[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 194 (Wednesday, December 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7162-S7163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 1255, Elizabeth Frawley
Bagley, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil;
that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or
debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Elizabeth Frawley
Bagley, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the Bagley nomination?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be notified of the Senate's
action.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2116
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed on the motion.
Before I do this, sir, I would like to just read a brief statement if
I may, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Proceed.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am really proud to be New Jersey's
junior Senator. Even more so, I am proud that I have called Newark my
home for most of my adult life. I can talk about my community for weeks
on end. I know the Presiding Officer has heard me talk about Newark for
some time.
It is an incredible community where we do not mistake wealth with
worth. We know the value of goodness and decency. And a lot of members
of my community in the city of Newark are Black and Brown folks, and
the special relationship they often have to their hair denotes deep
cultural traditions. You go to my city right now, and you will find
hairstyles of different types: locks, cornrows, twists, braids, bantu
knots, and, of course, what I once had, Mr. President, afros.
You will find barber shops and hair salons aplenty that are dedicated
to the upkeep of these beautiful hairstyles. One of my favorite things
to do is to go to barber shops to sit in community with folks and
connect.
I can write almost a dissertation probably, sir, right now about the
role of barber shops in Black and Brown communities. They are
incredible community cultural convening places.
But I also want to say that it is not always a source of joy. At
times, the conversation has turned to a deep source of hurt and pain.
There is a decades-long problematic practice of discrimination against
natural hair in this country.
It was brought to the forefront in 2018 when a New Jersey student
named Andrew Johnson was forced to cut his dreadlocks in the middle of
a wrestling match. The entire ordeal was caught on camera. And as the
scissors were brought out to cut Andrew's hair, you can see the deep
hurt and pain on the face of this young man. It is the pain felt by
many, traumatic at times, of hurtful experiences that make you question
your very belonging in a community--the beauty of your hair, its
natural style, your immutable characteristics, your cultural beliefs,
your connection to your heritage.
No person in America should have to deal with this pain, and that is
why I stand here today, urging this body to pass legislation that is
dear to my community's heart, dear to communities all across the
country. It is named the Creating a Respectful and Open World for
Natural Hair Act, otherwise known as the CROWN Act.
This bill is ultimately a matter of justice. Hair discrimination is
real. It is a continuing and a pernicious problem for Black and Brown
people in our country. It can lead to lost employment opportunities. It
can lead to violations of students' civil rights. In short, it forces
people to change parts of their very being so as to avoid harassment or
punishment.
A recent study from Michigan State University found that Black women
are 50 percent more likely to be sent home
[[Page S7163]]
from the workplace because of their hair, and 80 percent of Black women
feel the need to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at
the office.
Another study from Duke University found that Black women with
natural hairstyles are less likely to land job interviews than White
women or Black women with straightened hair.
Many students, other than Andrew, have had their civil rights
violated. There have been cases in schools that have changed their
dress code midyear to place restrictions on hairstyles, targeting Black
students with locks and expelling them from school when they refused to
cut their hair. Although existing law prohibits some forms of hair
discrimination as a type of racial or national origin discrimination,
Federal courts, at times, have narrowly construed this protection in a
way that has allowed schools, workplaces, and other Federal
institutions to discriminate against people of African descent who wear
certain types of natural or even protected hairstyles.
That is where the CROWN Act comes in. This commonsense pragmatic
piece of legislation is necessary. This legislation clarifies that
discrimination based on a hair texture or hairstyle that is commonly
associated with a particular race or natural origin--including hair
that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locks, cornrows, twists,
braids, Bantu knots, and afros--is a prohibited form of discrimination.
Since the moment I first introduced the CROWN Act with Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, while I am grateful for their work and
leadership, we have worked to build more support. In the House, this
bill passed with broad bipartisan support because of the strength of
the lead of my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Congresswoman
Bonnie Watson Coleman. Here in the Senate, Senator Collins has signed
onto the bill, making it a bipartisan effort. And it is an effort that
replicates what has already been done in 19 States--so-called blue
States, such as mine or California, to so-called red States, like
Nebraska, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
At its core, the CROWN Act is a commonsense policy. It is legislation
that further protects the civil rights of Americans. But on a more
profound and deeper level, it is a celebration of what makes up the
wonderful fabric of our Nation: the rich, cultural diversity and the
connections people have to their very identity.
We know the significance that hair plays for the communities that
make up the diverse American fabric. For Black folks, hair is rooted in
stories of strength and resistance. During the time of slavery, in
Colombia, hair braiding was used to relay messages, including as a way
to signal that one wanted to escape the lash of bondage.
As one person eloquently described, the hair of Black women is ``a
crown that tells a story--a story of struggle, triumph, pain, pride,
and comfort.''
The CROWN Act is a chance for us to make sure that story and the
stories of so many other cultures are told, a chance to make sure that
those stories aren't punished but become more of an integral part of
the larger American story. It is a chance to make sure that those
stories aren't stigmatized to the point that some have to make the
difficult decision to change their natural hair just to have a chance
to land a job, to succeed in school, or to escape discrimination
overall.
This is a chance for us to make for a more perfect union, to bend the
arc of the Nation just a little bit more toward justice, to end another
chapter, another area, of deplorable discrimination, which is why today
I ask for unanimous consent to pass the CROWN Act.
And so, I guess, as in legislative session, I now ask for unanimous
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, we all agree that racial
discrimination is not only wrong but illegal. The Civil Rights Act of
1964 and other Federal statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, or national origin.
The Supreme Court found in the 1973 case McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green that using a pretextual reason as cover for
discrimination is a violation of Federal civil rights law.
Subsequently, the protections sought by this bill are already provided
for in Federal law. Using hairstyle as a pretext for racial
discrimination is already illegal.
But there is reason to believe that this bill is not ready for
enactment. When the House Judiciary Committee considered this
legislation, some Members questioned whether this legislation would
prevent certain hairstyles and lengths out of concern that they may
hinder workplace safety or the ability to perform certain critical
functions of the job. For example, employers may require certain
hairstyles so that personal protective equipment properly protects the
wearer.
Many questions remain unanswered about whether this bill would
prevent employers from imposing race-neutral standards, such as
maintaining a hairstyle that makes it difficult to become caught in
machinery on a factory floor or the ability to properly wear a helmet
at a construction site.
This bill would make workers less safe, make it more difficult to
start a business and provide jobs, and almost certainly result in
expensive litigation and overburdened courts.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOOKER. I would like to say a couple of things.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much for the recognition, Mr. President--
the Presiding Officer.
I really heard the point about workplace safety. This bill does not
prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns. Instead, it
accounts for employers' legal obligations to ensure workplace safety.
Written in the bill, section 6(b) of the bill expressly prohibits that
the employment nondiscrimination provision ``shall be enforced in the
same manner and by the same means, including with the same
jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated into Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' In other words, employers will be no
more burdened by this bill than they are under the current employment
discrimination law.
Under the longstanding, burden-shifting scheme applied by the courts
in title VII cases, the employer may defeat a discrimination claim by
asserting the workplace safety as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason
for taking adverse employment action against an employee, with the
burden then shifting to the employee to prove that the asserted reason
was a pretext for discrimination.
So this is addressed, and I appreciate that. But as it was passed in
a boldly bipartisan way, it was shown to have incorporated that concern
in the bill itself.
Again, this is something that has been passed in States like
Tennessee and Louisiana. This has been shown to have wide bipartisan
support. It is shown to be needed in the Federal context. And I am
hoping that we, through continued deliberations, can actually get that
passed.
Mr. President, if I may have leave to say one more thing, I would
like to just wish you a Merry Christmas, to the Presiding Officer. I
appreciate the cheer and good will that is in this Chamber, and I look
forward to happy holidays for everyone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair returns the greetings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.