[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 49 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H3833-H3842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2021

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an 
individual's texture or style of hair, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 18, 2022, on page H3833, in the second column, the 
following appeared:CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR 
NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2022 Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to 
House Resolution 979, I call up
  
  The online version has been corrected to read:CREATING A 
RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2021 Mr. NADLER. 
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 979, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
117-36 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, 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:
       (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

[[Page H3834]]

     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 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. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2116.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam 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 or national origin is already 
prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing.
  Although Republicans blocked passage of this bill a few weeks ago, 
their arguments have just as little merit now as they did then. That is 
why we are here again, to advance this important legislation.
  Among the arguments that we heard previously was that this bill was 
not needed because the law already protects people from hair-based 
discrimination. While I agree that existing civil rights statutes, if 
properly read, already make such discrimination unlawful, several 
Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation, leaving 
the state of the law unclear at best.
  Far from being duplicative, this legislation is absolutely essential 
to remove any ambiguity from the law and to fix these courts' 
misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law.
  Republicans also argued that this legislation could somehow undermine 
the ability of employers to maintain workplace safety standards. But 
nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does nothing to 
prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns, and the 
longstanding provisions under the civil rights laws that enable 
employers to ensure workplace safety would remain firmly in place.
  Since neither of these arguments holds up to scrutiny, it is 
important to step back and understand why the CROWN Act is so 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 hairstyles,'' and other 
hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, 
and twists.
  This has real consequences for real people. Students have been sent 
home from school or told they could not walk at graduation. Employees 
have been told to change their hair because it violated their 
employer's dress code. Some people have even been denied jobs 
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.
  I am disappointed that we did not see such bipartisan support when we 
brought this bill up a few weeks ago, but my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have another chance today to do the right thing. This 
is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by 
Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act and urge all my 
colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to do so as well.

[[Page H3835]]

  I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 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.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Joe Biden inherited a relatively stable and calm world, and in 14 
months, we have complete chaos.
  Think about last summer. Think about that video last summer where you 
had people trying to jump on the wheel of the plane as it was taking 
off in Afghanistan, that situation there, the debacle that was the exit 
from Afghanistan. Think about what is going on in Ukraine today.
  Here at home, in 14 months, we went from a secure border to complete 
chaos, over 2 million illegal immigrants coming into this country in 1 
year.
  We went from relatively safe streets to record levels of crime in 
every major urban area in the country. We went from stable prices to 
record-high inflation, 40-year-high inflation. We went from energy 
independence to $5 a gallon gas and the President of the United States 
begging Iran and Venezuela to increase production. In 14 months, from 
stability to chaos.
  Today, what are the Democrats bringing to the floor? A bill that is 
titled Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 
2022. That is what we are focused on today.
  How about a world where gas prices aren't $5 a gallon? How about a 
world where you can actually walk safely on your streets and not have 
record levels of crime? How about a world where inflation isn't at a 
40-year high? How about a world where we are actually energy 
independent? Those are the issues we should be focused on.
  But Democrats today, Friday, March 18, 2022, with chaos all over the 
place, this is what they are focused on.
  Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said, 
we have civil rights laws that cover any kind of discrimination. It is 
covered. It is wrong if it happens. But this is what the Democrats are 
focused on. Fourteen months of chaos, and we are doing a bill on hair.

  I think the American people expect more from their Congress, expect 
more from their elected Representatives, and I hope we can actually 
focus on the things that matter to the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I said that this was covered by the law, 
but several Federal circuit courts disagree. Therefore, it is not 
covered in those circuits, and that is why we need this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Watson Coleman), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman who is the 
chairman of our Judiciary Committee for recognizing me.
  I really do wish we could concentrate on other issues as well, and I 
think that we are. I think that creation of 6.5 million jobs, of unity 
around the world, of restoring dignity and respect among our people, 
trying to put our attention onto things as important as Build Back 
Better and taking care of the economy, recognizes that Joe Biden, this 
administration, this Democratic majority in the House of 
Representatives, can chew gum and walk at the same time.
  If my colleagues don't think this is worthy of debate, then they 
should have gone on and done what they did 2 years ago and vote for the 
bill a couple weeks ago.
  But here we are today. Here we are today standing on behalf of those 
individuals, whether my colleagues on the other side recognize it or 
not, who are discriminated against as children in school, as adults who 
are trying to get jobs, as individuals who are trying to get housing, 
as individuals who simply want access to public accommodations and to 
be beneficiaries of federally funded programs.
  Why are they denied these opportunities? Because there are folks in 
this society who get to make those decisions who think that because 
your hair is kinky, it is braided, it is in knots, or it is not 
straightened blond and light brown, that you somehow are not worthy of 
access to those issues. That is discrimination.
  There is no logical reason that anyone should be discriminated 
against on any level because of the texture of their hair or the style 
of their hair.
  I understand that my colleagues on the Republican side don't get the 
vast array of discriminatory practices because they spend so much time 
trying to perpetuate an all-White society here in the most diverse 
country in the world.
  Nonetheless, this bill is vitally important. It is important to the 
young girls and the young boys who have to cut their hair in the middle 
of a wrestling match in front of everyone because some White referee 
says that your hair is inappropriate to engage in your match. That 
young man engaged in his match and he won it.
  It is inappropriate for our girls to be sent home disciplined or 
pushed out simply because they have got braids in their hair. And it is 
doggone sure discriminatory to deny someone employment, housing, or 
public accommodations because of the way they are wearing their hair.
  That is why we are standing here today. It is unfortunate that we 
have to, but we do.
  With that in mind, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of a bill that I 
think is vitally important, that represents movement and understanding 
in the 21st century, what discrimination can look like and what it can 
do to people.
  I urge all of my colleagues, including those on the Republican side 
that voted for it a couple weeks ago, to vote for it today.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. BUSH. Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise today in support of the 
CROWN Act.
  As a Black woman who loves my braids, I know what it is like to feel 
isolated because of how I wear my hair.
  For the last time, we say no more to Black people being demeaned and 
discriminated against for the same hairstyles that corporations profit 
from, no more to Black people being made to feel like we have to cut 
our locs just to get a job.
  For the last time, we say no more to Black people being made to feel 
like we have to straighten our hair to be deemed professional, no more 
to Black children being suspended from school because their hair 
doesn't align with their school's dress code. This is actually a thing.
  We are American, and we stand up and say no more for the last time. 
We are American. Black hair is not to be policed.
  Madam Speaker, I commend my colleagues for their work on the CROWN 
Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we are going to talk about hair, but this 
bill is about discrimination. This bill is about equality. This bill is 
about individual integrity. That is what this bill is about.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I thank my 
friend from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for putting it forward.
  This bill, as I just said, is not about hair. It is about hair, of 
course, but it is about the reaction, the inequality, the 
discrimination, the ``you are not welcome here if your hair texture is 
different,'' and you have to or want to fix it in a certain way.
  It is about the ability of every person in our country to have access 
to education, to economic advancements, and to opportunities to get 
ahead.
  This is an issue of civil rights. The legislation before us would 
prohibit discrimination based on a person's hair texture or hairstyle 
if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race 
or national origin.
  My hair is different than Barbara Lee's, who is seated next to me. 
Neither one of us had anything to do with that. I had no way to have 
the texture of my hair any way other than what

[[Page H3836]]

my genetic makeup was, nor did Barbara Lee.
  Why, therefore, should there be any thought that anybody would be 
able to discriminate on that basis? Too often, styles such as locs, 
cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros are wrongly perceived 
as unkempt or unprofessional.
  In fact, many of these styles are not only central to one's culture 
and heritage but also based upon convenience, based upon a way to have 
an easier time.
  For a long time, and still today, expectations about what hairstyles 
are considered appropriate or professional, as the previous speaker 
said, have created immense pressure to conform to a beauty standard of 
straight hair that requires considerable time, effort, and cost. This 
burden falls disproportionately on Black Americans, particularly Black 
women and girls.
  At the same time, enforcing the standard sends a terrible message to 
young people about their belonging in society and can harm their very 
self-esteem.
  A survey commissioned by the Dove company found that Black women were 
80 percent more likely to change their natural hair to fit into an 
office setting and 1\1/2\ times more likely to be sent home from the 
workplace due to their hair than non-Black women.
  For children and teenagers in school, spending time conforming their 
hair to a different standard takes away from their time spent doing 
homework or getting enough sleep.
  I hope I never get so old that I don't remember that I really cared 
about: Did I look like the other kids in school, or did I look 
different?
  I happened to have been really skinny as a kid. I am not too fat 
right now, but I was really skinny as a kid, and I was really self-
conscious about that. When you are a kid, being self-conscious is 
really painful, and you feel put off if somehow you are different.
  For children and teenagers in school, spending time conforming their 
hair to a different standard takes away from time spent doing homework 
and getting enough sleep, but, much more importantly, their 
psychological well-being.
  This legislation recognizes that natural hair, natural hair, natural 
hair--none of us made our nature; it was made for us--should not be a 
cause for discrimination or denial of opportunities.
  If we treat this discrimination in the same way as we already treat 
discrimination based on race--nobody decides the color of their skin. 
It is who you are. It is what you have.
  As Martin Luther King told us, it is really irrelevant. The content 
of character is what is relevant--not the hue of skin, but how I treat 
others and how others treat me.
  That is what we meant by all men and women are created equal. They 
are not created the same. We are different. But it is the character and 
conduct that ought to govern how we are accepted and treated.
  This is similar to title VI and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, the Fair Housing Act, and other civil rights laws.
  Nationwide protection is necessary so that no one is denied the 
simple dignity of being one's authentic self in America while having 
access to all opportunities this country offers.
  Character and conduct--our military took steps to end hair 
discrimination last year, if anybody thinks this isn't a real issue. 
Obviously, the military thought it was an issue, and it was an 
important enough issue that they took action.

  The House passed this legislation in 2020 with bipartisan support. 
Frankly, it is disappointing that 188 Republicans opposed this 
legislation last week when we brought it to the floor under an 
expedited process, under suspension.
  This should be something that all of us as Americans, as people who 
honor the Declaration of Independence and that statement that 
reverberated around the world of a very central premise that is 
America: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all,'' and we 
said ``men'' because we were limited in our thought pattern at that 
point in time. But as we have grown, we have expanded it.
  Men and women of all different types and colors and, yes, sexual 
orientation are equal. Not the same, but deserving because God has 
created them, deserving of our respect and our equal treatment.
  I am bringing this bill back to the floor, Madam Speaker, under a 
rule so that we can pass it with bipartisan support today. I think it 
will be bipartisan. This really ought to have unanimous support since 
it is about fairness and nondiscrimination.
  I know that some people say, oh, this is going to cause some people 
problems because some people are going to claim that you violated my 
rights. Yes, that is America. That is why the Constitution says you 
have the right to redress grievances.
  Yes, it may have some in court, but you can get around it really 
quickly: Don't discriminate. Treat people based upon their conduct and 
character.
  We must act to ensure that everyone can get a job, succeed in school 
or at work, find housing, and obtain economic security without facing 
discrimination simply because of their hair.
  Again, I thank my friend, Bonnie Watson Coleman, for her leadership 
on this bill. And I urge my colleagues to make America a little fairer, 
a little more hewing to that basic premise of which I just spoke.
  Let's pass this bill. Let's make America a little more American.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the majority leader just said that the bill is not 
about hair; the bill is about discrimination.
  I would say he is wrong on both counts because disparate treatment 
cannot be based on race, color, national origin. That is already the 
law. That is constitutional.
  So, he is wrong on that statement, and the bill is definitely about 
hair. Here is the title of the bill: Creating a Respectful and Open 
World for Natural Hair. So, he is wrong on both counts. So, the bill is 
about hair.
  What the bill is not about is dealing with the crazy energy situation 
we find ourselves in today. The bill is not about opening up ANWR. The 
bill is not about increasing domestic production of energy so we don't 
have $5 gas.
  The bill is not about dealing with the inflation problem, the 40-year 
high inflation problem that this country faces, the problem that is 
impacting moms and dads and families across this country every single 
day. The bill is not about that.
  It is definitely about hair. It is not about that.
  It is not about dealing with the border situation, the 165,000 
illegal encounters on the border last month alone. It is not about 
that. It is not about that.
  The majority leader was wrong when he said this bill was not about 
hair. That is all it is about.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend and a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, to Mr. Jordan's point, 
we are beset with problems.
  Two of the most significant are that the Producer Price Index is at 
10 percent. We face a cost environment that is unsustainable, and that 
affects every American's livelihood every time they visit a gas pump or 
go to the store. We face an employment environment where Americans have 
been disincentivized to work.
  Every time I speak to people in my district--well, it may be 
different in the last couple of weeks and the latest catastrophes we 
have seen. But certainly, until then, the leading concern is the 
availability of people who are inclined to work in order to fulfill job 
opportunities.
  The Judiciary Committee's report on this legislation points out that 
I and Representative Cliff Bentz from Oregon raised a question about 
this legislation in the markup, that it may prevent employers from 
regulating hairstyles for workplace safety reasons.
  One of the cases involved, I believe, was about long dreadlocks that 
could become ensnared in machinery on a workplace floor.
  Let me tell you what the Judiciary Committee's report by the majority 
says is the answer to that problem. They say that concern is misplaced 
because under the longstanding burden-shifting scheme applied by courts 
in title VII cases, an employer may defeat a discrimination claim by 
asserting that workplace safety was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory 
reason for

[[Page H3837]]

taking an adverse employment action against an employee, with the 
burden then shifting to the employee to prove that the asserted reason 
was a pretext for discrimination.
  Assuming the employee cannot demonstrate that the employer's 
assertion of workplace safety was pretextual, the employer would 
prevail against an employment discrimination claim. How extraordinarily 
comforting.
  So, if an employee wants to wear dreadlocks, and an employer is 
legitimately concerned for the health and safety of the employee, that 
his scalp might be ripped off by a machine, then the employer can enter 
into the litigation.
  It certainly couldn't be arbitrated. We took care of that yesterday 
right on the floor of the House. We have to have litigation. We will 
have expensive lawyers.
  We will start, get the complaint filed, the answer filed. Maybe there 
will be a motion to dismiss that will be denied. We will get into the 
discovery process. We will send out the interrogatories and the 
document requests. We will ask for the other occasions where somebody 
has been fired, examine the processes and the practices of the employer 
for the last decade.

                              {time}  0945

  We will get some experts in. We have got to have some experts to come 
in and testify to the likelihood that long dreadlocks are going to get 
caught in the machinery. We will have conflicting experts on each side. 
They will disagree. Then the court will receive a motion for summary 
judgment, say if there is enough evidence to submit the case to trial, 
and the judge will have a 130-page opinion that will examine the 
burden-shifting scheme and the initial burden, and then the response 
burden, and the burden shifts to the employee to show pretext.
  And the inflation rate creeps higher, and the folks willing to enter 
into jobs seem to be less and less, and the catastrophes keep coming. 
But this is the top priority.
  I don't think we need to drive lawsuits between Americans. I think, 
in the main, Americans well understand the rules of the road. As the 
Judiciary Committee itself reports, courts have generally even 
recognized that hairstyle, to the extent it is associated with race, as 
a basis for decisions on employment or the like, is already unlawful. 
The EEOC's own manual says that discriminating on the basis of, for 
example, Afros is unlawful.
  This bill is another solution to a problem that doesn't exist in any 
significant scope in this country, and the result being inflation that 
gets higher, more supply constriction that drives inflation higher, 
more animosity and obstacles between employees and employers, between 
merchants and customers to drive more lawsuits to pay more lawyers to 
make the quality of life in America so much better. That is where we 
are. That is where we are today on the floor of the House.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out again, because some of my Republican colleagues 
seem not to hear it, that this is the law, as they say, but that 
several circuit courts say it isn't the law, so all this bill is doing 
is reaffirming what the law is, despite several circuit courts. And we 
see that the law in those States where the circuit courts have upheld 
it properly has not resulted in any of the catastrophes we just heard.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, I will. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Is it not correct, Mr. Chairman, the reason this bill is 
on the floor is because Republicans voted against a suspension----
  Mr. NADLER. Yes.
  Mr. HOYER. Which could have easily passed to say we are against 
discrimination? And because 188 Republicans voted ``no,'' this bill 
needed to come forward because, as the chairman has just pointed out, 
the law is in doubt because courts have taken different positions. I 
thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2116, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair 
Act, commonly known as the CROWN Act. I would like to thank Speaker 
Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and of course Congresswoman Bonnie Watson 
Coleman for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Let me just first say, we all know--and you have heard the debate--
that this bill is going to take aim at prohibiting race-based hair 
discrimination. Let me tell the other side: I am an American, and this 
is very important to me and to millions of Americans. Yet, your 
arguments, you know they are outrageous, but they are not surprising.
  Republicans, every step of the way, try to diminish the humanity of 
Black and Brown people, try to uphold white supremacy at every step of 
the way. Just listen to what you are saying in terms of arguing against 
this bill.
  For decades, Black and Brown people have been penalized for wearing 
hairstyles, natural hairstyles deemed as messy, unruly, and 
unprofessional. We have seen students humiliated and unfairly 
disciplined because their braided hair extensions or locs were 
considered a violation of the dress code. And in the workplace, Black 
people with curly Afros, braids, twists or locs, or with no hair are 
often perceived as less professional than people with straightened 
hair, which negatively impacts their ability to be promoted or to get 
raises.
  Yes, personally, I have always worn my hair however I chose. I have 
worn it straight; I have worn it braided; I have worn it spiked; I have 
worn it curly; I have worn it in a big natural; you name it. Everyone 
should be able to make those choices without fear of repercussion.
  Hair discrimination is rooted in systemic racism and is a real 
barrier to advancement and empowerment for our communities. 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 671, which prohibited many hairstyles worn by African-
American women and other women of color, and I led an amendment in the 
fiscal year 2015 Defense appropriations bill to ban funding for this 
discriminatory rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind you, we 
put this in the Defense appropriations bill to ban funding for this 
discriminatory rule. The military understood it.
  Due to our advocacy, a few years later the U.S. Navy removed their 
discriminatory policy, allowing women, especially women of color, to 
wear their hair in dreadlocks, large buns, braids, and ponytails. We 
owe it to ourselves and to future generations to take action here in 
Congress to break down these barriers. Everyone should be able to show 
up as their authentic selves and passing the CROWN Act is a major step 
in that direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I just want to point out, the majority leader just 3 minutes ago said 
the reason the bill is on the floor today is because of the minority. 
That can't happen. We don't schedule the floor. The reason the bill is 
on the floor today is because the majority is bringing it to the floor.
  I would love to be able to have the power as the minority to bring 
legislation to the floor because if we could, I tell you what, it 
wouldn't be this bill. It would be a bill dealing with energy, a bill 
trying to bring down the price of gasoline, which is at $5 a gallon in 
some States. It would be a bill trying to deal with the border 
situation. I wish we could schedule the floor.
  Let's hope the American people are going to make a change this fall 
and put us in a position where we can schedule the floor because if we 
do, if we get that power, we will focus on those kinds of issues.
  The majority leader of the House of Representatives just said the 
reason the bill is on the floor today is because of the minority. That 
cannot happen. I wish it could, but it can't. Those are the kind of 
arguments we are getting.
  We should be focused on the issues the American people want us to 
focus on right now. Families across this

[[Page H3838]]

country, all families want us to focus on certain things. But not the 
Democrats. They are going to focus on the hair bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, to the point just made 
by Mr. Jordan, it does strike me that what is being described, by the 
majority leader or by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is that 
some courts in the hundreds of Federal courts that we have--I am not 
even sure they are all Federal they are describing, but I assume so--
have decided that this is not an issue that is covered under one or 
more of these laws.
  But you know what usually happens is, the Congress waits for the 
court system to work this out to the United States Supreme Court; and 
when there is a decision there, if the decision is contrary to the 
intent of Congress, Congress responds.
  So again, in terms of picking up something that is unnecessary, that 
is what the majority is doing. It is not Republicans who bring the bill 
to the floor. It is not Republicans who pick a fight over something 
that most wouldn't even disagree about except in circumstances of 
safety, and then the question becomes one of the degree of burden 
imposed on employers, whether you want to drive lawsuits.
  I was thinking maybe, as Mr. Jordan was speaking, that it would be 
nice to bring, since the minority can get issues to the floor--I didn't 
know that. I have been here just since 2019, and we have been in the 
minority the whole time. I can think of a lot of things we should bring 
to the floor. We should bring a bill to unleash American energy 
independence. We really need that right now. Not just a bill cutting 
off imports from Russia, not just a bill driving prices higher so that 
Americans will not only be paying $4 and $5, thanks to Joe Biden, at 
the pump, but they will soon be paying $6, $7, $8 at the pump.
  If the minority could bring a bill to the floor, we could bring a 
bill to the floor that would say let's open up the ability to drill, 
let's encourage the energy industry in America to produce the energy 
that the world needs so that prices will be low and that Americans 
across the board, not just a few who have these extraneous handful of 
cases out of the whole Federal court system in which the result has not 
turned out the way we would like it to have turned out, let's worry 
about the millions and millions of Americans who will soon have to pay 
$7 or $8 at the pump every day, while it is $4 or $5 now. That is what 
I would do if the minority could bring something to the floor.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that we don't 
need new drilling legislation. There are 6,000 leases which have been 
granted by the Federal Government which the oil companies are not 
drilling. They can drill.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2116, the 
CROWN Act. No one should be deprived of equal rights under the law 
because of their hair texture or style. It should never be the case 
that a person is denied the opportunity to participate in school sports 
or is sent home from work just because of what their hair looks like.
  The most egregious example of this was a wrestling coach who had an 
African-American wrestler that had to cut his hair to perform. He 
wasn't allowed on the wrestling team unless his hair was cut because 
the wrestling coach didn't like it. Well, the wrestling coach was 
ignorant of the fact that that should have been his choice. He couldn't 
rise to understand it.
  Now, Mr. Bishop and I, we share something in common. We both don't 
have a wonderful crown with glorious locks. And sometimes when people, 
particularly people who aren't too smart, get mad at me--and I imagine 
this happens to Mr. Bishop, too--they will say: You bald-headed 
whatever. I have no choice in the fact that I am bald headed. I had a 
lot of hair when I was young. I had more hair than Mr. Jordan.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Let me just ask, do you think anyone 
has ever discriminated against you because you are bald?
  Mr. COHEN. Well, they have said things they thought were nasty. But 
it was not nasty to me because I have no choice in the fact that I am 
bald.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Did you bring a lawsuit?
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  I am just as good a human being, just as smart, just as effective, 
and just as caring with or without hair; and the fact is it is 
discrimination, and it is ignorance.
  African Americans have been discriminated against in many ways 
because of their hairstyles. It is a natural thing for African 
Americans, and they should not be penalized in the workplace, in 
sports, in school, or in any other ways.
  I stand here for the CROWN Act. It was originally introduced, I 
think, by Cedric Richmond, and I joined with him on the Judiciary 
Committee to support it.
  I had seen problems in Tennessee when I was a State senator, and 
supported bills there to protect people who wore braids and whatever. I 
hope people will rise up and vote ``yes'' in understanding of other 
people and think beyond themselves.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, just let me say that, 
unfortunately, I had never taken psychology during my college 
preparation, but I do know certain things such as, what avoidance 
behavior is.
  I tell you, the message discipline on that side is just perfect. You 
can talk about the southern border and inflation and all of that to 
avoid the topic of discrimination.
  Sit down. I have the floor, sir.
  You are avoiding the fact, and I know personally, as a person with my 
hair, that I have had people tell my employer that I was an 
embarrassment sitting in the front office because of the way my hair 
looked.

                              {time}  1000

  And so, to avoid a big conversation about discrimination that has an 
impact, particularly on African Americans, you talk about everything 
else. It is wrong. You are not engaging and, quite frankly, you are not 
being honest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Lee of California). The Chair would 
remind Members to direct all remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would just--avoiding? It sounds to me like the Democrats are avoiding 
the issues the American people care about. That is our point. I am 
focused on what the families in the Fourth District of Ohio come to me 
and talk to me about. They are talking to me about $5 a gas; guarantee 
it. My guess it is the same in all your districts as well.
  They are talking to me about the border, our southern border that has 
been complete chaos now for 14 months. They are definitely talking to 
me about the price of eggs, and milk, and butter, and food at the 
grocery store, about everything, because we are at a 40-year high 
inflation.
  Avoidance? The people who are avoiding the issues the American people 
care about are on that side. And to get lectured and using that is so 
wrong, so out of touch with the American people. Avoiding. You have got 
to be kidding me. We want to focus on the issues the American people 
care about. That is the whole darn point.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. It is not a question of avoidance. It 
is a question of priority.
  Here is a priority. In 2020, homicides across America increased 30 
percent, from 16,500, roughly, to 21,500, an additional 5,000 
homicides.
  And even if you want to view it through a racial lens, since that 
seems to be the subject, 55 percent of homicides are suffered by Black 
Americans, even though they make up 13 percent

[[Page H3839]]

of the population. Of the increase I just described, Black Americans 
suffer 65 percent.
  So we could have--if the minority were capable of bringing a bill to 
the floor, we could bring a bill that would address the rising crime in 
America, the historically exceptional, historically unprecedented, I 
believe, at least I saw something since maybe 1900 or 1902--I don't 
know what the circumstances were then. But since then, the most, the 
highest increase of homicides in a single year in the history of the 
United States, grossly disproportionately borne by Black Americans. 
Driven by rhetoric about defunding police. We could prioritize that. 
That wouldn't be avoidance. And yet, we do not because, indeed, we are 
in the minority and the priorities are being set not by the minority 
but the majority.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. And still I rise, Madam Speaker. And I rise today 
reminded that Dr. King addressed this very issue decades ago. He 
addressed it when he shared his poem with us:

       Fleecy locks and black complexion cannot forfeit nature's 
     claim. Though skin may differ, affection dwells in black and 
     white the same. And were I so tall as to reach the pole or to 
     grasp the ocean at a span, I must be measured by my soul 
     because the mind is the standard of the man and woman.

  I have lived enough now, at 74 years, to have seen a time when Black 
people would bleach their skin. The product was called Bleach and Glow, 
so that they could be as white as they could get.
  I have lived long enough to see them process their hair so that they 
could make it as straight as they could get it.
  I have lived long enough now, however, to see Black people having 
decided that they are going to be themselves; they are going to wear 
their hair as they chose; and they are not going to allow themselves to 
be discriminated against because of it.
  I have lived long enough, now, to understand that it is not the color 
of skin or the texture of hair; it is the character within that 
determines the worth of men and women.
  I have lived long enough to understand that Black people are American 
people, too. And when you say the American people don't want it, you 
cannot exclude Black people. Black people would have this be on the 
floor. This is a kitchen-table issue in Black households because when 
Johnny comes home and he has been fired because of his hair, that is a 
kitchen-table issue. That is unemployment. That impacts unemployment.
  So we have a duty and obligation to do what we are doing with the 
understanding that we are going to be ourselves.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, the people's House, to declare that Black girls 
with our braids, locs, Afros, all forms of natural hairstyles and, yes, 
even our smooth alopecian bald heads, belong everywhere.
  Today, we take an important step toward codifying this fact into law 
by passing the CROWN Act legislation I am so proud to co-lead in 
partnership with Representatives Watson Coleman, Moore, Lee, and Omar.
  For too long, Black girls have been discriminated against and 
criminalized for the hair that grows on our heads and the way we move 
through and show up in this world.
  In my home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, two twin 
sisters, Deana and Mya, high school students, were disciplined for 
showing up with braids. They were given numerous detentions, kicked off 
the track team, banned from prom, solely for their hairstyle.
  In their own words, these scholars and athletes were judged more for 
their heritage than their homework.
  No more.
  For those sisters and thousands of other students who face 
discrimination based on their hair, the CROWN Act is for you.
  For recent graduates who fear they must change their hair or cut 
their locs to secure a job, the CROWN Act is for you.
  For our elders who have faced and fought this racism for generations, 
the CROWN Act is for you.
  Just yesterday, the Massachusetts State legislature made history by 
passing similar legislation. By passing the CROWN Act today, we affirm, 
say it loud, Black is beautiful and so is our hair.
  Whether you are a student in a classroom, an employee in the 
workplace, or the next Supreme Court Justice, or the Speaker pro tem, 
you deserve to show up as your full self, rocking your crown with your 
head held high.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote for every person who has been asked to shrink 
or to apologize simply for the beautiful way with which God made them.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, some many years ago, with a bush as 
big as a bush on my head, an Afro, of which I was enormously proud, 
young, fragile ego, probably not that strong in my frame, some would 
say, skinny legs and high heels, an early teen, trying to express the 
pain that I felt, living in a segregated world, trying to assert the 
prominence of my community, my race of people, trying to associate 
belatedly with the foot soldiers and the battering and the insults that 
they received, trying to come to grips with the assassination of Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X, I wore this bush, which I 
had to do extreme things; for the original style, as was done to young 
girls, is processed. It burned beyond recognition.
  And I went out with my grandmother, a woman of tradition and, fearful 
for me, she asked me to go back because she couldn't walk with me with 
an Afro. The reason, of course, was her fear what an Afro signified, 
what it would do, how I would be harmed. Those were the conflicts and 
strife that Black people went through trying to come to grips with 
their identity.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my good friend, Mr. Jordan, we never 
encounter each other because we have mutual respect, as I do for him, 
and he does for Sheila Jackson Lee. We don't really get into it because 
we know we are the kind of folk that stand down from each other. But I 
enjoy engaging with the gentleman. I enjoy his leadership. And his 
constituents have every right to be concerned about gas prices.
  My constituents are concerned about eating, being able to pay their 
rent. And I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Let's 
get together about gas prices, and paying rent, and people eating, and 
having jobs, and ending discrimination. Why can't we do that together?
  Because the gentleman has not walked in my skin. He has got to 
understand what it means when we are talking about a report that has 
been given. In 2019, the Joy Collective, the CROWN Act coalition: 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 hairstyle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Moore of Wisconsin). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is 
more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to the climate of 
group control.
  Black women are more likely to receive formal grooming policies; and 
80 percent of Black women believe that they had to change their hair to 
be in the workplace.
  Just imagine, just imagine the beauty of these hairstyles, Mr. 
Jordan, the beauty of these hairstyles. This is what we are talking 
about; people who are severely discriminated against, young boys, young 
girls. A little girl in a Catholic school could not wear her hair, had 
to go home.
  Or the fabulous Serena, who gives joy to all of us and, yet, these 
are the locs that she is wearing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.

[[Page H3840]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. And this young boy, who, like me, felt diminished 
because someone thought it was wrong for me, an Afro, for him, his 
braided hair.
  Mr. Jordan, we have engaged in a lot, but I will not stand down on 
the CROWN Act. We must pass the CROWN Act to give dignity and reaffirm 
the rights of all people. Wear your hair as you desire.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2116, the Creating 
a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021.
  This legislation prohibits discrimination based on hair texture or 
hairstyles if that style or texture is commonly associated with 
particular race or national origin.
  The bill also prohibits this type of discrimination against those 
participating in federally assisted programs, housing programs, and 
employment.
  I have long believed that discrimination based on hair texture and 
hairstyle is an impermissible form of 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,'' and that they were 83 percent more likely to 
be judged harshly because of their looks.
  The study indicated that Black women were one and a half times more 
likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and 
that they were over three 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 
preventing women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, 
a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black 
women.
  The decision was a result of the 2014 order by the Secretary of 
Defense at the time, Chuck Hagel, who was reviewing the military's 
policies regarding hairstyles popular to African American women.
  This decision to review these policies came after complaints from 
members of Congress, including myself, saying that these polices 
unfairly targeted black women.
  Hair discrimination is common, and the CROWN Study demonstrates that, 
but I would also like to take the time to share numerous stories from 
many Americans across the country in order to put faces and names to 
these statistics.
  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.
  Again in 2018, 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.
  In 2019, 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.
  In the following year of 2020 there were news reports of a Texas 
student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his 
dreadlocks were too long.
  Finally, I'd like to share the story of a young man from my district, 
who was suspended from school just last year for his natural 
dreadlocks.
  DeAndre Arnold was a senior at Barbers Hill High School in Houston, 
Texas.
  Arnold had his dreadlocks for years and this hairstyle had become a 
part of his identity and allowed him to embrace his culture.
  Arnold's family is from Trinidad and the men in his family often grow 
their locks near or below their waist.
  Arnold had complied with the dress code throughout high school by 
keeping his hair up.
  His high school routinely inspected his hair for violating a hair 
length school policy; upon inspection they ultimately decided to 
suspend him for violating the policy.
  Arnold was not allowed to return to school, attend his senior prom, 
or his graduation ceremony unless he cut his hair.
  Thankfully Arnold was able to take this decision to court, where the 
judge ruled that he could return to school without fear of 
recrimination.
  However, Arnold's high school failed him, as students in our society 
should not have to undergo litigation just to peacefully obtain an 
education.
  Students like DeAndre Arnold should not be faced with the impossible 
choice of either suppressing their cultural heritage and Black identity 
by cutting their natural hair, or forfeiting their right to equal 
educational and extracurricular opportunities.
  People of color, especially Black people, have long felt pressure to 
alter their natural hair to conform to what society has deemed 
``acceptable.''
  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, dreadlocks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''
  The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced 
as part of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits 
discrimination based on 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.
  The CROWN Act would end the demeaning practice of forcing conformity 
onto people of color.
  It would make it illegal for employers and educators to deny an 
individual employment or educational opportunities due to the length, 
texture or style of their hair.
  To be frank, it is a tragedy that we need federal legislation to end 
these discriminatory practices and give people of color the dignity 
that is their inherent right.
  The CROWN Act says to Americans facing discrimination that the 
Congress of the United States hears them, sees them, and affirms their 
beauty and dignity and pride in their culture.
  I rise in strong support of this bill so that men and women of color 
no longer feel that they cannot or should not enter certain spaces 
because they wish to wear the hair that they are born with.
  I strongly urge all Members to join me in voting for the passage of 
H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act.
  I include in the Record a May 20, 2021 article entitled: ``Opinion: 
Stop policing people of color's hair and pass the CROWN Act.''

                     [From Chron.com, May 20, 2021]

  Opinion: Stop Policing People of Color's Hair and Pass the CROWN Act

       Texas seems to be hell bent on policing Black peoples' 
     hair--and it needs to stop. Immediately.
       In Troy, an 11-year-old Native and African-American student 
     spent more than a week in in-school suspension after 
     administrators said his braided hairstyle violated the dress 
     code, per 25 News KXXV's Jarell Baker.
       Barbers Hill Independent School District voted unanimously 
     in July of 2020 to uphold a school policy that allowed the 
     district to suspend DeAndre Arnold and his cousin Kaden 
     Bradford for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, even barring 
     Arnold from his senior prom and high school graduation.
       Such incidents are far from isolated in the Lone Star 
     state, which begs the question: Why are Texas schools so 
     determined to uphold dated rules that seemingly exist only to 
     police the appearance of Black and brown students?
       People of color, especially Black people, have long felt 
     pressure to alter their natural hair to conform to what 
     society has deemed ``acceptable.'' It's demeaning, and--quite 
     frankly--sad. And it's time we proudly rocked all of our 
     kinks and curls without being punished for it.
       That's why the CROWN Act is important.
       ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,'' 
     or CROWN, is an act that would prohibit race-based hair 
     discrimination in Texas schools and workplaces. The CROWN Act 
     would make it illegal for employers and educators to deny an 
     individual employment or educational opportunities due to the 
     length, texture or style of their hair.
       It's sad that there even has to be a law in place, 
     considering no other race has to deal with their hair being a 
     Civil Rights issue. But here we are.
       The law hasn't passed in Texas (yet), but with April 27 
     being Texas' CROWN Act Day, Texas Legislative Black Caucus 
     members are working around the clock to see that it happens.

[[Page H3841]]

       As a Black woman, I am tired of feeling like I can't or 
     shouldn't enter certain spaces because my hair ``isn't done'' 
     or straightened. I am tired of being asked if my hair is real 
     or if someone can touch it. It's the hair I was born with, 
     not a science experiment.
       This is also the reason people of color get so upset about 
     outside races wearing braids or other protective hairstyles. 
     The issue is not the style itself, but the fact that you have 
     an entire group of people who are seen as ``less 
     professional'' in the workplace and even denied jobs for 
     rocking styles they created while others are allowed to copy 
     it and receive compliments? It's disgusting.
       The CROWN Act is necessary for the culture, and the fact 
     that Texas isn't moving quicker to pass it is quite telling.
       Whether anyone wants to admit it, hair discrimination is 
     race discrimination. And we've had enough.

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the CROWN Act because all hair is professional hair.
  While serving in the Georgia State Senate, a colleague greeted me 
with what she thought was a compliment. After spending most of the 
legislative session in braids, I had my natural hair pressed straight. 
She told me, Nikema, you should keep your hair that way. It looks 
better, more professional, more like a State Senator.
  Remarks like this are all too familiar for Black women and girls; 
unacceptable on their own, but the outright discrimination that flows 
from them is worse. If I didn't work for the people in Congress, I know 
that I could be fired simply for wearing my hair in braids.
  Nothing about this is okay, so I make it a point to create an 
environment where my team feels comfortable wearing their crowns in 
every texture.
  Everybody deserves this level of safety, no matter where they work. 
Our hair is an expression of our authentic selves. Braids, locs, coils, 
or a silk press, all hair is professional hair.
  Discrimination has no place in America; that includes discriminating 
against Black hair. The CROWN Act would make race-based hair 
discrimination a thing of the past, once and for all, and that is why 
we should pass it today.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, for all the reasons we have talked about 
and what we should be focused on here, I would urge a ``no'' vote on 
the legislation and hope my colleagues will do the same.
  Madam Speaker, 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.
  This CROWN Act would make explicit that civil rights laws prohibit 
such discrimination. This is a matter of basic fairness and justice.
  This bill passed the House last Congress unanimously, and I hope we 
will do so again today.
  All the arguments we have heard about everything else are interesting 
and important but not relevant to this bill. This bill is purely about 
discrimination, purely about protecting people from discrimination, and 
we ought to pass it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, on H.R. 2116, the Creating a 
Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021, I am not 
currently recorded as a cosponsor. It was my intention to serve as a 
cosponsor of this legislation, but because the bill has now been 
reported by the appropriate Committees and placed on the Union 
Calendar, I am not able to do so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 979, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 189, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carey
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Malliotakis
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--189

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar

[[Page H3842]]


     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Norman
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Budd
     Diaz-Balart
     Fitzgerald
     Loudermilk
     Pfluger
     Turner
     Young
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1051

  Mr. BURCHETT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BEYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend the vote due to an 
important meeting with constituents in my district. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 82.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Barr (Guthrie)
     Bass (Takano)
     Bergman (Stauber)
     Bowman (Garcia (IL))
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brown (OH) (Jeffries)
     Calvert (Garcia (CA))
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Carter (LA) (Newman)
     Carter (TX) (Hudson)
     Cawthorn (Fallon)
     Clarke (NY) (Jeffries)
     Connolly (Wexton)
     Crenshaw (Fallon)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Cuellar (Correa)
     Curtis (Moore (UT))
     Dean (Scanlon)
     DeLauro (Courtney)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Dingell (Cicilline)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
     Fortenberry (Moolenaar)
     Frankel, Lois (Wexton)
     Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
     Garamendi (Correa)
     Garbarino (Jacobs (NY))
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Golden (Courtney)
     Harder (CA) (Beyer)
     Harshbarger (Kustoff)
     Higgins (NY) (Pallone)
     Johnson (GA) (Correa)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kahele (Mrvan)
     Kaptur (Lawrence)
     Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kinzinger (Meijer)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     LaHood (Miller (WV))
     LaMalfa (Palazzo)
     Larson (CT) (Cicilline)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lesko (Miller (WV))
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Murphy (NC))
     Moulton (Beyer)
     Neguse (Perlmutter)
     Nehls (Fallon)
     Norman (Donalds)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Rodgers (WA) (Bilirakis)
     Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
     Rush (Evans)
     Ryan (Perlmutter)
     Salazar (Dunn)
     Schrier (Aguilar)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Joyce (PA))
     Steel (Obernolte)
     Suozzi (Beyer)
     Swalwell (Gomez)
     Taylor (Fallon)
     Titus (Cicilline)
     Trone (Beyer)
     Upton (Katko)
     Van Drew (Tenney)
     Van Duyne (Jackson)
     Wagner (Cammack)
     Walorski (Buchson)
     Waltz (Gimenez)
     Welch (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

                          ____________________