[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2603-S2605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Thomas Farr

  There are many other radical nominees who are also in line. I want to 
take some time to talk about one of them, but I think it is important 
to explain just what is at stake here.
  In 2015, I was honored to join thousands of marchers to commemorate 
the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. On that chilly March morning 53 years 
ago, hundreds of nonviolent voting rights advocates, including many 
poor and rural African Americans who had been systemically shut out of 
the political process, joined together to march 54 miles from Selma to 
Montgomery to demand equal access to their constitutional right to 
vote. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the marchers, including 
my friend Congressman  John Lewis, came face-to-face with a wall of 
State troopers armed with billy clubs. The troopers had one message for 
the marchers: Turn back. Don't fight this fight. It is not worth it.
  Fully aware that they were putting their lives on the line, the 
protesters decided it was worth it. They held their ground. As the 
protesters fell to their knees to pray, they were brutally attacked by 
the State troopers.
  As television footage and pictures of the brutality that day 
ricocheted across America, the country was forced to grapple with an 
ugly truth: In a country that is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, 
many citizens had systematically been stripped of the fundamental right 
to vote.
  The march set in motion the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965--a landmark law that banned racially discriminatory voting 
practices. I wish I could say the fight for voting rights ended that 
day--the day President

[[Page S2604]]

Johnson signed that law--but it didn't. Even today, powerful forces 
combine to strip Americans of their lawful right to vote. States have 
passed restrictive voter ID laws, purged voting rolls, limited 
opportunities to register, and erected other barriers to the political 
process, all with the same goal--to make sure that people who wouldn't 
vote for them wouldn't get a chance to vote at all.
  Federal courts have been on the frontlines of that battle. Citizens 
have sought justice by asking the courts to strike down laws that make 
it harder for people of color, low-income people, the elderly, 
disabled, or others to vote. The judges who sit on those courts have 
one duty--to uphold equal justice under law.
  The Senate must determine whether Federal judicial nominees are 
prepared to meet that obligation. Thomas Farr, the nominee for the 
Eastern District of North Carolina, clearly fails that test. Instead of 
standing up for the rights of all people to vote, Mr. Farr has been the 
go-to lawyer for powerful interests who have worked to stop people of 
color and marginalized groups from exercising their right to vote.
  Among the most appalling parts of Mr. Farr's resume is his work for 
Jesse Helms, the former U.S. Senator and shameless bigot. Helms made 
his views on civil rights and equal treatment clear. He opposed renewal 
of the Voting Rights Act. He led opposition to commemorate the birthday 
of Martin Luther King, Jr., as a holiday. He called LGBTQ individuals 
``disgusting, weak, and morally sick wretches.'' He supported the 
apartheid regime in South Africa.
  Senator Helms led some of the most blatantly racist political 
campaigns in modern history. For example, to drive down Black turnout, 
his campaign mailed over 100,000 postcards to homes in predominantly 
Black neighborhoods threatening that those individuals could be 
criminally prosecuted if they voted. Helms's most infamous campaign ad 
was a television spot that showed White hands crumpling up a job 
application, with an announcer saying that the person needed that job, 
but it was taken by a minority.
  These ugly appeals to racism were a core part of Helms's campaign, 
and Mr. Farr was right by his side, serving as Helms's campaign lawyer. 
But Mr. Farr's troubling record doesn't end there. In recent years, he 
has played a central role in resisting anti-discrimination efforts in 
North Carolina.
  In 2013, the Supreme Court dismantled a key part of the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act in its Shelby County v. Holder ruling, making it easier for 
States to enact discriminatory voter laws. After Shelby County, North 
Carolina's Republican-led legislature wasted no time in restricting 
voting rights, searching for ways to make it harder for African 
Americans in the State to vote.
  North Carolina legislators requested data about voting practices 
broken down by race, identified laws that helped African Americans 
vote, and went about gutting each one of them. In just 3 legislative 
days, the State legislature rammed through an omnibus voter suppression 
bill. The bill included a voter ID provision that specifically excluded 
IDs that African Americans disproportionately used. It eliminated the 
first week of early voting. It ended same-day registration. It 
eliminated out-of-precinct voting. It stopped preregistration for 16- 
and 17-years-olds. These were all--every one of them--practices that 
helped boost African-American voter turnout.
  The bill was challenged in court by faith groups, by civil rights 
groups, and by the U.S. Government. Where was Thomas Farr? Where was 
he? He was on the other side, defending the discriminatory law. The 
Federal appeals court rejected Mr. Farr's argument. It concluded that 
the North Carolina Legislature had intentionally discriminated in 
passing its voting laws, targeting African Americans with ``surgical 
precision.''
  That case represents just one of many times Mr. Farr has defended 
powerful interests who discriminate against and harass those who are 
less powerful. I will mention a few more.
  When North Carolina redrew its district lines in a way that diluted 
the votes of African Americans, Mr. Farr defended it. When Avis, a car 
rental company, was sued for discriminating against African-American 
customers, Mr. Farr was there once again defending discrimination.
  Time after time, Mr. Farr has defended racial discrimination. He has 
also defended discrimination against workers, discrimination against 
women, and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. For example, Mr. 
Farr defended an employer who created a toxic work environment for 
female employees, instructing them to wear skirts to attract clients, 
commenting that women belonged in the home instead of the workplace, 
and telling one woman that he would help her pick up her panties from 
the floor. He defended the discriminatory North Carolina law that 
prevents transgender men and women from using the bathrooms that 
reflect their gender identity.
  Anyone paying attention to judicial nominations knows that powerful 
interests are working to capture our courts. They have been having a 
field day in this administration. I have come before this Chamber on 
many occasions to oppose radical, pro-corporate nominees handpicked by 
those powerful interests. Thomas Farr is one of those radical, pro-
corporate nominees. He is one of them, but he has set himself apart 
even from the many terrible nominees the Trump administration has 
forced through the Senate because Mr. Farr has directly worked to 
dismantle one of the most precious and fundamental rights of our 
democracy--the right to vote.
  In a State that is over one-fifth African American, the Eastern 
District of North Carolina has never had an African-American Federal 
district judge--not a single one. The Senate held up two thoroughly 
qualified African-American women for this same seat--two women who 
would have sailed through the Senate if they had gotten a vote, but 
they were held up so that a Republican President could fill the 
vacancy. And now President Trump has nominated someone who has spent 
much of his career defending discrimination against African Americans. 
Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.
  Equal justice under the law is a cornerstone of American democracy, 
but that promise cannot be fully realized if we allow individuals like 
Mr. Farr to secure lifetime positions on our courts. Someone who thinks 
that States should be able to make it harder for Americans to vote 
based on the color of their skin or the likelihood that they will vote 
for a particular political party should be automatically disqualified 
from a Federal judgeship.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on Mr. Farr's nomination. The 
integrity of our courts is at stake.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1551

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to fulfill a promise to 
continue to advocate for a solution that will address the critical 
issues of securing the border and protecting young immigrants impacted 
by an uncertain future--those who are part of the DACA Program.
  Last month, I again offered legislation to extend the DACA Program 
for 3 years and to provide 3 years of increased funding for border 
security--a so-called 3-for-3 program. I think this is a way we can 
reach a compromise on this issue that will do two important things--
one, provide much needed funding to secure the border. Being from a 
border State like Arizona, I can certainly understand that. We need a 
more secure border. We need additional resources, including barriers, 
technology, and manpower, and this legislation would provide that. At 
the same time, it would provide protection for those kids--numbering 
about 800,000 and many more eligible as well--who face an uncertain 
future because we haven't been able to extend or to make permanent this 
program.
  By the way, these are kids who were brought across the border through 
no fault of their own when their average median age, I think, was about 
6 years old. It is not their fault that they were brought here this 
way. For all intents and purposes, they are American--everything 
without the papers. Many of them have now graduated from college and 
face an uncertain future in the job market. Many of them are in school 
looking to continue that education. Many of them serve in our military. 
We have to do right by them and do what is good for the country, as 
well, and I think this legislation would do that.

[[Page S2605]]

  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have repeatedly chosen to block 
the measure. I am the first to admit that this solution is far from 
perfect. We need to do a lot of other things with immigration reform. 
We need to address long-term labor needs, as well as a more permanent 
solution for those who are here illegally who weren't brought across 
the border as children. But this is a compromise that can pass.
  Given the action over the last couple of days in the House, where 
there was a group of House Members--Republicans and Democrats--looking 
to force that body to finally take action on this, it is again time to 
have the Senate make another attempt. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
Calendar No. 300, H.R. 1551. I further ask that the Flake substitute 
amendment at the desk be considered agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, 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 Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.