Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz refers to the cartels. Of course there are cartels. Of course they are making money because they have a monopoly of supply of a substance that has a great demand. If you pass this bill then those cartels will no longer have a monopoly and law enforcement expenses will go down because they will not have to enforce the marijuana laws and the marijuana prohibition laws. Nor will they have to fight the cartels, which won't be there anymore because their monopoly of supply will have been eliminated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, the House voted, on a bipartisan basis, to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act, so I am pleased that we are moving forward again today. Over the past two decades, public support for legalizing marijuana has surged. States have led the way and continue to lead the way on marijuana reform, but our Federal laws have not kept pace with the obvious need for change. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up, to do what is right. The MORE Act would treat marijuana as a public health issue rather than a criminal matter and would begin to rectify the heavy toll that criminalization has taken, particularly on communities of color and low-income communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Kayla Hamedi for her service to the House Committee on the Judiciary and to my office. Kayla first worked for me as an intern, serving the people of New York's 10th Congressional District, as she finished up her studies at the George Washington University, where she received her bachelor's degree. She continued to work in the federal policy field after her internship ended, working for Active Policy Solutions and Rep. Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. During this time, she also received her master's degree from the George Washington University's College of Professional Studies. A little more than two years after her internship with my office had concluded, my staff and I excitedly welcomed Kayla back as a full-time staff member. Due to her strong work ethic and intellect, Kayla moved up several times in my office, first from Staff Assistant to Press Assistant/Legislative Correspondent and then to Legislative Assistant/ Press Assistant. In these capacities, she staffed my front office, communicated with my constituents, handled press and digital communication, and worked on several policy portfolios. Notably, she helped assist my office during my campaign to become Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. In November 2019, Kayla transitioned from my personal office to the Committee, where she first served as Deputy Press Secretary and was then promoted to Deputy Communications Director. Kayla joined the committee during a particularly busy time, as we geared up for the first impeachment of President Trump and played an instrumental role in our communication work surrounding the impeachment, including helping book TV interviews, as well as the second impeachment a year later. Kayla played an integral role in communicating to the public the work the Committee was doing for the American people. In addition to making sure every statement went out to the press as it was delivered, Kayla worked with other committees and other member offices to coordinate press releases, press conferences, and communication strategies; coordinated briefings with reporters ahead of major breaking news events; and worked with national and international reporters on a range of issues before the committee. She also worked with our chief counsels to shape and perfect their messaging prior to the start of numerous hearings and worked on communication campaigns relating to a range of judiciary issues, including but not limited to our work on voting rights, prohibiting forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Kayla helped roll out the Staff Report on our Antitrust Subcommittee's Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, served as our primary point of contact for all press inquiries and communication efforts for several months when we transitioned between Communication Directors, and served as our primary digital staffer when we transitioned between Digital Directors. For more than four years, I have been fortunate to count Kayla among my staff. I, and the American people, have greatly benefited from her work ethic, intellect, and strategic thinking. Kayla is calm in even the most stressful situations, always willing to lend a hand whenever one is needed, and brings a positive energy and a good spirit to everything she does. She has played a critical role in both serving New York's 10th Congressional District and informing the American people of the work of my office and the Committee on the Judiciary. We will greatly miss Kayla as she embarks on the next chapter of her career on Capitol Hill. We thank Kayla for her service to the Committee and wish her the best of luck with this new chapter.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or the CROWN Act, is a critically important civil rights bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. It would do so in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited, such as employment, education, and housing. Although Republicans blocked passage of this bill a few weeks ago, their arguments have just as little merit now as they did then. That is why we are here again, to advance this important legislation. Among the arguments that we heard previously was that this bill was not needed because the law already protects people from hair-based discrimination. While I agree that existing civil rights statutes, if properly read, already make such discrimination unlawful, several Federal courts have erroneously rejected this interpretation, leaving the state of the law unclear at best. Far from being duplicative, this legislation is absolutely essential to remove any ambiguity from the law and to fix these courts' misinterpretation of Federal civil rights law. Republicans also argued that this legislation could somehow undermine the ability of employers to maintain workplace safety standards. But nothing could be further from the truth. This bill does nothing to prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns, and the longstanding provisions under the civil rights laws that enable employers to ensure workplace safety would remain firmly in place. Since neither of these arguments holds up to scrutiny, it is important to step back and understand why the CROWN Act is so urgently needed. According to a 2019 study conducted by the JOY Collective, Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for natural hairstyles,'' and other hairstyles traditionally associated with their race, like braids, locs, and twists. This has real consequences for real people. Students have been sent home from school or told they could not walk at graduation. Employees have been told to change their hair because it violated their employer's dress code. Some people have even been denied jobs altogether because of their hairstyles. In view of these disturbing facts, 14 States have enacted statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's natural hairstyle, in every case with bipartisan support and sometimes even with the unanimous support of both parties. I am disappointed that we did not see such bipartisan support when we brought this bill up a few weeks ago, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have another chance today to do the right thing. This is a matter of basic justice that demands a national solution by Congress. That is why I strongly support the CROWN Act and urge all my colleagues, including my Republican colleagues, to do so as well. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for her leadership and for introducing this important bill this Congress. I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2116.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I said that this was covered by the law, but several Federal circuit courts disagree. Therefore, it is not covered in those circuits, and that is why we need this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out again, because some of my Republican colleagues seem not to hear it, that this is the law, as they say, but that several circuit courts say it isn't the law, so all this bill is doing is reaffirming what the law is, despite several circuit courts. And we see that the law in those States where the circuit courts have upheld it properly has not resulted in any of the catastrophes we just heard.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I will. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. NADLER. Yes.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that we don't need new drilling legislation. There are 6,000 leases which have been granted by the Federal Government which the oil companies are not drilling. They can drill. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

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

Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).