Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have just a little over a week to come to some agreement on how to fund the government past next Friday.

Leader Pelosi and I have given the President two options to keep the government open. Both are noncontroversial. Neither contain any Democratic demand. We just want to keep the government open. So far, President Trump has not accepted either offer. The President appears to be clinging to his demand for billions of dollars for a border wall, and from what we saw in the Oval Office and news reports about his reaction after our meeting, President Trump is willing to throw a temper tantrum and shut down the government unless he gets his way.

I want to be crystal clear. There will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall. It is done. The President repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for his unnecessary and ineffective border wall, in his words, ``100 percent.'' On Tuesday, he said he would be ``proud'' to shut down the government unless U.S. taxpayers pay for it. Now, just this morning, the President tweeted that Mexico will pay for the wall through savings from the new NAFTA.

Well, Mr. President, if you say Mexico is going to pay for the wall through NAFTA--which it certainly will not--then I guess we don't have to. Let's fund the government.

Honestly, if the President really believed what he tweeted this morning, that his new NAFTA would pay for the wall, he wouldn't be threatening to shut down the government unless American taxpayers fund his wall. He can't have it both ways. The President's position on the wall is totally contradictory, ill-informed, and frankly irresponsible. It is not a serious proposal. It is a throwaway idea the President used--used in the campaign and still uses--to fire up his base.

A Trump temper tantrum and shutdown threat isn't going to change any minds in Congress. President Trump has several ways to avoid a shutdown. He should pick one and soon, but if we wind up with a shutdown, it will be entirely the President's fault. President Trump himself would not dispute that in the Oval Office on Tuesday. He almost bragged that he would shut down the government--what irresponsibility.

I would just like to remind my friend the majority leader that if we arrive at a Trump shutdown, the onus for reopening the government will soon fall in his lap. When Democrats take control of the House in January, Democrats will pass one of our two options to fund the government, and then Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will be left holding the bag for a Trump shutdown if they don't pass our bill now.

So there is no way for my Republican friends to avoid the issue. There is no way for Leader McConnell to avoid the issue, fearful of President Trump as they all might be. Either Republicans help deal with the President now or they will be left dealing with a much bigger problem in January.

Mr. President, a brief word on China. I have spent the better part of the last two decades encouraging administrations to be tougher on China, which has risen to challenge the United States economically, not through fair trade and fair competition but by shielding its market from U.S. competition, flouting international trade rules against dumping currency manipulation, relentlessly stealing our intellectual property and know-how. China has not played by the rules. They are the outlaw of trade, and they have cost the United States millions of jobs and probably trillions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars.

The recent arrest of the CFO of Huawei, a tech giant in China with close ties to its government and military, is a reminder of the predatory and rapacious behavior of Chinese companies. Huawei is charged by U.S. officials with intentionally violating U.S. sanctions with Iran.

Beyond these specific charges, however, Huawei has raised serious concerns among U.S. officials for a potential role in cyber espionage, given their reported links to China's state security services, and now news reports have confirmed that the massive cyber attack on the Marriott hotel chain a few weeks ago was conducted by none other than Chinese intelligence.

This administration has been tougher on China than previous administrations. They deserve credit for that, but this administration has also shown an eagerness to quickly bargain away tough enforcement of Chinese abuses for mild and sometimes meaningless concessions so President Trump can get a quick news hit, particularly on a bad day. That is what happened with ZTE. No one wants to see a repeat of that movie.

We had ZTE dead to rights. They were hurting America, and President Trump, at the last minute--still unexplained--let them off the hook. I hope that doesn't happen again because this administration has set us up for a potential victory for the first time--better than Bush's administration, better than Obama's administration--against China rapaciousness.

I am urging the President to be tough on Huawei and direct U.S. officials to prosecute these charges and have the Huawei CFO stand on trial in the United States, as she deserves.

Mr. President, finally, to my dear friend and about my dear friend, the Senator from North Dakota. The task sadly falls to me to begin saying goodbye to Members of our caucus who will not be returning in the 116th Congress. This morning, I would like to begin with the junior Senator from North Dakota.

Heidi Heitkamp had a childhood that sounds like it was ripped from the pages of a frontier epic. She grew up as one of seven kids born over 9 years in a house with three bedrooms, in a town with a population south of 100. Do the math. That means that around one-tenth of the town was Heitkamps.

Inside the household, the lack of space meant that Heidi's room was also her brother's room and also the laundry room. According to her sisters, the presence of a laundry machine had almost no effect on her. She read and read, and rarely, if ever, did she participate in the washing or folding of the Heitkamp laundry.

Her siblings didn't seem to mind, at least not too much. As Julie Heitkamp said about growing up with Heidi, ``She was so good . . . it was annoying.''

It turned out that the bookworm from a small town in North Dakota was destined for great things. When she worked for Senator Kent Conrad, the outstanding Democrat from North Dakota, he realized the same goodness in Heidi her sisters recognized, and he encouraged her to run for State auditor at the age of 28. She didn't win that race, but she ran again for State tax commissioner and won and, again, for

attorney general and won--fighting on behalf of sexual assault survivors and against the abusive practices of the tobacco industry. She would run for Governor and, eventually, for the Senate--losing the first but winning the second. She would become the first woman ever elected to the Senate from the great State of North Dakota.

For someone who came from where Heidi came, that election might have felt like a culmination--but no. For Heidi, it was just the beginning. It was not about winning or even beating the odds. It was about what you did with the time you had when you were here.

As Heidi talked about in her farewell speech, what is important is how we use our time. Let the history books report just how well the Senator from North Dakota used her time while she has been here.

Heidi had been able to bring Democrats and Republicans together during a time of extraordinary partisan divisions--one of the few who could do it so successfully on such major issues. It had been because she understood how each side saw an issue, what each side wanted, and what a compromise could look like. Once she knew an agreement was possible, she worked like no other to see that it was achieved.

That is how she got Senator Whitehouse and Senator McConnell on the same energy bill having to do with carbon capture--a remarkable feat with a staunch environmentalist who gives speeches on the floor every day about green and with a Senator from a coal State who defends that industry. That is how she created the first AMBER Alert in Indian Country. It was with our dearly departed friend, Senator McCain. That is how she helped to shut down backpage and child sex trafficking on the internet with broad bipartisan support.

What a great legacy--all of it bipartisan. That instinct for compromise and consensus was born from her life experience. In her family of nine, Heidi was known as the arbitrator. Even her name is a compromise. Born Mary Kathryn, Heidi became ``Heidi'' because there was a ``Mary'' and a ``Kathryn'' in her grade school class. She gladly accepted the nickname.

Of course, there have been times Heidi couldn't bring our two sides together on an issue because she had already been further along than both sides.

Senator Heitkamp has been the first to really drive home in the Senate the plight of Native American women. She has worked at it tirelessly because she believes that if people were to know about the poverty and abuse and addiction that has plagued many reservations and how they affect both the men and women, they would be up in arms about it. So she wrote the first bill to create a Commission on Native American Children who suffer from rates of poverty, malnutrition, and education disparity far above other populations. A little while ago, it became law and received funding. Recently, it had its first meeting--a legacy that will live on. She also wrote Savanna's Act to address the epidemic of missing and murdered Native American women. It passed the Senate unanimously just a few weeks after the election.

Well, Heidi, the Senate is catching up to you, and we intend to use the time we have to build on the incredible legacy you leave on these issues. Just so I will never forget what your service has meant to this Chamber, I will always keep the picture of the three Heitkamp sisters on my wall in my office--all with their high North Dakota cheekbones. It is going to stay there to be a reminder of what Heidi has done and, more importantly, I am sure she would say, as a reminder of the many things we still have to do to continue the great legacy she will leave.

Those of us on this side of the aisle--at least I--will miss her cornbread as well, her insistence on Corona beer, and her ability to suffer even the worst Fargo accents--or mimicking of Fargo accents as I attempted to do--that were directed in her way.

All of us in this Chamber will sure miss the junior Senator from North Dakota--her warmth, her passion, her sincerity, her political courage. We owe a debt of gratitude to Darwin, her husband, and to her children Ali and Nathan for borrowing Heidi for these years. We wish them all the best as well.

I yield the floor.

First, Mr. President, let me add my words of fond farewell to the senior Senator of Utah. Back in the good old days, we worked on a whole lot of things together, when the place was a little less partisan--immigration, patents, and so many other things. He was a fine legislator and a fine craftsman. I wish him and his entire large, beautiful family the best.

I also note that Leader McConnell talked about the good bipartisan work we have created in the farm bill, something good for his State and something he has cared about for a long time. I hope the leader--and I will talk more about this later--will use the same bipartisan spirit and help us to deal with the appropriations bills that are still awaiting our agreement.

Mr. President, let me talk a little bit about yesterday afternoon. Yesterday, Leader Pelosi and I met with President Trump about funding the government past next week. We gave the President two options to keep the government open. The first option: Pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a 1-year CR for the Department of Homeland Security only. And, if they don't like that one, a 1-year CR for the rest of government.

We told the President that both of these options would pass both Chambers. It was his choice to either accept one of those two options or shut the government down. Yesterday, unfortunately, it was clear that the President is clinging to his position of billions of dollars for an unnecessary, ineffective, border wall. President Trump will soon realize that his position will not result in a wall but will result in a Trump shutdown, and he seems to relish the idea, amazingly enough.

The President has called for a shutdown at least 20 times since he came to office. You can add at least five or six more times to that number from our meeting. Here is a direct quote from President Trump yesterday: ``If we don't get what we want, one way or the other . . . I [President Trump] will shut down the government. . . . `'

President Trump said:

I am proud to shut down the government. . . . [so] I will

take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not

going to blame you [meaning Democrats] for it. . . . I will

take the mantle of shutting it down.

It was astounding that any President, even this one, would say that. No President should ever say that he or she would be proud to shut the government down. No President should so glibly use the American Government and the millions of workers who work so hard as a bargaining chip, but that is where President Trump is headed.

President Trump made clear that he will hold parts of the government hostage for a petty campaign pledge to fire up his base. That is all it is. He never researched the wall. He talked about it on the campaign and he said: Oh, Mexico will pay for it. If President Trump holds to this position--that unless he gets his wall, he will shut down the government--who will suffer needlessly? The American people.

Of course, Leader Pelosi and I had to spend much of the meeting trying to untie the knots in logic the President was tying himself in. President Trump started by bragging about how great border security is going under his watch. That, by the way, is with no wall. If it were truly the case as the President said, that border security is better than it has ever been, what is wrong with another year of the same funding? If things are going so great, why does he have to threaten to shut down the government for his $5 billion wall? It makes no sense. None of it is based on fact.

Mr. President, there is no wall.

Mr. President, Mexico has not agreed to pay for it. None of that is true, and it is difficult--if nearly impossible--to negotiate with a President in front of the press who peddles such blatant and dangerous falsehoods.

Because Leader Pelosi and I simply didn't go along with him, President Trump threw a temper tantrum and promised to shut down the government unless he got what he wanted. Evidently, the Trump temper tantrum continued even after the meeting, with news reports saying he threw papers around the White House in frustration.

Why did he continue? Because someone finally spoke truth to power. Someone finally contradicted him when he throws around blatant falsehoods on such a regular basis. The President is so used to obsequious advisers who fail to dispel his false and made-up facts that he lives in a cocoon of his own mistruth. Leader Pelosi and I had to tell him, no, Mr. President, that is not true. We had to puncture that cocoon, and he threw a temper tantrum because of it.

It is unfortunate that we have arrived at this point. The President's advisers should have been telling the President the truth all along. Unfortunately, too many of my Republican colleagues in the Senate and in the House seem too afraid to tell the President when he is wrong, even though they know he is wrong. They find it easier to throw up their hands and wait for someone else to solve the problem or capitulate and agree with the President.

At the moment, Senator McConnell, the majority leader of this body and my friend, is staying as far away as he can from the year-end spending fight. We didn't hear a peep about it today. Leader McConnell says he doesn't want a shutdown, but he refuses to engage with the President to tell him what is transparently obvious to everyone else: There will be no additional money for the wall. We need to pass a continuing resolution for DHS or for all the remaining Agencies to keep the government open.

Leader McConnell has an obligation as majority leader, and that is to help persuade President Trump to take one of the two options we offered. The idea that Senator McConnell has nothing to do with appropriations as majority leader of the Senate, who still is on that committee, does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

If, unfortunately, the President refuses to compromise, Leader McConnell will not be able to avoid this issue. In the unfortunate event that President Trump causes a shutdown, the Democratic House will come into power January 3 and pass one of our two options to fund the government, and then it will fall right back in Leader McConnell's lap.

My view is--for whatever it is worth to him--it is better to solve this now because the leader is going to be stuck with it 2 weeks from now, after an unfortunate government shutdown caused by his President, if he doesn't act now.

If I were a Republican, I would get involved right now and help pull the President back from the brink. Democrats have given him two reasonable options. We made it crystal clear that Democrats are for keeping the government open. We have no demands beyond that, only the President does.

If President Trump wants to continue his temper tantrum ahead of the holidays and cause a shutdown, it is now so clear it is solely on his back. We hope the President chooses one of the reasonable options we gave him yesterday, and we hope the country can avoid a Trump shutdown.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, later today, the House is poised to send us a 2-week continuing resolution, which will give us time to hash out the remainder of the appropriations process this year. I expect it will pass this Chamber later this afternoon. President Trump and my Republican colleagues now have to decide what they want to do after those 2 weeks are up and, hopefully, even sooner.

As everybody knows, Democrats have offered to pass the bipartisan DHS appropriations bill agreed to 6 months ago, which includes $1.6 billion for border security. There has been some confusion about that figure.

Let me be clear. The $1.6 billion cannot be used to construct any part of President Trump's 30-foot-tall, concrete border wall. It can be used only for fencing, using technology currently deployed at the border, only where the experts say fencing is appropriate and makes sense as a security feature.

This is something Democrats have always been for: smart, effective, appropriate border security. This is so good that every Republican appropriator signed off on that bill a few months ago, including Senator McConnell, Senator Shelby, Senator Rubio, and Senator Graham. They were all for it.

This is a bipartisan compromise proposal. If they can't go for the proposal that they signed off on and negotiated because President Trump is pounding the table in an irrational way, there is a second option. Democrats have also offered to pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security. This continuing resolution doesn't resolve this issue but continues to fund the Homeland Security Department. We think that continuing resolution should be for a year.

Both options would receive 60 votes in the Senate, would pass in the House, and would get us home in time for the Christmas holiday, which I know many people want to do. I have heard that from many of my Republican friends.

As I said, either option would keep the government funded over Christmas. We don't want to see the government shut down over Christmas, even though President Trump seems to brag that he wants one. The one and only way we approach a shutdown is if President Trump refuses both of our proposals and demands $5 billion or more for a border wall.

The wall request is a nonstarter for many reasons. Here are three:

First, when President Trump proposed this as a candidate, he said: ``I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.'' The idea that the American taxpayer now has to foot the bill doesn't make sense.

Second, there is no plan for the wall. They haven't said where they want to build it or how high it is. Let me make clear that I don't like any wall, but how can you spend $5 billion when there is no plan? It shows that this is sort of political fodder for President Trump. It appeals to his base, but he doesn't even care that much that his whole government, his whole administration has not submitted any specific plans.

Third, last year we put $1.345 billion into Homeland Security for border security. Not a nickel of that has been spent on a wall. It couldn't be. The language didn't allow it. But virtually none of it has been spent at all. They still have that $1.34 billion they haven't even spent the vast majority of, and already they are demanding $5 billion more.

Some would say demanding $1.6 billion more is too much, but the idea that they haven't spent last year's money and they are demanding such a huge amount this year makes no sense at all. To ask the American taxpayer to foot the bill for an unplanned, unnecessary, ineffective border wall is just preposterous.

We know why President Trump is doing this, as he does so many things. It is a throwaway idea to fire up his base. I am ashamed that my Republican colleagues, who know better, are going along.

If President Trump wants to throw a temper tantrum and shut down the government over Christmas over the wall, that is his decision, but there are two sensible options on the table to avoid one. We do not want to let a Trump temper tantrum govern our policies or cause the shutdown of the government, which everyone on both sides of the aisle knows is the wrong idea.

One final point: By letting the President's demands get in the way, my Republican colleagues are, in effect, ceding Congress's authority over the appropriations process to the President. Leader McConnell has repeatedly said that he wants regular order on appropriations in the Senate. In fact, that has been one of the few bipartisan high moments that this Senate has had.

Last year, we passed a good appropriations process and came together on an omnibus. This year, we have funded close to three-quarters of the government already--bipartisan, passed by a large majority. That is how it should work. It should work the same way for the Department of Homeland Security. Regular order would dictate that the Senate consider the bipartisan DHS appropriations bill that has been passed out of committee and been agreed to by both parties here on the floor. In the meantime, the six other bipartisan appropriations bills that have also been agreed to by both parties are being held hostage over this unnecessarily, to any objective observer.

If my friend Leader McConnell is so concerned about regular order, he would bring up the remaining appropriations bills, as agreed to, for a vote. He would tell President Trump that the bipartisan conference bill, the bipartisan compromise--or a CR--is the way to go to avoid a shutdown.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on leader time before we have a vote.

Mr. President, this morning, the life and career of the 41st President of the United States was celebrated at the National Cathedral. Friends, family, former leaders of our country, and leaders from around the world gathered to pay tribute to a life spent in joyful service to our country and unfailing dedication to his family. I was there. It was a very moving and wonderful ceremony.

The Senate now joins the rest of the country in mourning President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Mr. President, now on another matter--a less happy matter--at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senate will vote on whether to consider the nomination of Bernard McNamee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. I staunchly oppose this nomination.

Throughout his career, Mr. McNamee has been manifestly biased in favor of the fossil fuel industry and biased against renewable energy sources--so much so that one cannot believe he would be a fair arbiter on these issues at FERC.

Mr. McNamee has called for ``a unified campaign'' to support fossil fuels. As a policy official at the Department of Energy, he played a significant role in designing a coal and nuclear bailout program that was unanimously rejected by FERC--hardly a liberal agency--the agency he is nominated to join.

When it comes to fossil fuel competitors, Mr. McNamee has expressed thoughts that only a real fossil fuel zealot could have. Not only has Mr. McNamee made numerous false claims about clean energy technologies, he has labeled support for renewable energies ``organized propaganda'' and likened its boosters to supporters of ``tyranny.''

At a time when our globe--with wildfires in California, with flooding and hurricanes--is totally being changed because of global warming, we are putting someone on FERC--or there is an intent to put someone on FERC who has the most regressive views we have seen come around in a very long time.

Commissioners at FERC have matters related to all types of energy brought before them. They are supposed to be nonpartisan. They are supposed to impartially oversee rates and reliability and delivery based on what is best for the American people, not deep-seated personal beliefs and certainly not views that are so out of touch with so many people.

My guess is that maybe only a handful of Republicans agree with him on his views that are so regressive. I see my friend from Iowa here. What this guy said about wind and things like that are way off the charts.

Just a few weeks ago, the Trump administration itself released a report on climate change outlining its current impact and the devastating and dire consequences we will see if actions are not taken. That was not our report; that was the Trump administration's report. So now would be an awful time to elevate someone to our chief energy regulator who is so clearly biased against renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar. I strongly urge--fervently urge--my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in a short time we will gather before proceeding to the rotunda to honor the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States.

George H. W. Bush will be greatly missed in many ways. He was undeniably dedicated to his country, from his time as a young Navy pilot through his long career in public service, in both elective and appointed offices, as our Ambassador to the United Nations, our Envoy to China, and Director of the CIA. In a life that spanned 10 decades, 7 decades of George H. W. Bush's life was spent in faithful and humble service to his country.

Though our careers intersected only briefly, I knew him to be a fine man, a decent man. Even when he opposed your views, you knew he was doing what he thought was best for the United States of America.

He embodied the characteristics we admire in a President: integrity, civility, dignity, humility, and a sincere interest in bipartisanship. He valued public service and had respect for government as a noble force--a force for good.

When he wanted to say something to someone, he would sit down to write them a handwritten and usually heartfelt note. He used the word ``friend'' often, and when he said it, he meant it. His yearning for a kinder, gentler Nation seems more needed now than when he first called for it.

Not all of his efforts will be celebrated, and, of course, that is true of every politician who has reached high

office. But as we look back at his life and career, it is clear that George H. W. Bush cared deeply about more than just his country and its ideals. He cared deeply about its citizens, no matter what their situation. His early involvement in the YMCA, his advocacy for the Americans with Disabilities Act, and his support for volunteerism and service throughout his career are a testament to that fact.

He called on Americans to be ``a thousand points of light,'' and he was too modest to say that he and his wife Barbara were two of the brightest.

Our hearts are with the Bush family today.

Madam President, my heart is also heavy today at another loss: Giles Perkins, who was one of the top lawyers in Birmingham, AL, and the former head of the Alabama Democratic Party. He died of cancer over the weekend.

He was a close friend and mentor of one of our friends here in the Senate, Mr. Doug Jones, who called him the ``Yoda'' of his campaign.

I talked to Giles frequently--in fact, just a few days ago--and he was always filled with a desire to do good, a desire that the right thing be done, and a desire to help his friends--Doug Jones at the top of the list.

Giles was a booster of many things Alabama, and he will sorely be missed by his family, his dear friend, the junior Senator from Alabama, the State he loved, and by me.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, later this afternoon, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the confirmation of Mr. Thomas Farr for the Eastern District of North Carolina. I have made my opposition to this nominee clear on a daily basis, but allow me to remind my colleagues, to recap, before this vote just what we are dealing with here. We are being asked to confirm the go-to guy in North Carolina if you need a lawyer to defend voter suppression. Some might think that is hyperbolic, but I sincerely ask my colleagues not to go for hyperbole but to look at the evidence.

Mr. Farr was the lead lawyer in defending North Carolina's discriminatory congressional maps drawn by the State's Republicans, which were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This is a very conservative Supreme Court, which has been mostly unsympathetic to arguments of disenfranchisement--as evidenced by the Shelby County case--but in this instance, they could not help but overturn the map for racial discrimination, despite the evidence provided by Mr. Farr.

Mr. Farr was also the lead lawyer in defense of North Carolina's insidious voter ID law, which the Supreme Court ruled ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision''--targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.

North Carolina's Republicans designed the law after asking for and receiving data sorted by race on voting practices. Mr. Farr not only defended the law, he described the voting restrictions, which forbade the use of government employee IDs, student IDs, and IDs used for public assistance, as ``a minor inconvenience.''

That is only Mr. Farr's recent history involving voting suppression. If we go back and look at the campaign of Senator Jesse Helms in 1990, Mr. Farr represented the Helms campaign and defended it against accusations that it sent over 120,000 postcards, almost exclusively to Black voters, that falsely warned them they could be charged with a crime if they tried to vote--falsely--falsely warned them. The mailers were sent after statistics emerged that African-American registration was outpacing White voter registration.

The sordid history of Mr. Farr's efforts to suppress voting goes back even further. Mr. Farr was a member of Senator Jesse Helms' 1984 campaign. In that campaign, he wasn't merely a hired gun; he was a close legal associate of Senator Helms, a man David Broder of the Washington Post called ``the last prominent unabashed White racist politician in this country.''

In that 1984 campaign, according to memoranda by the Voting Rights section of the Department of Justice, Mr. Farr was involved in the so- called ``ballot security'' program run by the Helms campaign and the North Carolina Republican Party. The so-called ballot security program included sending postcards to minority voters in an effort to suppress voting.

In 2006, Mr. Farr's association with these noxious voter suppression attempts by Helms' campaign was enough to deny him confirmation to this very seat. In the intervening years, he has not repented or even moved on to different issues. He is still defending attempts to disenfranchise African-American voters.

I am not from North Carolina, but if I were, I would be embarrassed to have this man nominated and placed on the Federal bench. It takes but an ounce of principle to say: No, I am not defending discrimination and voter suppression. Yet, time and time and time again, not just 1984, not just 1990 but 2013 and 2015, Mr. Thomas Farr has stepped up to the plate to represent and defend voter suppression in a court of law, and we are being asked to reward him--reward him for these activities--with a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge in a district that is 27 percent African American, where he will have the power to make decisions on voting rights and civil rights for a generation.

I prevail upon the conscience of my Republican colleagues, who I know want to be fair to this man, look at the body of evidence impartially. There is simply a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Farr was involved, often intimately, in decades of voter suppression in North Carolina. The standard for this vote is not whether or how Mr. Farr should be punished or excoriated for what he did but a much higher one: whether a man with this history deserves to be elevated to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench.

Whether you are Republican or Democratic, a liberal or conservative, that has to be--has to be--disqualifying for a seat on the Federal bench.