Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 963. There is nothing fair about the FAIR Act. The bill would undermine Americans' freedom to contract; burden the judicial system, both Federal and in all States in the country; and restrict access to justice.

This bill would ban arbitration agreements across nearly all contracts. It outlaws arbitration agreements in employment disputes, consumer disputes, antitrust disputes, and civil rights disputes. It outlaws arbitration agreements with respect to not only big, huge corporations but the most humble businesses and parties in the country, those that I served in my law practice.

Democrats propose that arbitration is bad for Americans, but it has been a fixture of our legal landscape for almost 100 years. They claim that arbitration is forced. Both of their claims are wrong.

Arbitration has many benefits. It is more efficient and faster than going to court. The rules are not nearly as arcane. Injured parties get their relief sooner, and they spend less money along the way.

Plaintiffs in employment and consumer disputes, according to studies, actually win more in arbitration than they do in court. They get more money in arbitration. They win more often in arbitration.

Democrats know that arbitration has plenty of benefits. How do you know this? Because in this very bill, Democrats have carved out their union friends from the mandates of this bill.

In other words, if the bill becomes law, powerful unions, and no one else, can still use these valuable agreements vis-a-vis individuals.

This carve-out also tells us that Democrats know there is no such thing as forced arbitration. Agreements that are truly forced are already illegal under existing law in every State in the country.

People are no more forced to agree to an arbitration provision than they are to agree to any other provision of a contract. The bill, instead, bans private parties from knowingly and willingly agreeing on a process to resolve future disputes. It tells Americans, no matter how informed or sophisticated they may be, that they can't be trusted to manage their own relationships by agreeing in advance to the means of resolution to be used in the event of a dispute.

Our Democrat colleagues seem to believe that Americans can't be trusted to think for themselves. Big Government needs to tell them what to do. Their freedom to contract should be restricted by the wisdom from Washington.

Democrats argue that this bill is no big deal because parties can still decide to use arbitration after a dispute arises, but that never happens in practice for much the same reason that many disputes go to court and are resolved outside of a jury. About 1 to 2 percent actually go all the way.

The decision to get into a lawsuit is not always purely rational, taken from all points of view, and is often affected by tempers that are different once the dispute has arisen than when the parties are considering a position of cool judgment in advance.

Their incentives change after a dispute has arisen, and people will pick a strategy to resolve that dispute at that time. They won't necessarily be looking for a process, then, that is good for both parties for many reasons.

When you are immersed in a dispute, there is also a greater chance that a lawyer that you may have retained would have an incentive to direct you in the direction of litigation rather than arbitration, and those incentives certainly won't necessarily be consistent with a faster and cheaper alternative.

Rather than helping the little guy stand up to big companies, this bill would take the option to arbitrate off the table for everybody and put more money in the pockets of trial lawyers, most especially plaintiffs' class action trial lawyers.

The bill would force more people into court. They will pay more and possibly recover less. But it would also force some people out of the justice system altogether.

Some people will be unable to pay for an expensive lawsuit, or they may have a claim so small that it is only practicable for them to bring it themselves, which arbitration facilitates.

Let's be clear, too. The surge in new lawsuits hurts employment. It hurts businesses and keeps them from being able to afford to hire more people. It will raise their costs at the worst possible time, when they are already dealing with supply chain problems and record inflation caused by failed Democrat policies, and not only by prohibiting the use of arbitration going forward but by retroactively eliminating it, rendering it null and void in millions of contracts already outstanding right now, at this point in the life of our Nation, when we have 8 percent inflation, another constraint on the supply chain imposed by Democrat policies.

Everyone should be sounding the alarm on this blatant overreach. At the end of the day, this bill curries favor with the plaintiffs' bar and union bosses, and it does so at the expense of hardworking Americans and small businesses, especially.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 963, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The distinguished chairman of the committee offered to correct me by saying that the bill only prohibits forced arbitration, said that was a correction, as if I misspoke as to facts.

Let me read from the language of the bill: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dispute, or civil rights dispute.''

The word ``forced'' was not in that language, Madam Speaker. It prohibits all predispute arbitration agreements and post-joint action waivers.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

I thank the gentleman from Florida, and as I suggested earlier, if the bill were a matter only of big businesses, it would be a very different bill, but just as there is no limitation to forced arbitration agreements in the language of the bill, there is no limitation to arbitration agreements entered into between little guys and big companies.

The very first appeal I ever took in a 30-year law practice in 1992 was in a case called Bennish v. North Carolina Dance Theater, in which I represented a fledgling, very-hard-pressed economically arts group in my hometown that had an employment dispute with a dancer who wanted to litigate. They had an arbitration agreement. It would have destroyed that organization financially to have to engage in extended and expensive litigation. This bill would have made the enforcement of that arbitration agreement unlawful, and it has nothing to do with big business.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We still haven't heard an explanation for why this legislation deems it appropriate to eliminate arbitration for parties of all sizes. We keep hearing about the little guy versus the massive corporation.

Even in that circumstance, of course, what we may be talking about is like the case from 2011, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, where the issue was people in California had bought cell phones, they had been offered a free cell phone, but it wasn't made clear that they would have to pay the sales tax. So

there was a $5 claim per purchaser, and wealthy plaintiffs' class- action lawyers wanted to bring a big lawsuit. With tens of thousands of them, they might get a $5 coupon, but the lawyers would buy a new jet.

That may be in some circumstances, even the dispute with the big guy. But leave that aside. We still don't hear any explanation for why you are wiping out arbitration as a means that parties choose, even if they are on equal bargaining power.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

The distinguished gentleman from Georgia suggests that this bill is about whether or not we are preserving the right to jury trial in the Constitution. But I submit, that is not really what is at stake.

The question is whether you resolve a dispute through arbitration or you go to the court system. If you go to the court system, there are innumerable paths within the court system that lead to not having your case decided by a jury.

In fact, only about 1 to 2 percent of cases end up proceeding to a determination by a jury. That means 99 or 98

out of 100 cases do not. They might be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. They might be dismissed for failure to state a claim. There may be settlement processes that come to fruition during the course of the case.

But it is almost never true--think about that--that a case in court goes to a jury. So this notion that this bill, by eliminating the choice of arbitration, somehow preserves everybody's jury trial magically is a false choice.

And more to that point, the gentleman from Georgia, and also the chairman, in the inception, noted that we have just had a bill signing of a bill that excepts from enforceable arbitration agreements the category of sexual assault, sexual harassment. The majority of Republicans supported that.

The majority of Republicans will not support this bill because it represents the throwing out of the entire mechanism of arbitration, which has been, as I indicated, a feature of the legal landscape used with great utility and utilized throughout the last hundred years almost, since 1925.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

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

On the other side of the aisle, we hear repeated references to defending the Constitution and the American way. I would remind the Chamber that our economy, the American economy, is built on contracts; which contracts, under the rule of law, are not forced, but enforced when someone refuses to abide by his or her agreement. That is not forced. That is where a contract is enforced.

We, our courts, our judicial system, and, yes, arbitration is the means by which we call people to live by their bargains, and that has been the key to the most successful economy in the history of the world. It has certainly been the state of affairs, as I said, for almost 100 years.

Throwing that out, dispensing with a major component of that on the premise that you are pursuing the American system is contrary to fact. It is, as Democrats often seek to do, it is transformational. It seeks to transform America, not to reinforce and persist it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

It causes me to remark, as the gentleman from Tennessee said a moment ago, that it is Democrats who look out for the interests of the little guy and look out for the interests of the people. I wonder why it is that looking out for the interests of the people invariably involves restricting their freedom in some way. What a remarkable notion.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that we have heard repeated a number of times, as the gentleman from Rhode Island suggested and the gentlewoman from Washington just said, is that if you go to arbitration, the company picks the arbitrators, and that is it. That is not, in fact, correct.

Courts police the fundamental fairness of the arbitration process. If there is a process that is fundamentally unfair, the courts will modify it until it is fair. So, that is a misconception.

Furthermore, it has also been suggested that it is by the whim of the arbitrator what the result is. That is exactly what Mr. Cicilline, I believe, said. That also is erroneous.

If an arbitrator writes a decision that manifests a disregard of the governing law, like the soldier who had been in arbitration for 8 years that he suggested, the courts will vacate, strike down, that arbitration award.

It is important to know those premises before you decide what to do on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the situation we just had on the floor, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, I think she said she represented big corporations. Yet, she spoke to the fundamental unfairness of arbitration. It is ironic perhaps.

I spent almost 30 years--29 years in the practice of law as a litigator representing people in court and in arbitration equally. I represented plaintiffs and defendants both, frequently individuals, often businesses, always small to medium-sized businesses, and occasionally a local government or two, never a big company.

I have had clients who didn't want to have arbitration agreements enforced and sometimes I could defeat them or have them modified or change the results of them because the arbitrator had manifested disregard for the law. Sometimes I had clients who wanted to enforce those agreements. It depends on the circumstances.

But I can tell you it is not a tool that is uniformly bad. Although I have voted for accepting enforceable arbitration agreements, arbitration clauses involving sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, I don't believe that throwing the baby out with the bath water is a good idea. It is a terrible idea.

Let me let America in on the inside scoop. Here is what this is about. For the past, roughly, decade there have been a series of cases in the United States Supreme Court in which, through various efforts and methods, plaintiffs' class action lawyers, lawyers for big class litigation where they make millions and millions in fees, have tried various approaches to get the United States Supreme Court to allow class actions to be pursued through arbitration, and they have failed. That is why this bill is here.

The bill is to reverse the result of that decade of litigation in the Supreme Court in order for class action lawyers to be able to have a field day and to make a lot of money. This bill protects and seeks the fortune of plaintiffs' class action lawyers, and of course, it protects the patronage of big unions both at the same time. That is what the bill is about.

Madam Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 979, I call up the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 963.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 963, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act, is critical legislation that would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over the individual.

Private arbitration has been transformed, by 40 years of reckless Supreme Court decisions, from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court.

By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it consumer and employment contracts, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide wrongdoing behind a one-sided process that is tilted in their favor.

For example, arbitration generally limits discovery; does not adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; can prohibit class actions, which it almost always does; and deny the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct.

For millions of workers and consumers, the precondition, whether they know it or not, of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must sign a nonnegotiable contract that includes a provision requiring all disputes to be resolved in private arbitration.

These take-it-or-leave-it contracts, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedure in the corporate world.

That means for millions of people, the ability to enforce consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves.

These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers.

The FAIR Act reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.

Importantly, this legislation does not preclude both parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after a dispute arises. It does, however, protect unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court.

Last month, Congress came together in a bipartisan fashion to prohibit forced arbitration clauses in suits concerning sexual harassment and sexual assault. Watching that legislation be signed into law was a proud moment for many of us in this Chamber. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill to other workers and consumers.

That bipartisan bill, which gathered, as I recall, about 130 Republican votes, is exactly the same as this bill, only limited in its application.

Every argument for that bill is an argument for this bill. This bill simply extends the same basic fairness in that bill, as I said, to other workers and consumers.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to correct something Mr. Bishop said. This bill does not ban arbitration. It bans forced arbitration. It bans the practice or the enforceability of the practice of having a provision in a contract that you sign to buy anything or an employment contract where you are forced, that is there and that if you try to change it, they won't sell you the car, they won't sell you the cell phone, they won't hire you, so you have no choice, and that forced arbitration removes the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

I just want to point out that this bill does not ban arbitration. If two parties have a dispute and prefer arbitration to going to court, they can have arbitration. This bill bans forced arbitration, meaning arbitration that is entered into contracts that people have no ability to change. That is why it says pre-dispute arbitration agreements are struck by this bill, not post-dispute arbitration agreements.

So this bill does not eliminate arbitration agreements if they want to. It does eliminate forced arbitration agreements that the party, usually the employee or the consumer had no knowledge of probably and no ability to say no to. We used to call them contracts of adhesion, but we don't do that anymore.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would significantly weaken this legislation and damage the collective bargaining process for tens of millions of working Americans.

We have said it over and over again today--this bill is not designed to eliminate arbitration. While my Republican colleagues would like you to believe that the FAIR Act will end arbitration entirely, that is simply not true.

The FAIR Act would put an end to forced arbitration--arbitration that is not willingly agreed to by both sides, which is a predatory one- sided practice created by and for huge corporations to allow them to get away with abusive conduct. It is a system that can exist only when these companies can take advantage of a stark power imbalance between themselves and workers, consumers, and small businesses.

Labor unions correct that power imbalance. The collective bargaining process provides real protections that are unavailable to nonunion workers by forcing big businesses to compromise with skilled negotiators focused on improving terms for their workers.

Collective bargaining guarantees other important protections in the arbitration process, such as truly neutral arbitrators, better procedures, transparent decisionmaking, and the option to appeal decisions. It creates a system that can actually resolve disputes quickly, efficiently--and most important--fairly for all parties involved.

That is not forced arbitration precisely because it is truly voluntary. Arbitration only works when two parties of equal bargaining power can negotiate terms that work for everyone involved, which is exactly what happens when a labor union and a corporation establish a collective bargaining agreement.

That is completely different than forced arbitration of nonunion employment disputes where an employee is forced to accept an arbitration clause that is buried deep inside the fine print of a stack of confusing paperwork on a take-it-or-leave-it basis that they must sign to get a job.

The big corporations love this system because it forces their workers, it forces employees, it forces the purchasers of products to go to forced arbitration, and that is an inherently skewed process. That is why the employee loses 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. The employer wins 98 percent of the forced arbitrations. That is not a fair process.

Moreover, as my colleague, Congressman Perlmutter, made clear during the Rules Committee meeting on this bill, nothing in the FAIR Act prevents individual workers from deciding to vindicate their rights before a jury.

As the plain language of the bill states, no collectively bargained arbitration provision ``shall have the effect of waiving the right of a worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom.''

In other words, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem that could upend the rights of millions of workers today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to vote for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there are over 60 million workers--a majority of nonunion private-sector employees--who are subject to forced arbitration clauses. According to the Economic Policy Institute, that number will be over 80 million by 2024. Those employees are told that if they want to get a job or keep their current job they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to a forced arbitration agreement. In most cases they do not have a choice.

When these workers seek to hold their employers to account for wage theft, civil rights abuses, or racial discrimination, they are shoved into a secretive arbitration process designed by corporations with almost unlimited resources, and they lose 98 percent of the time. That is what the FAIR Act will fix. This legislation will restore these workers' access to our justice system and guarantee their constitutional rights by ending forced arbitration.

This amendment would do nothing to protect workers while undermining this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary and harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues, Chairman Johnson and Chairman Nadler, for this long overdue legislation that we voted on last year; and, as well, to acknowledge the forced arbitration legislation that was signed by the White House dealing with sexual assault.

Now we have come full circle, so let me try to reinforce, because our friends on the other side of the aisle--and I call them friends--not only have it wrong, they have it upside down. It is completely misconstrued as to what this legislation does.

And if you go out on the street corner and talk to any American they will say, of course I want the FAIR Act, because forced arbitration says to them that, in essence, you are obligated, you are indentured to the contract that you signed to get a job, to buy a phone, to get that big TV, and that you are not able to pursue your due process rights.

Now, this is a constitutional issue. The Fifth Amendment completely indicates that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, however you choose your due process of law.

We go on to the 14th Amendment; of course, part of the historic 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and it indicates that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States under this Constitution, which includes the right to a trial by jury, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process again; and that you would guarantee equal process and justice under the law.

So let me factually say, though the signing of any contract or document is voluntary, often large corporations make it impossible to use their product or be employed without agreeing to a contract with a forced arbitration, making signing of the contract or document anything but voluntary; and clearly, it has constitutional implications.

Something that should alarm all American consumers is that according to a study commissioned by University of California Davis Law Review, 81 companies in the Fortune 100, including subsidiaries or relating affiliates, have used arbitration agreements in connection with consumer transaction.

Now let me be very clear. When you have a dispute, we are perfectly happy for you, as the individual, part of the contract, to say to the corporation, I don't care about my rights. I am going to throw myself on the mercy of arbitration. And in doing so, you may subject yourself to a limited decision, as Brian Flores was finding out.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you that American economic supremacy does not stem from the contributions of modern-day oligarchs, billionaires, CEOs, or the wealthy. It comes from the middle class. It comes from those 60 million workers and countless others who put in an honest 8- hour day, five times a week, in the simple pursuit of trying to feed their families and take care of their communities.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

I oppose the upcoming amendment that talks about not excluding unions. Unions have agreements between individuals. Unions have the power, through their persons they represent, to vote yea or nay for that contract. So if they vote yea or nay on that contract, their eyes open on the arbitration, it is the union that will be protecting that individual. They will not be in that process alone.

In the instance of an individual and the contracts that are signed, they will be alone. But they will not be alone if the FAIR Act is passed and the Constitution is upheld. That is why I support enthusiastically the FAIR Act and oppose the amendment to be forthcoming.

Pass the FAIR Act because justice and the Constitution requires it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 963, ``The FAIR Act'' which prohibits a predispute arbitration agreement from being valid or enforceable in an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.

Action on this legislation is long overdue considering the long history of the problems caused by forced arbitration. The FAIR Act was passed by the House in the 116th Congress, so I hope we can pass it again now and that the Senate will do the same this time so we can finally resolve this problem.

Forced arbitration is typically due to a clause in a contract that takes away employees' and consumers' rights to pursue litigation in the case their legal rights are violated. 60 million American employees and myriad consumers are unfairly, and usually unknowingly, subjected to its limitation of their legal rights.

Though the signing of any contract or document is voluntary, often large corporations make it impossible to use their product or be employed without agreeing to a contract with a forced arbitration clause, making signing of the contract or document anything but voluntary.

Something that should alarm all American consumers is that, according to a study commissioned by the University of California Davis Law Review, 81 companies in the Fortune 100, including subsidiaries or related affiliates, have used arbitration agreements in connection with consumer transactions.

The study also found that possibly two-thirds of American households are covered by consumer based forced arbitration agreements.

This means nearly 86 million American households have their Constitutional right of access to the judicial system restricted.

For American employees, the numbers are also staggering. Similarly, 60 million American employees are subject to forced arbitration agreements of which they are often unaware until a dispute arises for which they seek judicial redress.

The extensive reach of arbitration clauses is only increasing, with the Economic Policy Institute estimating 80 percent of private sector nonunion workers being subject to forced arbitration clauses by 2024.

Madam Speaker, American economic supremacy does not stem from the contributions of modern-day oligarchs, billionaires, CEOs, or the wealthy; it comes from the middle class. It comes from those 60 million workers and countless others who put in an honest 8-hour day 5 times a week in the simple pursuit of trying to feed their families and take care of their communities.

The fact that so many of these hard-working Americans are having their legal rights taken away without them knowing it is morally reprehensible and must be put to an end. The FAIR Act remedies that 1 problem.

In addition to being sound policy, the FAIR Act promotes racial equity in our rapidly diversifying country and workforce.

Another study from the EPI found 59.1 percent of African American workers (7.5 million workers) are subject to mandatory arbitration, as are female workers (at 57.6 percent).

Unfortunately, this is not surprising considering African Americans and women are two of the most historically discriminated against groups in the United States.

Forced arbitration continues the struggles of African Americans in the workplace, from slavery, sharecropping, and redlining to ongoing segregation, discrimination, racism, and voter suppression. As these statistics show, our struggle for equity in the workplace continues.

We are exhausted, yet we remain in the fight. We must continue to set right historical wrongs, and the FAIR Act provides us an avenue to do so.

Fairness in the workplace for women is also further remediated by this legislation. In this country, we have a disgraceful wage gap between men and women of 82 cents to the dollar, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures.

As a Member of the Women's Caucus, I have been fighting for pay equity for American women since before I arrived here as a Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is a simple matter of justice.

Wage disparities are not simply a result of women's education levels or life choices. In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women starts as soon as they enter the workplace and expands shortly thereafter. Women can have the same background, work in the same field, and perform the same functional position, yet still be grossly underpaid. Disproportionately subjecting women to forced arbitration is yet another stain on this country's historical attitude towards women in the workforce.

I have consistently been a proud sponsor and cosponsor of legislation that expands legal rights, creates a more level playing field, and erodes long standing social disparities.

The FAIR Act achieves these goals, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support the FAIR Act.