CROWN Act of 2022

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 979 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on and reported a rule, House Resolution 979, providing for consideration of H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one amendment and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, the bills we discuss today have to do with fundamental American values.

The first bill under this rule, the FAIR Act, simply restores the right of individuals to have their day in court.

It prevents the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts.

Most likely, all of us have signed a contract with a forced arbitration clause, and many may not even know it. How many Americans have read their cell phone contract? How many have read their credit card contract?

Too many consumer contracts are written to protect the pockets of corporations, leaving consumers at the mercy of a system created by, paid by, and focused on minimizing liabilities of corporate companies.

These documents are dozens of pages long, and most contain clauses that require arbitration in case of a legal dispute and prevent the consumer from going to court as an alternative. There is no negotiation or choice.

Ask yourselves, if you saw something that you objected to in a contract for your cell phone, what option do you have to change it? The answer is no choice at all.

That is why this is called forced arbitration, and these requirements game the system in favor of one party, large corporations. If there is a dispute, corporations get to pick the location of arbitration, and in many cases, it is out of State; pick the arbitrator; and pay for them. Yes, the impartial arbitrator, who depends on corporate contractors, is paid for by the corporation. And corporations get to shield the results from the public. Imagine that.

The FAIR Act stops this harmful and abusive behavior. It bans forced arbitration clauses in employment, civil rights, and consumer disputes.

Congress just passed legislation that changed this process for disputes involving sexual harassment. However, there are tens of millions of Americans who are still affected by forced arbitration in other contexts, and this legislation provides those same protections to them as well.

Ensuring fairness under the law is at the center of the second bill being considered under this rule, the CROWN Act. This bill would ensure that discrimination based on race is not masked as discrimination about hairstyles.

This is legislation that we passed by a voice vote last Congress with no objection from the other side. But this year, Republicans decided that something had changed--not with the legislation, but with their Conference--since they objected to the consideration of this bill under suspension.

The CROWN Act simply clarifies what studies have shown, that oftentimes women, particularly Black women, are discriminated against based on their natural hair.

Courts have rejected previous guidance finding that discrimination on the basis of hairstyle or hair texture is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. So, this legislation simply makes these protections clear, that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a person's hair texture or hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

I believe that both of these bills will help to make our legal system more fair for every single one of us. I urge passage of the rule and these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am going to share three stories from hardworking Americans.

Connie Nagrampa, a California resident, started working as a franchisee for a marketing company. The company cheated her out of her investments, her life investments. When she tried to seek accountability, they forced her into arbitration.

The company, conveniently enough for them, chose to move the arbitration process across the country to the city of Boston. A California resident was expected to fly herself and pay for all of her expenses to Boston to seek justice. It was too expensive, obviously, for somebody who has just lost her life savings. She lost the arbitration as a result, and the arbitrator said she had to pay more money to the company. Connie spent years attempting to overturn that unjust cause.

Now let me tell you about a brave American Navy reservist, Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, whose employer fired him the same day he was deployed to Afghanistan. This is blatantly illegal under Federal law. But because the employer had forced all of their employees to sign a forced arbitration clause, he was unable to make his claim in Federal court and get his job back.

That is what they are defending.

Let me tell you about another brave military servicemember, Charles Beard, whose rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, were violated by his bank.

SCRA is a bipartisan law which provides financial and legal protections to servicemembers and their families when they are on Active Duty. This is especially important given how vulnerable Active Duty servicemembers can be to predatory lending schemes, identity theft, or other unfair financial practices when they are deployed or on Active Duty.

Mr. Beard is a former sergeant in the Army National Guard, now 100 percent VA disabled. When he was on tour in Iraq, his wife at the time and their five children relied on one vehicle. One day the bank decided to repossess that vehicle. It was no longer convenient to keep that loan open for somebody risking their life for us, our country.

This, too, was a violation of the Federal law SCRA because he was deployed. When he tried to hold the bank publicly accountable in court, he was forced into arbitration because of a forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print.

These are just three stories of hardworking Americans. These are the stories of real people that we need to stand up for and protect.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are supposed to be debating two very important bills to help Americans continue to thrive in this great country, but instead my colleagues across the aisle want to debate

about something that they know is incorrect.

There are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is not using. And the truth is that changes in domestic energy policy often take years to impact global energy markets. They know that.

But instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using Putin's war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more, and then they argue for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more pollution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4, 2022, opinion article from The Guardian written by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva entitled ``Oil and Gas Lobbyists are Using Ukraine to Push for a Drilling Free-for-All in the U.S.''

[From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]

Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-

for-All in the US

(By Raul M. Grijalva)

Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin

launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating

international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly

condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian

people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.

But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw

an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence

and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating

scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing

into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling

us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US

public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and

quickly loosen the regulatory strings.

Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as

chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel

duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the

fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-

for-all that is neither economically warranted nor

environmentally sound.

Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden

has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to

my deep disappointment and protest, this administration

actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021

than President Trump did during each of the first three years

of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas

production from public lands and waters reached an all-time

high, and the current administration has done little to

change that trajectory over the last 13 months.

Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also

profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would

lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why

hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-

federal lands over the last decade done anything to

consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the

pump?

The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity.

Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like

wars--influence the price of gas, not the current

administration's decision to approve a few new leases or

permits.

Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is

keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public

lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least

26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000

approved drilling permits they're not using.

They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where

nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases,

covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop.

Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of

value for years, or even decades in some cases.

If industry did start to ramp up production from federal

leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would

likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only

accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production,

respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are

beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal

waters.

With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's

crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for

cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling

for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering

Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to

do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable

as possible.

The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling

down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only

perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.

And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status

quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the

rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact

major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel

development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a

brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a

livable and sustainable future for all''.

Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously

cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin,

stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer,

more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil

and gas dependence and make transformational investments in

cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and

the Competes Act, and we must do it now.

The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for

far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for

themselves.

Madam Speaker, if my colleagues were so concerned about oil prices or the welfare and security of humanity in the crisis that is happening in Ukraine, maybe they should have stepped up and inquired about the five meetings that the previous administration held in secret without staff, only a translator, with Vladimir Putin.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the rule allows for consideration of these two bills, which will ensure that we are providing better protections for consumers and employees.

The FAIR Act stops large corporations from gaming the system in their favor, and allows consumers the opportunity to have their day in court.

And the CROWN Act ensures that we do not allow discrimination in any way, shape, or form. These are commonsense bills that help the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed on the motion.

Before I do this, sir, I would like to just read a brief statement if I may, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am really proud to be New Jersey's junior Senator. Even more so, I am proud that I have called Newark my home for most of my adult life. I can talk about my community for weeks on end. I know the Presiding Officer has heard me talk about Newark for some time.

It is an incredible community where we do not mistake wealth with worth. We know the value of goodness and decency. And a lot of members of my community in the city of Newark are Black and Brown folks, and the special relationship they often have to their hair denotes deep cultural traditions. You go to my city right now, and you will find hairstyles of different types: locks, cornrows, twists, braids, bantu knots, and, of course, what I once had, Mr. President, afros.

You will find barber shops and hair salons aplenty that are dedicated to the upkeep of these beautiful hairstyles. One of my favorite things to do is to go to barber shops to sit in community with folks and connect.

I can write almost a dissertation probably, sir, right now about the role of barber shops in Black and Brown communities. They are incredible community cultural convening places.

But I also want to say that it is not always a source of joy. At times, the conversation has turned to a deep source of hurt and pain. There is a decades-long problematic practice of discrimination against natural hair in this country.

It was brought to the forefront in 2018 when a New Jersey student named Andrew Johnson was forced to cut his dreadlocks in the middle of a wrestling match. The entire ordeal was caught on camera. And as the scissors were brought out to cut Andrew's hair, you can see the deep hurt and pain on the face of this young man. It is the pain felt by many, traumatic at times, of hurtful experiences that make you question your very belonging in a community--the beauty of your hair, its natural style, your immutable characteristics, your cultural beliefs, your connection to your heritage.

No person in America should have to deal with this pain, and that is why I stand here today, urging this body to pass legislation that is dear to my community's heart, dear to communities all across the country. It is named the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, otherwise known as the CROWN Act.

This bill is ultimately a matter of justice. Hair discrimination is real. It is a continuing and a pernicious problem for Black and Brown people in our country. It can lead to lost employment opportunities. It can lead to violations of students' civil rights. In short, it forces people to change parts of their very being so as to avoid harassment or punishment.

A recent study from Michigan State University found that Black women are 50 percent more likely to be sent home

from the workplace because of their hair, and 80 percent of Black women feel the need to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office.

Another study from Duke University found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to land job interviews than White women or Black women with straightened hair.

Many students, other than Andrew, have had their civil rights violated. There have been cases in schools that have changed their dress code midyear to place restrictions on hairstyles, targeting Black students with locks and expelling them from school when they refused to cut their hair. Although existing law prohibits some forms of hair discrimination as a type of racial or national origin discrimination, Federal courts, at times, have narrowly construed this protection in a way that has allowed schools, workplaces, and other Federal institutions to discriminate against people of African descent who wear certain types of natural or even protected hairstyles.

That is where the CROWN Act comes in. This commonsense pragmatic piece of legislation is necessary. This legislation clarifies that discrimination based on a hair texture or hairstyle that is commonly associated with a particular race or natural origin--including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and afros--is a prohibited form of discrimination.

Since the moment I first introduced the CROWN Act with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, while I am grateful for their work and leadership, we have worked to build more support. In the House, this bill passed with broad bipartisan support because of the strength of the lead of my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman. Here in the Senate, Senator Collins has signed onto the bill, making it a bipartisan effort. And it is an effort that replicates what has already been done in 19 States--so-called blue States, such as mine or California, to so-called red States, like Nebraska, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

At its core, the CROWN Act is a commonsense policy. It is legislation that further protects the civil rights of Americans. But on a more profound and deeper level, it is a celebration of what makes up the wonderful fabric of our Nation: the rich, cultural diversity and the connections people have to their very identity.

We know the significance that hair plays for the communities that make up the diverse American fabric. For Black folks, hair is rooted in stories of strength and resistance. During the time of slavery, in Colombia, hair braiding was used to relay messages, including as a way to signal that one wanted to escape the lash of bondage.

As one person eloquently described, the hair of Black women is ``a crown that tells a story--a story of struggle, triumph, pain, pride, and comfort.''

The CROWN Act is a chance for us to make sure that story and the stories of so many other cultures are told, a chance to make sure that those stories aren't punished but become more of an integral part of the larger American story. It is a chance to make sure that those stories aren't stigmatized to the point that some have to make the difficult decision to change their natural hair just to have a chance to land a job, to succeed in school, or to escape discrimination overall.

This is a chance for us to make for a more perfect union, to bend the arc of the Nation just a little bit more toward justice, to end another chapter, another area, of deplorable discrimination, which is why today I ask for unanimous consent to pass the CROWN Act.

And so, I guess, as in legislative session, I now ask for unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I would like to say a couple of things.

Thank you very much for the recognition, Mr. President-- the Presiding Officer.

I really heard the point about workplace safety. This bill does not prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns. Instead, it accounts for employers' legal obligations to ensure workplace safety. Written in the bill, section 6(b) of the bill expressly prohibits that the employment nondiscrimination provision ``shall be enforced in the same manner and by the same means, including with the same jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' In other words, employers will be no more burdened by this bill than they are under the current employment discrimination law.

Under the longstanding, burden-shifting scheme applied by the courts in title VII cases, the employer may defeat a discrimination claim by asserting the workplace safety as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for taking 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.

So this is addressed, and I appreciate that. But as it was passed in a boldly bipartisan way, it was shown to have incorporated that concern in the bill itself.

Again, this is something that has been passed in States like Tennessee and Louisiana. This has been shown to have wide bipartisan support. It is shown to be needed in the Federal context. And I am hoping that we, through continued deliberations, can actually get that passed.

Mr. President, if I may have leave to say one more thing, I would like to just wish you a Merry Christmas, to the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the cheer and good will that is in this Chamber, and I look forward to happy holidays for everyone.

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

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.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just ask, do you think anyone has ever discriminated against you because you are bald?

Did you bring a lawsuit?

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

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.