[Pages H4592-H4597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

H.R. 5309

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

[[Page H4593]]

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

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(7) In 2018, the United States Armed Forces rescinded these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

SEC. 3. FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS.

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

SEC. 4. HOUSING PROGRAMS.

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

SEC. 5. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

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

SEC. 6. EMPLOYMENT.

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

SEC. 7. EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.

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

[[Page H4594]]

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

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

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

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

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

[[Page H4595]]

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

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

{time} 1545

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

[[Page H4596]]

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

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

[[Page H4597]]

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

General Leave

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

____________________