The funds reinstate the evictions to prevent even bigger housing crisis . Mr. Speaker. The senate is grappling back into session and we continue to watch for ministers just need time at cspan. Org. Now live to the senate floor here on cspan2. Mr. Lankford mr. President. I have three requests for committees to meet during todays session of the senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Lankford mr. President , we are once again in a conversation about freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and what that means. There is simply i would argue that it means the ability to have any faith, to have no faith at all, change your faith, and to be able to live it out. The ability to have a faith as a part of who we are. Its our most precious possession within us. Its not that. If its something less than that, the free exercise of religion has limitations on it, then its simply the freedom to worship or to have a name faith around you but not to actually live your faith, but thats not what we have in this country, thankfully. We have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion. We have more than the freedom of worship at the place of our choosing. We have the ability to live our faith freely, seven days a week, in all aspects of our lives. The question has become, though, are there certain positions in public life where you cannot have the free exercise of religion, where if you are elected or appointed into certain offices, you lose your constitutional right. The United States constitution makes that very, very clear. Article 6 of the constitution says no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States. It should be pretty straightforward and clear. In our last conversation hearing, thenprofessor Amy Coney Barrett said, when asked a question about her faith, senator, i see no conflict between having a sincerely held faith and my duties as a judge. In fact, we have many judges both state and federal across the country who have sincerely held religious views and still impartially and honestly discharged that i obligations as a judge, and if i were confirmed as a judge, i would decide cases according to rule of law, beginning to end, and in rare circumstances that might ever rise and i cant imagine one sitting here now where i felt i had some Conscientious Objection to the law, i would recuse. Three years ago, like today, judge barretts faith, not her judicial philosophy, her temperament teams to be front and center. Three years ago, my colleague from california, senator dianne feinstein, said this during Amy Coney Barretts confirmation hearing. Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things, and i think whatever religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different, and i think in your case, froafer, when i read your speeches, the conclusion one professor, when i read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. Senator durbin from illinois just asked her a very straightforward question. Do you consider yourself an orthodox catholic . Questions like that about defining the faith and how much of a catholic are you or how much dogma lives new is really a question of how much faith do you really practice . Do you have a name on you or do you practice a little too much faith for my Comfort Level . See, the free exercise of religion pertains to an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs. Its not about the acceptance of that belief by others. If it were, the free exercise of religion would be dictated by what others believe rather than what you believe. But in america, at least the america that i know individuals are allowed to have a faith, live their faith, have no faith, or change their faith. And for whatever reason, judge Amy Coney Barrett is being criticized because she is catholic. There is an a. P. Article that came out just this week that did an indepth view. It was sent all over the country. An indepth view about she is not just catholic, she is one of those catholics. And went into great detail about she attends Bible Studies and is on a board of a school and helps educate children and seems to believe that there is a personal relationship with jesus as they quoted in the article, as if that is some sort of criminal thing and needs to have some suspicion. Its about her faith that she is being challenged in this undercurrent. Justice ginsburg was not shy about the fact that she was jewish, nor should she be. We have heard a lot about the fact that she was the longest serving jewish justice and the first jewish person to lie in state in the capitol. Why is it okay for Justice Ginsburg to talk about her faith and not judge barrett . Why is Justice Ginsburgs faith celebrated and judge barretts faith is currently being demonized . Because those on the left believe their faith is okay, but for people on the right, its suspicious. Even last night, Vice President biden introduced himself as an irish catholic, and thats celebrated on the left, but for judge barrett to identify herself as a catholic, she is asked questioningly, yeah, but are you one of those orthodox catholics . One of the most remembered things about Justice Ginsburg, of many, was her storied friendship with justice scalia. On paper, they would be the unlikeliest of friends. She was a jewish liberal. He was a catholic conservative. Their differences didnt divide them or offend each other. Of their friendship, judge barrett said particularly poignant to me was the her meaning Justice Ginsburg, was her long and deep friendship with justice scalia, my own mentor. Justice scalia and ginsburg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person. Their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship despite their differences even inspired an opera. These two Great Americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection. Theres no question that Justice Ginsburg did a lot for the advancement of women in this country. Doesnt judge barrett also exemplify that . She is a Circuit Court judge. She graduated suma cum laude from notre dame law school, first in her class. She has been a professor for 15 years at notre dame. Clerked for a Supreme Court justice, mother of seven children. Three times voted at the top lar at notre dame. 34 clerks Supreme Court clerks that worked alongside barrett of all parties wrote this we are democrats, republicans, and independents. And we have a diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else, yet we all write to support the nomination of professor barrett to be a circuit judge on the United States court of appeals for the seventh circuit. Professor barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character. She is imminently qualified for the job. All 49 faculty members, fulltime faculty members at notre dame in law school, all 49 of them, all of them signed a letter stating barrett possesses an abundance of all the other qualities that shaped extraordinary jurists, discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all fundamental decency and humanity. 73 law professors across the country, including former Obama Administration solicitor general neil cadle stated this although we have different perspectives on the methods and conclusions in her work, we all agree that professor barretts contributions to legal scholarship are rigorous, fairminded, respectful, and constructive. So she is criticizeed tenaciously because of her faith. She is criticized because she is not woman enough and whatever that may mean. She has even been criticized this past week and called a white colonizer. Two of her seven children were adopted from haiti. She has been accused of using her children as props. How low can this go . This is what judge barrett had to say about her family. The president has asked me to become the ninth justice, and as it happens, im used to being in a group of nine, my family. Our family includes me, my husband, jessie, emma, vivian, tess, john peter, liam, julia, and benjamin. Vivian and john peter, as the president said, were born in haiti, and they came to us five years apart when they were very young. The most revealing fact about benjamin, our youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling. Our children, she said, our children obviously make our life very full. While im a judge, im better known back home as a parent, carpool driver, Birthday Party planner. When schools went remote last spring, i tried on another hat. Jessie that is her husband jessie and i became coprincipals of the barrett e. Learning academy. And yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long. Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. Judge barrett has even been criticized in her faith and being criticized in her relationship in her family. Judge barrett said about her husband and her family, i could not have managed this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband jesse. At the start of our marriage, i imagined that we would run our household as partners. As its turned out, jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, i learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. For 21 years, jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. And although i almost always say nothing, he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And thats not because he has a lot of free time. He has a very busy law practice. Its because he is a superb and generous husband and i am very fortunate. Faith, family, why are we doing personal attacks on a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States . First in her class. Recognized by the faculty as superior. Recognized by judges and leaders across the country as qualified. Why are we into this conversation . September 29, an article from npr was entitled Amy Coney Barretts catholicism is controversial but may not be a confirmation issue. The article said never before has the court been so dominated by one religious denomination, that is catholics. It is legitimate for senators to be concerned about whether the court is reflecting the diversity of faith in the United States. Wow. Now its maybe we have too many catholics. Maybe this is one too many and senators should consider the greater diversity. As odd as it sounds, the article didnt identify the fact that Amy Coney Barrett would be the only justice not to have graduated from harvard or yale. There doesnt seem to be a desire to have a diversity of opinion or background on that. Its just about this one area, her faith. Imposing a religious test on Supreme Court justices is not only antithetical to the constitution, its a very slippery slope, and its one we have been down before, and i thought we had cleared. In 1960, 1960, thencandidate john f. Kennedy stood in front of a group of ministers in houston, texas, who were concerned about having a catholic president because we as a country had never had a catholic president , and there were all these rumors and innuendos out there that the president would work for the pope. So in 1960, j. F. K. Stood in houston, texas, and spoke to a group of ministers and made this statement. He said i believe in an america where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been and may someday be again a jew or a quaker or a unitarian or a baptist. It was virginias harassment of baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to jeffersons statute of religious freedom. Today i may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you until the whole fabric of our Harmonious Society is ripped at a time of Great National peril. J. F. K. Said this finally, i believe in an america where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equal, where every man has the right to the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice, where there is no catholic vote, no anticatholic vote, no block voting of any kind and where catholics, process tants, jews, at the lay and pastoral level will refrain from the attitudes of disdain and division which has so often marred the works of the past and promote instead the american ideal of brotherhood. This is the kind of america i believe in and it represents the kind of presidency in which i believe a great office which must never be humbled by any one religious group or with holding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed on him by the nation nor imposed on him by the nation as with holding that office. I would not look with favor upon the president or in this case i would say a judge, working to subvert the first amendments guarantees of religious liberties. Nor would a system of checks and balances permit him to do so. Neither would i look those who would look to article 6 of the constitution by requiring a religious test. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it. We are a nation that celebrates faith, that recognizes faith as a unifying factor even in a diversity of faith. Ive had the privilege, and many of us have, to be able to pray with each other. We are senators of different faiths, different backgrounds, different places. And we work to treat each other with respect. Faith is not something that americans should demand nor the senate should demand that people have to take off to be able to serve the American People. We dont take our faith off. Its not a jersey that we ware on the outside wear on the outside, it is the core of who we are on the inside. Thats not something that you just take off to put on Public Service. You put on Public Service but your core faith should not be challenged to be removed from your soul to be a viable person to be able to serve in the court. Lets work on our concept of religious liberty whether youre a christian, whether youre a muslim, whether youre a buddhist or a hindu, you can be a Great American and you can serve this great country in any location that you choose because we are a nation that honors and protects the right of the free exercise of religion. With that, i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from north dakota. Our nations Small Businesses mr. Cramer faced an existential crisis and unprecedented threat. And like the rest of us, they didnt truly know what this virus was, how long it would hit us or what the future would hold. But they did know that their businesses were preparing to close, that employees were being told to stay home and they needed help which is why and every other colleague in this chamber created the cares act and created the Paycheck Protection Program. We gave money to the administration who in turn gave that money to lenders and those lenders in turn loaned that money to Small Businesses to use on employ retention and if they followed the rules, they were told they wouldnt have to return the money. That was the commitment we made to them while we strongly encouraged them. And i emphasis strongly encouraged them to use the program, and it worked. We had nearly five million p. P. P. Loans worth 570 billion out the door which kept tens of millions of people on some counts on the payrolls instead of on the unemployment roles. Now history will be the judge of the longterm success of the program. But its unquestionable in the short term this program succeeded. Its time for us now, mr. President , to uphold our commitment. Americas lenders an borrowers are ready to take that next step, proving they complied with the rules so they can receive forgiveness for these loans. Sadly for them, but not surprising to me, the forgiveness process designed by the agency is burdensome, complex and already in need of reform. Thats not just my opinion, mr. President , it is that is the opinion of the Government Accountability office. They said, quote, applying for loan forgiveness is more time consuming than applying for the p. P. P. Loan itself and requires more lender review. Unquote. Mr. President , you see the trap that weve laid for our borrowers and lenders. We, the federal government, spent weeks, months telling our hurting fragile Small Businesses, take this money, take this money, just use it correctly and it will be forgiven. Well, here we are, our businesses are still struggling, still facing uncertainty and the agency prescribed solution appears to have a system more intense than any they have experienced during this pandemic just so they can prove to the right people that they didnt use their money incorrectly. And thats a problem we know its going to be a problem for a long time. And thats why weve been working on Bipartisan Solutions to the problems in this Bipartisan Program for months. Over the summer senator menendez and i brought together a bipartisan collision and coalition and introduced the