[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 36 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H1160-H1166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2022

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2116) 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. 2116

       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 2022'' or the ``CROWN Act 
     of 2022''.

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

[[Page H1161]]

       (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 U.S. Armed Forces 
     had grooming policies that barred natural or protective 
     hairstyles that servicemembers of African descent commonly 
     wear and that described these hairstyles as ``unkempt''.
       (7) The U.S. Army also recognized that prohibitions against 
     natural or protective hairstyles that African-American 
     soldiers are commonly adorned with are racially 
     discriminatory, harmful, and bear no relationship to African-
     American servicewomen's occupational qualifications and their 
     ability to serve and protect the Nation. As of February 2021, 
     the U.S. Army removed minimum hair length requirements and 
     lifted restrictions on any soldier wearing braids, twists, 
     locs, and cornrows in order to promote inclusivity and 
     accommodate the hair needs of soldiers.
       (8) 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.
       (9) 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.
       (10) In 2019 and 2020, State legislatures and municipal 
     bodies throughout the U.S. 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 texture or that hairstyle 
     is commonly associated with a particular race or national 
     origin (including a hairstyle in which hair is

[[Page H1162]]

     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 gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural 
Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill 
that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair 
texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or 
national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where 
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin are already 
prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing.
  To be clear, it is my view that existing civil rights statutes 
already make such hair-based discrimination unlawful. The Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission agrees, having issued guidance 
interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit such 
discrimination as a form of race discrimination in certain 
circumstances. Unfortunately, some Federal courts have erroneously 
rejected this interpretation. The CROWN Act simply fixes these courts' 
misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law.
  This fix is urgently needed. According to a 2019 study 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 hair styles'' and other 
hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, 
and twists.
  The study also found that 80 percent of Black women believed that 
they had to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the 
office and that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly 
because of their looks.
  While this study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination, 
it is the people behind those numbers that make this legislation so 
vital. For example, a Texas student was told that he would not be able 
to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long; a Florida 
boy was turned away from his first day of school because his hair was 
too long; and a New Orleans-area girl was sent home from school for 
wearing braids.
  Similarly, numerous Black employees have been told to change their 
hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some have even 
been denied employment altogether because of their hairstyles.
  In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural 
hairstyle--in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even 
with the unanimous support of both parties.
  While I applaud these States for taking action, this is a matter of 
basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why 
I strongly support the CROWN Act. The House passed a nearly identical 
measure last Congress, and I hope that we will do so again today.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Representative Bonnie Watson 
Coleman, for her leadership and for introducing this important bill 
this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, racial discrimination is wrong; it is un-American; and 
it is contrary to our ideals. Our Federal civil rights laws recognize 
these facts. The laws are clear, and courts have been consistent that 
disparate treatment of one individual when compared to another cannot 
be based on race, color, or national origin.
  A person also cannot use a pretextual reason as cover for taking a 
discriminatory action prohibited by our civil rights laws. The Supreme 
Court settled that issue in 1973. As early as 1976, Federal courts held 
that discrimination on the basis of a hairstyle associated with a 
certain race or national origin may, in fact, constitute racial 
discrimination.
  In other words, under current law, if a person's hairstyle or hair 
texture is associated with a person's race or national origin and is 
used as a pretext for discrimination, that conduct is unlawful.
  These decades of precedent make the bill that we are debating today 
unnecessary and duplicative. In fact, the chairman of the committee 
just said that 3 minutes ago.
  The problem raised by the Democrats is one solved by enforcing our 
existing laws, not by making this conduct illegal for a second time.
  The Democrats may have recognized this fact if they had held 
legislative hearings on this bill this Congress, but they didn't. So, 
the Committee on the Judiciary didn't have the opportunity to hear from 
experts about the legislation or how it comports with existing law. 
That is just one example of the deficient process that brought this 
bill to the floor today.
  At markup, Republican members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
raised multiple concerns about this bill's potential impact. For 
example, schools, employers, and other entities covered by Federal 
civil rights laws may have race-neutral policies that everyone must 
follow. These policies are sometimes necessary to ensure an employee 
can adequately and safely do their job, such as a prohibition on 
hairstyles that could prevent a firefighter from properly wearing a 
respirator or a helmet.
  This bill, however, may jeopardize these policies because it creates 
a blanket prohibition on adverse treatment because of certain 
hairstyles or hair textures.
  These concerns and the Democrats' deficient process caused every 
Republican Member to oppose this bill at markup. Instead of working to 
address these problems, the Democrats are bringing this bill, which was 
reported on a party-line vote, to a vote under suspension of the rules. 
The Democrats are prioritizing this legislation, a bill to prohibit 
conduct already unlawful under our law, for political messaging 
reasons.
  This bill does not address any of the serious problems our country 
currently faces. Think about the crime problem; the 40-year-high 
inflation problem; the 2 million illegal immigrants that have come 
across our border in 1 year's time alone; and, of course, not to 
mention the situation going on in Ukraine as we speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), sponsor of this bill.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our 
committee for allotting me this time to speak on a bill that I think is 
very important.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today to defend the right of Black people to 
exist as their authentic selves.
  Mr. Speaker, 58 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, racial discrimination still runs rampant.

[[Page H1163]]

Far too often, Black people, especially Black women and girls, are 
derided or deemed unprofessional simply because their hair does not 
conform to White beauty standards.
  Our natural hair is as innate a quality of Black people as the 
presence of melanin in our skin. Discriminating against our hair is no 
different than discriminating against the color of our skin.
  Hair discrimination forces Black people to choose between employment 
and existing authentically.
  Black women are 80 percent more likely to alter their hair to fit in 
at work. It is no different at school, where Black students are 
disproportionately suspended for unapproved hairstyles.
  Fortunately, with the support of groups like the CROWN Coalition, 
State legislatures across the country have banned hair discrimination. 
State-level progress is an important step in the right direction, but 
it is not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I have reintroduced the CROWN Act to end hair 
discrimination at the Federal level. My bill would eliminate an undue 
burden that Black women face every day.
  The methods Black women use to manipulate their hair are not only 
costly and time-consuming but also damaging to their hair. Nobody 
should have to sacrifice their time, their money, and the health of 
their hair for the sake of complying with racist standards of 
professionalism.
  Further, the CROWN Act is a necessary step toward protecting Black 
beauty and culture. Prohibiting hair discrimination is only the 
beginning. Even if this bill becomes law, we have a long road ahead 
toward a truly inclusive society.
  As Members of Congress, we must pass legislation that promotes 
diversity over discrimination and inclusivity over intolerance. And 
through our work with other organizations like the CROWN Coalition and 
the Screen Actors Guild, we can change the culture and build an America 
where everyone, from our essential service workers to our most beloved 
television stars, can live authentically. I thank those groups for 
doing everything in their power to raise awareness of this important 
but often ignored racial justice issue.
  The CROWN Act is long-overdue civil rights legislation. I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it and send it to 
the President's desk without delay.

  No one should be forced to alter their appearance to be accepted. It 
is time that Congress recognizes that, and I ask for their support.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding, and I thank, with deep appreciation, Congresswoman Bonnie 
Watson Coleman.
  I am delighted to be an original cosponsor, and I thank the Committee 
on the Judiciary for really standing for these issues that are uniquely 
engaged in the Constitution and equality and justice but that would get 
no light of day had our chairman and our subcommittee chairpersons not 
thought that it was valuable and important.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
I am very glad for their recitation of the civil rights laws. And they 
are right: They are extremely important in protecting the civil rights 
of those who have been infringed upon. But they are not perfect, and 
they are not perfect as evidenced by the continuous, stark 
discrimination regarding hairstyles, particularly with African-American 
women and others.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I realize that this is a tough 
business. But wear hairstyles such as what I wear and note the social 
media calling you monkeys over and over again.
  So, it is not just the fact that you wear a style that could be 
called a crown; it is the advantage that others who want to racially 
divide--do you know who they do it to? Our children.
  It is evident that there is a need for the CROWN Act because it 
prevents discrimination on the texture of hair or hairstyles commonly 
associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the 
law where discrimination on the basis of race and national origin is 
already prohibited, but it is not precise. This law is precise.
  Black people are disproportionately burdened by policies and 
practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, 
profile, or single them out.
  But others are engaged as well. The CROWN study found that Black 
women's hair is more policed in the workplace, therefore contributing 
to a climate of group control. But I have seen cases as a member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security of Black women coming back from the 
Caribbean and their hair being searched, or they are being targeted as 
having something in that hair. That is insulting and offensive, and it 
is not constitutional as it relates to equal justice under the law.
  The findings also say that 80 percent of Black women believe that 
they had to change their hairstyle. But, again, the young people who in 
the midst of their competition in the State of Texas, boys, girls, were 
required to, in an outrageous manner, cut their dreadlocks before they 
could compete. How heartbreaking that is. How destroyed those children 
were. And a young man had to go all the way to the Federal court 
because he refused to cut his dreadlocks. Why should he?
  Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that the military saw the outrage 
some years ago. In 2014, Secretary Hagel indicated a review of military 
policy. The Marine Corps, in 2015, followed suit and issued a 
regulation to permit loc-and-twist hairstyles.
  So it is, in fact, very crucial to know that it is Native Americans; 
it is men; it is women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the chairman for 
the time. I thank him so very much.
  Again, this is an outstanding tennis player. This is a young man. 
These are styles that are neat and certainly acceptable. This is a 
Native American. Again, a Black woman.
  And here is the ultimate insult in my State. This young man, before 
he could compete, had to have his dreadlocks cut.
  Mr. Speaker, the CROWN Act is imperative; it is needed; and I can 
assure you, it will not impact any medical attention that you need 
because the CROWN Act is about hair and hair does not impact your 
medical needs.
  Mr. Speaker, we need the CROWN Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the committee on the Judiciary, 
Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and an original cosponsor of this 
important legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2116, the 
``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021'' 
(``CROWN Act).
  This necessary legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a 
particular race or national origin in areas of the law where 
discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already 
prohibited.
  It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair 
texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.
  According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was 
conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, 
National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are 
``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public 
places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them 
out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair 
that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.
  The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in 
the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in 
the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to 
non-Black women.
  The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have 
received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that 
there is a dissonance from her hair and other race's hair'' and that 
``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less 
ready' for job performance.''
  Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women 
believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to 
``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be 
judged harshly because of their looks.
  The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to be 
sent home from the

[[Page H1164]]

workplace because of their hair, and that they were 3.4 times more 
likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African-
American women.
  Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation 
prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, 
a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black 
women.
  This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding 
hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from 
members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly 
targeted black women.
  In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to 
permit lock and twist hairstyles.
  The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but 
numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people 
behind those numbers.
  In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she 
was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too 
``urban'' and ``unkempt.''
  A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school 
student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks 
cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in 
public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.
  That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to 
leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because 
her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.
  The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied 
employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long 
braids and the other had dreadlocks.
  And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who 
would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were 
too long.
  The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs 
and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it 
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.''
  The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced 
as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of 
Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me 
in voting for the passage of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and, of 
course, the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of, and as a proud sponsor of, 
the CROWN Act.
  For far too long, people with hairstyles or hair textures associated 
with their race or their nationality have faced discrimination. Yes, 
there are laws on the books, but it does not protect DeAndre Arnold, 
who was a senior at Barbers Hill High School in the Houston area. He 
was told to cut his dreadlocks in order to attend prom and his 
graduation ceremony.
  Imagine, you work all those years because they tell you that you need 
to graduate, and then he is told you have to cut your dreadlocks.
  For DeAndre, his hairstyle was important to him because it was part 
of his Trinidadian culture and about who he is.
  This is wrong. It must never ever happen again. The way that 
individuals choose to style their hair is a direct representation of 
their culture and of who they are. When individuals are told to alter, 
cut, or change their hairstyle, what they are really being told is to 
alter their culture and their being. This must end.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor this bill. I urge my colleagues 
here today to support it, to vote for it, and let's make this wrong a 
right.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick), the newest Member of Congress.
  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to represent 
every person of African descent across this country and in Florida's 
20th Congressional District with natural hair.
  I call on my colleagues from the U.S. Senate to pass the CROWN Act to 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyle that 
is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.
  Lawsuits initiated by Black workers alleging discrimination against 
their natural hair in the workplace have filled courthouses for more 
than 40 years. This legislation will provide us with the freedom to 
wear our crowns without discrimination.
  We must understand that hair discrimination is rooted in systemic 
racism. Anti-Black hair sentiment on U.S. soil has existed for 
centuries.
  As Members of Congress, we have a legal and ethical obligation to 
push back against the Eurocentric beauty perpetuated across TV and in 
the media.
  Hair discrimination is race discrimination. Unfortunately, some 
employers discriminate against people of African descent who wear 
natural hair even though the employment policies involved are not 
related to workers' ability to perform the job.
  The notion that some of these policies are race-neutral policies and, 
therefore, not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws 
discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, and national 
origin, is absurd and lacks merit.
  As a mother of African-American children, I want our beautiful 
daughters and sons in my district to feel comfortable in their skin 
without retaliation. Sadly, Black students are three to six times more 
likely to be suspended or expelled from school.
  Today, there remain regressive movements that continue to criminalize 
natural Black hairstyles under the auspices of preparing them for the 
real world.
  We must, instead, teach our children to embrace their natural beauty 
and understand that their humanity is not tied to their hair.
  To the organizations that have consistently advocated for the passage 
of this critical piece of legislation, we thank you for your 
commitment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank Bonnie Watson Coleman 
for her stewardship over this bill. I also want to thank Ayanna 
Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and so many women who rose up to support this, 
not only this session but last session as well. I want to thank State 
representative LaKeshia Myers in my State in the city of Milwaukee for 
the ordinances and the bills that they have passed, which are similar 
to the CROWN Act.
  Mr. Speaker, just let me say, with my short 2 minutes here, that my 
being instilled with low self-esteem started before I got to 
kindergarten, and it all revolved around my nappy hair and the way it 
just coiled. Two minutes is not long enough to carry you on this 
journey of what it is like to have your employers tell you that you are 
making them look bad because of the way your hair looks, and having hot 
combs, lye, chemicals, and being burned so that you can look White.
  When I ran for this office in 2005 because I had so many pictures 
with my hair coifed in a European style, my handlers wouldn't let me 
change it. After 20 hours a day of campaigning every day, I had to 
figure out how to straighten my hair out. Thank God for the CROWN Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank God for being able to stand here under the e 
pluribus unum as my authentic, nappy-headed self.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, my great home State of 
Louisiana is where the tignon laws originated. These laws mandated that 
Black women of Louisiana cover their beautiful hair, making it illegal 
to expose our hair. Imagine that.
  All Americans should have the right to wear their hair that naturally 
grows

[[Page H1165]]

out of their heads without fear. We, as Members of Congress, must act 
to ban any discrimination against natural hair. Whether it is locs, 
curls, braids, or twists, Black Americans have the right to exist as 
their authentic selves and wear their natural hair with pride.
  The CROWN Act would give and defend the right by prohibiting 
discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyle in employment, 
education, and several other important spheres. This legislation has 
been heavily vetted and has already been passed in several States.
  I am proud to have authored in advance the CROWN Act as a member of 
the Louisiana State Senate, but not complete the process before I was 
elected to Congress. This is particularly special for me. For the 
people of Louisiana and for people across the Nation, Federal action is 
needed.
  Studies show that 80 percent of Black women feel they have to change 
their hairstyles to simply fit in to the workplace, that natural hair 
is somehow unprofessional. This is unacceptable.
  I am calling on this Chamber to do the right thing, that all elected 
officials stand up and do what is right by the people of America. This 
includes those who may not live in your district and those who have 
different life experiences.
  For the overwhelming majority of our country's existence, racial 
discrimination in its various forms has been legal. Today, we can 
continue to move this Nation forward.
  Today, the House will vote to make discrimination based on hairstyles 
a thing of the past and make our workplaces more inclusive and truly 
free for people to express themselves.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, what is Congress doing today? What is the people's 
House--under the Democrat majority--what is the House of 
Representatives up to today? Passing a bill to prohibit conduct that is 
already unlawful under the law. Discrimination based on hairstyle is 
already unlawful.
  That is what the Congress, what the House of Representatives, is 
going to pass today. Think about it. That is the priority today when we 
have gone in literally 1 year's time from a secure border to complete 
chaos. Two million illegal crossings in 1 year on our border. In fact, 
we don't really have a border.
  We have gone from safe streets to record crime in every major urban 
area in 1 year's time. They are focused on a bill to make conduct that 
is already unlawful, unlawful again, I guess.
  We went from energy independence to the spectacle of the President of 
the United States begging OPEC to increase production. We have gone 
from stable prices to a 40-year high inflation rate, and Democrats are 
focused on this bill.
  This past summer we had the debacle that was the exit from 
Afghanistan. As we speak, the Ukrainian people are fighting for their 
lives, and Democrats are passing a bill to prohibit conduct already 
unlawful under Federal law, a bill that says you can't discriminate 
based on hairstyle, which is already unlawful.
  We have had a year now where Democrats attack every liberty we enjoy 
under the First Amendment, every single one. There are still some 
locations in America where a full congregation cannot meet on a Sunday 
morning. There are some places where you still can't assemble and can't 
petition.
  The Democrats have kept the Capitol closed to the American people, 
their own darn Capitol. How are you supposed to come in and petition 
your Member to redress your grievances if you are not even allowed in 
your Capitol that your tax dollars pay for? Of course, we know what 
they have done to freedom of speech and the attacks there. Their focus 
today is on this bill.

  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's focus on the issues that I 
think the vast majority of the American people want us to focus on like 
crime, like the 40-year high inflation rate, like the border problem, 
and like the fact that we were an energy independent country just a few 
months back. Let's focus on those issues.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, while racism and discrimination sometimes appear in 
overt forms, they can also manifest themselves in more subtle ways. One 
way is through discrimination based on natural hairstyles and hair 
textures associated with people of a particular race or national 
origin.
  As we have discussed on this floor, this is intolerable and it is not 
taken care of by current law, despite the statements from the other 
side notwithstanding. The CROWN Act would make explicit that the civil 
rights laws prohibit such discrimination. It is a matter of basic 
fairness and justice.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2116, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, 
commonly known as the CROWN Act. I am honored to co-lead this bill with 
Rep. Watson Coleman, Rep. Pressley, Rep. Omar and Rep. Moore, which 
will take direct aim at prohibiting race-based hair discrimination for 
African Americans and people of African descent.
  Hair discrimination creates illogical barriers to advancement in the 
workplace or equal treatment in schools for people of African descent. 
For example, our sons and daughters are penalized in school for natural 
hair styles deemed as ``messy'' and ``unruly.'' We've seen students 
humiliated and unfairly disciplined because their braided hair 
extensions or locs have been judged as a violation of the dress code. 
In the workplace, a study found that women with curly afros, braids or 
twists, are often perceived as ``less professional'' than Black women 
with straightened hair. These perceptions have real impacts on their 
ability to be promoted or get raises.
  I have been fighting to end this discriminatory practice for years. 
In 2014, the women of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the Army to 
rescind Army regulation 670-1, which prohibited many hairstyles worn by 
African American women and other women of color and I led an amendment 
included in the FY15 Defense Appropriations Bill to ban funding for 
this discriminatory rule. Due to our advocacy, a few years later the 
U.S. Navy removed their discriminatory policy allowing women, 
particularly women of color, to wear their hair in dreadlocks, large 
buns, braids, and ponytails.
  This laid the groundwork for 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 The 
Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural hair (CROWN) Act. 
We should be able to show up as our whole selves--and passing the CROWN 
Act is a major step in that direction.
  We owe it to our children to take action here in Congress to break 
down these barriers, and make sure that they are able to build the 
future they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and an original 
cosponsor of this important legislation, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2116, the ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair 
Act of 2021'' (``CROWN Act).
  This necessary legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a 
particular race or national origin in areas of the law where 
discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already 
prohibited.
  It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair 
texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.
  According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was 
conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, 
National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are 
``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public 
places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them 
out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair 
that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.''
  The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in 
the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in 
the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to 
non-Black women.
  The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have 
received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that 
there is a dissonance from her hair and other

[[Page H1166]]

race's hair'' and that ``Black women's hairstyles were consistently 
rated lower or `less ready' for job performance.''
  Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women 
believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to 
``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be 
judged harshly because of their looks.
  The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to be 
sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they were 
3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to 
non-African-American women.
  Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation 
prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, 
a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black 
women.
  This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding 
hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from 
members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly 
targeted black women.
  In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to 
permit lock and twist hairstyles.
  The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but 
numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people 
behind those numbers.
  In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she 
was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too 
``urban'' and ``unkempt.''
  A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school 
student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks 
cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in 
public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.
  That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to 
leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because 
her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.
  The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied 
employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long 
braids and the other had dreadlocks.
  And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who 
would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were 
too long.
  The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs 
and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it 
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.''
  The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced 
as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of 
Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me 
in voting for the passage of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Watson Coleman). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2116, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. 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 motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________