be enforced in the 
     same manner and by the same means, including with the same 
     jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated in 
     section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, and as if a violation 
     of subsection (a) was treated as if it was a violation of 
     that section 1977.

     SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit definitions 
     of race or national origin under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
     3601 et seq.), or section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 
     U.S.C. 1981).

     SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Armstrong) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5309, the Creating a 
Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020, or CROWN Act of 
2020.
  This important bill explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of hair texture and hairstyles commonly associated with a particular 
race or national origin in employment, housing, federally funded 
programs, public accommodations, and the making and enforcement of 
contracts.
  I rise to thank the sponsor of this bill, Congressman Cedric Richmond 
of Louisiana, for his leadership and his vision and, really, gathering 
all of the proponents with all of their efforts to be able to get this 
bill to move as quickly as it has done.
  To be clear, it is my view that existing civil rights statutes that 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or natural origin may 
already make such kinds of hair-based discrimination unlawful, but it 
is crucial that we are absolutely sure.
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees, having issued 
guidance interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle or texture as a form of race 
discrimination in certain instances. Unfortunately, several Federal 
courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation, which is why we 
must pass H.R. 5309.
  Personally, coming from the State of Texas, I am aware of a heinous, 
devastating impact on a young man who had dreadlocks. Apparently, the 
school district could not find title VII, did not understand the law, 
and he did not experience the benefit of the law, being suspended and 
not being able to graduate. That was a dastardly action, and we are all 
sufferers for that happening to that young man who didn't deserve it.
  This legislation will leave no ambiguity that, in key areas where 
Federal law prohibits race and national origin discrimination, 
discrimination based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle, if 
they are commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, 
is unlawful.
  The history of discrimination based on race and national origin in 
this country is, sadly, older than the country itself, and we are still 
living with the consequences today.
  Congress took a pivotal step in the fight against racism and 
discrimination when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting 
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, as well as 
other characteristics in key areas of life.
  This law did not eliminate discrimination entirely. One cannot 
legislate away hate. But it provided critical recourse for those who 
face discrimination, and it made clear that the government has a 
compelling interest in fighting discrimination.
  Even Dr. Martin Luther King said that he might not be able to change 
hearts, but he could change laws. This is what we are doing today.
  We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that discrimination is no 
longer alive and well; however, the recent protests over police 
brutality, systemic racism, and institutional racism have forced many 
who would rather look the other way to confront the continuing and 
pervasive legacy of racism in our country.
  While racism and discrimination still take many blatantly obvious 
forms, they also manifest themselves in more subtle ways. One form is 
discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair textures associated 
with people of African descent.
  I think you can take a national survey, go across the country in all 
50 States and find someone who is of African descent, and they will 
tell you about the response to either their beards and hairstyles, as 
relates to men, and to women and their hairstyles.
  According to a 2019 study of Black and non-Black women conducted by 
the JOY Collective, Black people are disproportionately burdened by 
policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that 
target, profile, or single them out for natural hairstyles and other 
hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, 
and twists.
  Often, those hairstyles are protective hairstyles--hairstyles that 
tuck the ends of one's hair away and minimize manipulation and exposure 
to the weather--and can play an important role in helping to keep one's 
hair healthy. They can be utilitarian, and we are denied that right to 
have a hairstyle that is utilitarian. That may be dreadlocks and braids 
and various other styles that are neatly placed on one's head, the 
crown.
  These findings are bolstered by numerous reports of incidents in 
recent years showing that this form of discrimination is common. For 
example, in 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that 
she had violated the company's dress code because her box braids were 
too urban and unkempt.
  A year later, a New Jersey high school student was forced by a White 
referee to either have his dreadlocks cut or forfeit a wrestling match, 
ultimately leading to a league official humiliatingly cutting the 
student's hair in public immediately before the match.
  Let me just pause for a moment. Any of us who raised children, a son 
or a daughter, has that image in our heart, in our DNA. That picture 
has gone viral. It is still there. That young man can be 30 or 40 or 
50, and you will see his commitment to wrestling on behalf of his 
school and his team. And in the public eye, he is having one of the 
most sacred parts of anyone's experience--your hair--being cut publicly 
for the world to view. I just feel a pain right now seeing that young 
man do that. His parents were not there, or had no ability to respond, 
but he had the courage to get it done so that he could compete with his 
teammates.
  In that same year, an 11-year-old Black girl was asked to leave class 
at a school near New Orleans because her braided hair extensions 
violated the school's policy.

  Unfortunately, research shows that such discrimination is pervasive. 
The JOY Collective study found that Black women are more likely than 
non-Black women to have received formal grooming policies in the 
workplace and that Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated to 
be lower or ``less ready'' for job performance than non-Black 
hairstyles by substantial margins.
  In view of these disturbing facts, seven States--California, New 
York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, and Maryland--have 
enacted State versions of the CROWN Act, in every case with bipartisan 
support, sometimes even with unanimous support of both parties. I know 
my State is finally going to attempt to do so in the next legislative 
session in the State house.
  While I applaud these States for taking this necessary step, this is 
a matter of basic justice that deals with Federal law, civil rights, 
title VII, that demands a national solution by this Congress. I am glad 
that we are where we are today.
  Additionally, the United States military has recognized the racially 
disparate impact of seemingly neutral

[[Page H4595]]

grooming policies on persons of African ancestry, particularly Black 
women. For this reason, in 2017, the Army repealed a grooming 
regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in 
dreadlocks, and, in 2015, the Marine Corps issued regulations to permit 
loc and twist hairstyles. None of that impacts your service to this 
Nation.
  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana again, Representative Cedric 
Richmond, for introducing and championing this important bill and for 
his leadership on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5309, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I watched the wrestling video and I hear the stories from a school in 
Texas or Banana Republic, and I find these things horrible. I don't 
think you can find any Member in this Chamber who doesn't find racial 
discrimination to be repugnant and inconsistent with basic standards of 
human decency.
  What Democrats and Republicans also agree on is that using hairstyles 
as an excuse for engaging in racial discrimination is wrong and is 
already illegal under Federal civil rights law, and I think that is 
where we come to a little bit of a disagreement. If a school 
administrator in Texas can't find title VII, he is not going to find 
this language in addition to title VII.
  In 1973, the Supreme Court held that using a pretextual reason as 
cover for undertaking an action prohibited by Federal civil rights laws 
is, nonetheless, a violation of Federal civil rights laws. As early as 
1976, Federal courts held that discrimination on the basis of a 
hairstyle associated with a certain race or national origin may 
constitute racial discrimination.
  Looking at both this bill and the law, it appears to me that the 
behavior that we are seeking to make illegal is already illegal. 
However, both at markup and on the floor, our colleagues have made 
impassioned arguments about why this bill is necessary, even though we 
all agree that the activity that we are already talking about is 
already illegal.
  That doesn't take anything away from the discrimination or the 
embarrassment that any of those young men or women have felt in any of 
those incidents, but I am not sure the bill solves the problem, and 
that is why I wish the committee had taken time to examine whether the 
bill is either redundant or necessary.
  Our committee should have held a hearing with alleged victims of the 
sort of discrimination that the Democrats argue this bill is designed 
to help. Our committee should have had a hearing with some legal 
scholars and individuals responsible for enforcing our Nation's civil 
rights laws to determine if this bill will achieve what it is intended 
to do.
  Schools, employers, and other entities covered by Federal civil 
rights laws can have race-neutral policies that everyone must follow. 
They can also have race-neutral policies that have a disparate racial 
impact, and those are the places we need to address.
  This is particularly true when the policy is necessary for critical 
functions of the job. There is a reason firefighters have mustaches but 
not beards, and that is because you have to wear an SCBA. You can't 
wear the mask if you have a beard.
  Our committee should have examined how this bill would affect the 
ability of schools, employers, and other entities to maintain such 
policies. But we never had a hearing; we just had a markup. Chairman 
Nadler brought this bill straight to markup, and now we are on the 
floor today without any legislative hearing.
  I am not even sure it is a bad idea. But I would like to know if it 
is not redundant. I would like to know what the unintended consequences 
are. And there are real reasons why, when you are dealing with civil 
rights law, particularly on something that has already been agreed on 
that is illegal--enforcement and legality are two different things, and 
we just don't know enough about what we are doing or why it is 
necessary.

  So, I would ask that we oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that I want to thank the previous 
speaker for raising his concerns.
  I think what I would like to offer to him is that people have been 
suffering these indignities for decades. Natural hair is coming back. 
We called it Afros. And anyone who wore an Afro in a certain era knows 
how they were confronted and looked at. There were vast numbers of 
people wearing Afros, whether males or females, individuals of African 
descent. I am a living witness, and we are living witnesses to that.
  So I do want to make the point that it is not redundant. I will make 
this point again. But in 2016, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the EEOC's 
argument that existing law prohibits hair discrimination as a proxy for 
race discrimination.
  What I did say, as we worked together, Mr. Armstrong--I appreciate 
his commentary and his leadership--is that we are here to fix things, 
and here we have that the Eleventh Circuit would not accept that.
  So I thank the gentleman for raising the concern, and I think 
Chairman Nadler looked at this carefully and subcommittee chairpersons 
looked at this carefully and knew that we had to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), who is a distinguished senior member on the Appropriations 
Committee but, more importantly, has, I think, had her own life 
experience and has fought throughout her life for civil rights, civil 
justice, and ensuring that the most vulnerable will have a voice.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Jackson 
Lee for yielding and also for her tremendous work in advancing this 
bill to the floor, and also to Chairman Nadler and his support for this 
legislation. Also, I want to thank and acknowledge Representatives 
Richmond, Fudge, and Pressley for their tremendous leadership and 
vision for putting this bill together, and I am in strong support of 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I thought about our beloved John Lewis and 
how he made good trouble all of his life. He was an original cosponsor 
of this bill, and this bill is an example of how we make good trouble 
to end discrimination.
  This bill will prohibit, finally, discrimination based on an 
individual's style or texture of hair, commonly associated with the 
race or national origin in the definition of racial discrimination. It 
is really hard for me to believe that we have to introduce this bill in 
the 21st century, and so I just want to thank our advocates who have 
worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor.
  As one who has worn her hair as I chose, including natural, I have 
had many unpleasant encounters with people who told me I did not look 
like a Member of Congress because of my hair, over and over again. 
Discrimination against African Americans in schools and in the 
workplace is real, and it is a continued barrier to equality in our 
country.
  Black men and women continue to face workplace stereotypes and are 
pressured to adopt White standards of beauty and professionalism. Our 
daughters are penalized in school for natural hairstyles deemed as 
messy and unruly in juxtaposition to the treatment of their White 
counterparts. That is a fact.
  Students have been humiliated and suspended for having beautifully 
braided extensions or forced to cut their locks before a high school 
wrestling match because it was a violation of some dress code. And 
across the country people of African descent have been required to cut 
or change the natural style or texture of their hair just to get a job.
  Now, when I was in college, in the day, I was told that I looked too 
militant and should change my hairstyle if I wanted to be successful in 
the workplace.
  In 2014, the women of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the Army 
to rescind Army regulations--and Congresswoman Jackson Lee signed my 
letter--this was regulation 670-1, which prohibited many hairstyles 
worn by African-American women and other

[[Page H4596]]

women of color. After months of building support, I led an amendment 
and it was included in the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations Bill 
to ban funding for this discriminatory rule. A few years later, the 
United States Navy removed their discriminatory policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the amendment 
that I got into the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations Bill 
funding, to deny funding for this discriminatory rule. We moved 
forward, and later the U.S. Navy removed their discriminatory policy. 
They knew it was discriminatory, and finally permitted women, 
specifically women of color, to wear their hair in dreadlocks, large 
buns, braids, and ponytails.
  This laid the groundwork for my home State, California, to become the 
first State to ban discrimination against African Americans for wearing 
natural hairstyles at school or in the workplace with the passage of 
California's CROWN Act. And I am thankful and so proud of Senator Holly 
Mitchell for her bold leadership in getting this done.
  We owe it to our children to take action in Congress to break down 
these barriers and make sure that they know that, yes, Black is still 
beautiful. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jackson Lee's crown and braids 
are beautiful.
  Our young people see that with this bill we don't want them to be 
penalized. And they are being penalized if they wear their hair like I 
wear my hair or like Congresswoman Jackson Lee wears her hair, they are 
penalized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point how 
important this is to let our young children know that it is okay and 
that we honor them for being who they are by wearing their hair the way 
that they choose. They won't be penalized. They won't be kicked out of 
school. They won't be dehumanized or demeaned by just doing that. It is 
finally time, in this 21st century, to say enough is enough.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago we had a bill on domestic terrorism, 
Democrats wouldn't add language about the murder of a President Trump 
supporter by a member of Antifa. On that same bill, Democrats wouldn't 
add language about an assassination attempt on two police officers just 
2 weeks ago, but now we have a bill to Federalize hairstyles. 
Federalize hairstyles.
  Democrats are doing nothing to address the violence and unrest in the 
streets of our cities, attacks on law enforcement officers across the 
country. Portland and other cities continue to surrender their streets 
to violent left-wing agitators, placing their residences and businesses 
at risk--residents and businesses and business owners across the 
country from--you have got Asian Americans, African Americans, you got 
all kinds--all Americans--can't deal with that, but we can Federalize 
hair.
  Racial discrimination is terrible, it is wrong, and it is already 
illegal under the law, as the gentleman from North Dakota pointed out. 
You go ask any American right now, September 2020: What should the 
United States House of Representatives be focused on? Lots of important 
issues we have got to deal with.

  But a policy that I think is redundant, as the gentleman pointed out, 
that is already covered under Federal law. We don't want any 
discrimination and we should rightly deal with it when it raises its 
ugly head. But this, come on. We can't add language to a domestic 
terrorism bill about two terrible things that have happened in the last 
month, but we are going to spend time on Federalizing a hairstyle.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should vote against this.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will say that the stories we hear, and the 
things are terrible, but this is a problem of education and not 
legislation. And it is more than that.
  Without having these hearings, without understanding this, without 
understanding where in our current law that we don't already make this 
conduct and this pretextual racial conduct illegal, we essentially are 
saying that we are--I mean, making something illegal twice isn't going 
to change somebody's mind if it was already illegal once, and I think 
that is the mistake we are making here. It is not about the conduct and 
the underlying conduct and those types of things, it is about what we 
are trying to accomplish, how we are doing it, and the process in which 
we do it.
  The sentiment is there, and I can't disagree with any of these 
stories, I just don't think this bill solves the problem they are 
trying to solve. And I don't think we have nearly enough evidence to 
show that it does. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my good friend from North 
Dakota, and even my good friend from Ohio. But as I close, let me, 
first of all, indicate this couldn't be a more important bill. I heard 
on the floor someone talk about this being redundant.
  Whenever we can have civil rights, equal rights, and equality as 
being redundant, then America is doing the right thing. Whenever we can 
clarify the 11th Circuit that rejected the EEOC's argument that 
existing law prohibits hair discrimination as a proxy for race 
discrimination, whenever we can clarify that--whenever we can save the 
dignity, the hurt, and sometimes the ruination of people who simply 
because of the color of their skin and the kind of hair that they have, 
ruins their life or disallows them from graduating or have a public 
shedding of their hair for the world to see so that they can support 
their team.
  Whenever we are able to fix that on the floor of the House, I think 
we should do it.
  And I take issue with my good friend from Ohio, we have the 
legislative Record. We have condemned any violence against law 
enforcement officers, and we mourn and ensure that the world knows that 
we are praying for and have indicated our condemnation of the shooting 
of the two officers in California and wish for their speedy recovery. 
And, as well, I want to make sure that all those who are shown to have 
done this are quickly brought to justice. That is in the legislative 
history.
  We also recognize that the issues dealing with Kenosha are unique 
and, therefore, we are sorry that Tamir Rice did not get the 
opportunity as a young boy, just as this 17-year-old, who was clearly 
engaged with white supremacy and white nationalism, came to this place 
to do harm, which he did. Tamir Rice was just a 12-year-old boy in a 
park.
  So I don't think you can equate the two, and I don't think you can 
suggest that we are not supposed to respond to domestic terrorism.
  So let me indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I do want to thank Mr. 
Richmond, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Pressley, and as my colleague mentioned, the 
late John Robert Lewis, who was always looking for good trouble and to 
do what is right as a cosponsor of this legislation.
  H.R. 5309 is an important piece of legislation that will help further 
ensure that hairstyles and hair extremes commonly associated with a 
particular race or national origin cannot be used as proxies for race 
or national origin discrimination.
  Such discrimination should already be prohibited by Federal civil 
rights statutes, but unfortunately some Federal courts have interpreted 
these statutes so narrowly as to effectively permit using hair 
discrimination as a proxy for race or national origin discrimination. 
H.R. 5309 corrects this erroneous interpretation and further extends 
justice and equality for all.

[[Page H4597]]

  Mr. Speaker, I just want to put into the Record the plight of two 
students in the Barbers Hill Independent School District in my State 
where these two outstanding students, athletes, good academic students, 
were humiliated because their tradition was to wear dreadlocks, and 
they were suspended. And one or maybe two of them were not able to walk 
with their class. Humiliation. Discrimination that never got corrected. 
So today, for them we correct it. DeAndre Arnold, we correct it. We 
acknowledge that you deserve your civil rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass H.R. 5309, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5309, the 
Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act--also known 
as the C.R.O.W.N. Act.
  Too often African Americans are required to meet unreasonable 
standards of grooming in the workplace and in the classroom with 
respect to our hair. Most of those standards are cultural norms that 
coincide with the texture and style of Black hair.
  In 2014, my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues and I successfully 
pushed the U.S. military to reverse its rules classifying hairstyles 
often worn by female soldiers of color as ``unauthorized''. The 
military's regulation used words like ``unkempt'' and ``matted'' when 
referring to traditional African American hairstyles.
  To require anyone to change their natural appearance to further their 
career or education is a clear violation of their civil rights.
  A 2019 study by Dove found Black women are 30 percent more likely to 
receive a formal grooming policy in the workplace. Black women are also 
1.5 times more likely to report being forced to leave work or know of a 
Black woman who was forced to leave work because of her hair.
  This is unacceptable.
  Seven states agree, including California, New York, New Jersey, 
Virginia, Colorado, Washington, and Maryland. All have enacted laws 
banning racial hair discrimination. It is past time we ban the practice 
at the federal level.
  The CROWN Act does that--by federally prohibiting discrimination 
based on hair styles and hair textures commonly associated with a 
particular race or national origin.
  I was proud to introduce this bill with my friend Congressman 
Richmond, which ensures African Americans no longer have to be afraid 
to show up to work or the classroom as anything other than who they 
are.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the CROWN Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5309, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________