S5954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

Intelligence Agency 2006–2009; Director of the 

National Security Agency 1999–2006; Mike 

McConnell, Vice Admiral USN (RET); Director of National Intelligence, 2007–2009; Director of the National Security Agency, 1992– 

1996; Michael B. Mukasey, Partner, 

Debevoise & Plimpton; Attorney General, 

2007–2009; U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York, 1988–2006; John 

Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, 2007– 

2009; Director of National Intelligence, 2005– 

2007; Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of 

State for Political Affairs, 1997–2000; Former 

U.S. Ambassador; Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security 

and Counterterrorism, 2004–2008; Kenneth L. 

Wainstein, Assistant to the President for 

Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, 

2008–2009; Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Department of Justice, 2006– 

2008; Juan Zarate, Deputy National Security 

Advisor, Combating Terrorism, 2005–2009; Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Terrorist 

Financing and Financial Crimes, 2004–2005. 

f 

PRO FORMA SESSION 

APPOINTMENTS 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, in 

January of this year the President of 

the United States made several appointments without obtaining the Senate’s advice and consent. He asserted 

that the Recess Appointments Clause 

of the Constitution authorized these 

appointments, even though the Senate 

was conducting a series of pro forma 

sessions at the time of the appointments. According to the administration, these pro forma sessions had no 

legal effect on the President’s authority under this Clause because pro 

forma sessions do not allow the Senate 

to perform its constitutional functions 

or conduct business. The Congressional 

Research Service has found, however, 

that pro forma sessions, such as the 

ones occurring during the time of these 

so-called recess appointments, have 

satisfied—and continue to satisfy—numerous Constitutional, statutory, and 

legislative requirements, and that the 

Senate, in fact, has conducted business 

during such sessions. The Congressional Research Service also has found 

that the administration has repeatedly 

recognized the legal validity of pro 

forma sessions for purposes of satisfying these various requirements. I ask 

unanimous consent that the analysis of 

the Congressional Research Service 

from March 8, 2012 entitled ‘‘Certain 

Questions Related to Pro Forma Sessions of the Senate’’ be printed in the 

RECORD following this statement. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 

March 8, 2012. 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Senate Minority Leader 

From: Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process, 7–0656 

Subject: Certain Questions Related to Pro 

Forma Sessions of the Senate 

This memorandum responds to your request for information about certain pro 

forma sessions of the Senate. Specifically, 

you asked CRS to identify instances in 

which a pro forma session of the Senate 

might be interpreted as accomplishing some 

further end in addition to meeting the constitutional requirement that neither chamber recess or adjourn for extended periods 

without the permission of the other. 

PRO FORMA SESSIONS OF CONGRESS GENERALLY

Under Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the 

Constitution, neither chamber of Congress 

may adjourn or recess for more than three 

days without the consent of the other. In calculating such a three day period, either the 

day of adjourning or the day of convening 

must be included. Sundays are excluded from 

the calculation, being considered a dies non 

under longstanding parliamentary law. 

A chamber can adjourn within the three 

day limit, for example, from Thursday to 

Monday, or from Friday to Tuesday, by simply adopting a motion. Should a chamber 

wish to leave for a longer period, however, 

the other chamber must consent to the absence. Historically, for such purposes, the 

two houses have most often adopted a concurrent resolution through which each consents to the absence of the other for a specified period. 

In the normal course of business, party 

leaders in one or both chambers may wish to 

schedule periods of absence that exceed the 

three day constitutional limit by only a 

short period, perhaps by as little as one day. 

It is not uncommon, for example, for the 

House or Senate to adjourn from Thursday 

to Tuesday, or from Friday to Wednesday. In 

instances of this type, the chambers have 

evolved a practice of holding a short session 

sometime during the absence to comply with 

the constitutional limit described above. 

Such ‘‘pro forma’’ sessions, or sessions held 

for the sake of formality, allow a chamber to 

comply with the Constitution but not expend 

the time or trouble of acting on an adjournment resolution. In most cases, little or no 

business is conducted during such sessions 

because it is generally understood that few 

Members are present, and that the primary 

purpose of the meeting is to obviate the need 

to agree to an adjournment resolution. The 

Senate often adopts an order by unanimous 

consent which specifies that such a meeting 

or series of meetings is to be pro forma and 

that no legislative business is to be conducted on such days. 

It is important to note that the term pro 

forma describes the reason for holding the 

session, it does not distinguish the nature of 

the session itself. In common congressional 

usage, Members and staff often use the term 

pro forma as being synonymous with a session at which no business will be conducted. 

While the primary purpose of a pro forma 

session of the Senate may be to comply with 

the constitutional strictures on adjournment, a pro forma session is not materially 

different from other Senate sessions. While, 

as noted above, the Senate has customarily 

agreed not to conduct business during pro 

forma sessions, no rule or constitutional provision imposes this restriction. Should the 

Senate choose to conduct legislative or executive business at a pro forma session, it 

could, providing it could assemble the necessary quorum or gain the consent of all 

Senators to act. The House of Representatives, which is bound by the same constitutional requirements as the Senate, regularly 

permits business on pro forma days, including the introduction and referral of legislation, the filing of committee reports and cosponsorship forms, and the receipt and referral of executive communications and Presidential messages. Even in cases in which the 

Senate has agreed not to conduct business at 

a pro forma session, it could subsequently 

adopt a second consent agreement which 

would permit them do so. 

OTHER MOTIVATIONS OR PURPOSES FOR PRO

FORMA SESSIONS OF THE SENATE

While the primary purpose of a pro forma 

session of the Senate has been to comply 

with the constitutional limits on adjournments and recesses, it is possible that such 

meetings, being sessions of the Senate, may 

have additional purposes as well. At your request, CRS examined pro forma sessions of 

the Senate which occurred between the 109th 

Congress (2005–2006) and the present as well 

as the opening day of each Senate session between 1934 and the present, in order to identify sessions which may have satisfied some 

other purpose in addition to compliance with 

Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution. On the basis of these data, CRS identified two pro forma sessions at which legislative business was conducted, three periods of 

pro forma sessions that allowed the Senate 

to avoid returning nominations to the President, and six pro forma days that satisfied 

the constitutional or statutory requirement 

that the Senate convene a new session. In 

addition, both the Senate and the Executive 

Branch take pro forma sessions into account 

in calculating various required time periods 

pursuant to expedited procedure statutes. 

The following sections discuss each of these 

categories in turn. 

The instances cited in this memorandum 

cannot be said to be exhaustive, but are intended to underscore the idea that pro forma 

Senate sessions may be motivated by factors 

other than complying with the constitutional limit on adjournments, and may satisfy the requirements of other procedural authorities, including other provisions of the 

Constitution, Senate rules, and statutes. 

PRO FORMA SESSIONS AT WHICH LEGISLATIVE

BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED

Using information from the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) 

and relevant issues of the daily Congressional Record and Senate Calendar of Business, CRS identified 114 pro forma sessions of 

the Senate which occurred between January 

4, 2005 and March 8, 2012. These pro forma 

sessions are identified in Table 1. 

Of these 114 pro forma meetings of the Senate, CRS identified two at which legislative 

business appears to have been conducted. On 

both of these occasions, the two houses had 

agreed to no adjournment resolution, so that 

the Senate was required to meet in order to 

avoid violating the constitutional prohibition on absences of more than three days 

length. The days in question are: 

December 23, 2011: On this day, the Senate 

adopted an order by unanimous consent 

which provided for Senate passage of a H.R. 

3765, a House measure extending the, ‘‘payroll tax, unemployment insurance, TANF, 

and the Medicare payment fix.’’ The consent 

order further provided that upon receiving a 

message from the House of Representatives 

requesting a conference with the Senate on 

H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act of 2012, the Senate agree to 

the request, and the Senate presiding officer 

be authorized to appoint Senate conferees 

with a party ratio of 4–3. An enrolled measure was also signed on this day by Sen. Reid, 

serving as Acting President Pro Tempore. 

August 5, 2011: On this day, the Senate, by 

unanimous consent, passed H.R. 2553, a measure to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to extend the funding and expenditure 

authority of the Airport and Airway Trust 

Fund and to amend title 49, United States 

Code, to extend the airport improvement 

program. 

In the first instance cited above, the previous meeting of the Senate had occurred on 

Tuesday, December 20, 2011. In the second instance, the Senate had most recently met on 

Tuesday, August 2, 2011. At both of these pro 

forma sessions, pursuant to unanimous consent orders adopted by the Senate, no legislative or executive business was to be conducted. The Senate subsequently, however, 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5955 

decided to conduct business during the session. 

PRO FORMA SESSIONS WHICH SATISFIED SENATE

RULES GOVERNING THE RETURN OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS

CRS also identified three distinct periods 

of recent pro forma Senate session which, in 

addition to satisfying the constitutional limits on recesses and adjournments discussed 

above, also seemed to satisfy provisions of 

the Senate’s standing rules related to the 

consideration of presidential nominations. 

Paragraph 6 of Senate Rule XXXI, states in 

part: 

. . . if the Senate shall adjourn or take a 

recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at 

the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to 

the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the 

Senate by the President. 

In short, unless the Senate takes action 

(such as adopting a unanimous consent request) to override the provisions of Rule 

XXXI, the Senate Executive Clerk is supposed to return all nominations to the President at the outset of any period in which the 

Senate is to be absent for more than thirty 

calendar days. 

In the three instances identified, the Senate held only pro forma meetings during periods in excess of thirty days. In each period, 

however, nominations were not returned to 

the President pursuant to Rule XXXI. It 

seems apparent that the Senate viewed its 

occasional pro forma meetings as a means of 

preventing a recess of more than thirty days 

for purposes of these requirements of it 

rules. Arguably, the Executive Branch, not 

having had its nominations returned to it as 

would be the well-established practice, was 

also at least aware of the Senate’s understanding in this regard. The three periods in 

question identified are: 

August 2—September 6, 2011: The Senate 

held pro forma sessions during this 34-day 

period of recess. No unanimous consent 

agreement was identified to hold pending 

nominations in status quo and they were not 

returned to the President. 

September 29—November 15, 2010: The Senate held pro forma sessions during this 47- 

day period of recess. No unanimous consent 

agreement was identified as being adopted 

prior to the recess to hold pending nominations in status quo and they were not returned to the President. 

2008–2009: The Senate held pro forma sessions during three relevant periods of recess 

in 2008–2009: August 1–September 8, 2008 (31 

days); October 2–November 17, 2008 (46 days); 

and November 20, 2008–January 3, 2009, the 

balance of the 110th Congress (43 days). Consequently, although no unanimous agreement was identified as having been adopted 

in 2008 to hold pending nominations in status 

quo, they were not returned to the President 

until the sine die adjournment of the Congress. 

PRO FORMA SESSIONS OF THE SENATE WHICH

SATISFIED THE 20TH AMENDMENT

CRS also identified six pro forma meetings 

of the Senate which satisfied the provisions 

of Clause 2 of the 20th Amendment to the 

Constitution. 

Clause two of the 20th amendment to the 

Constitution states: 

The Congress shall assemble at least once 

in every year, and such meeting shall begin 

at noon on the 3d day of January, unless 

they shall by law appoint a different day. 

At your request, CRS examined the opening day session of each regular and special 

session of the Senate held between 1934 and 

the present, the period coinciding with the 

period that paragraph 2 of the 20th Amendment has been in force. CRS identified six 

Senate pro forma opening day sessions which 

satisfied the constitutional requirements for 

convening its session on the prescribed date. 

These opening day pro forma sessions were: 

January 3, 1980 

January 3, 1992 

January 3, 2006 

January 3, 2008 

January 5, 2010 

January 3, 2012 

With one exception, the January 3, 1980 

session, each of these meetings was pro 

forma in nature, with no legislative or organizational business conducted. In the case of 

the January 3, 1980 session, the Senate referred a previously-received message from 

President Jimmy Carter transmitting his 

veto of S. 2096, a bill to provide for a study 

by the Secretary of Health, Education, and 

Welfare of the long-term health effects in 

humans of exposure to dioxins. In addition, 

five Senators inserted undelivered remarks 

in the Congressional Record on this day. The 

approximate duration of the January 3, 1980 

session of the Senate was two minutes. 

PRO FORMA SESSIONS COUNT FOR PURPOSES OF

COMPUTING CERTAIN STATUTORY TIME PERIODS

Finally, CRS has identified several rules 

enacted in statute under which pro forma 

sessions are treated as sessions of the Senate 

like any other for purposes of computing certain time periods related to actions taken by 

Congress and the President. Pro forma Senate sessions satisfy not only the limits on recesses and adjournments contained in Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, but also the provisions of each of these statutory rules in the 

eyes of both the Executive and Legislative 

Branches. 

Congress sometimes chooses to include in 

law provisions which delegate to the President or another Executive Branch official 

the authority to issue a regulation or take 

some other specified action. As part of this 

delegation of authority, Congress often reserves the right in the law to pass its own 

judgment on the proposed regulation or action, typically by passing a joint resolution 

to approve or disapprove it before it takes effect. To facilitate action on such a joint resolution, Congress often writes into law special parliamentary procedures for considering the measure, including strict time periods for the introduction, committee action, 

and floor consideration of such a joint resolution. Such statutory procedures are often 

colloquially referred to as ‘‘fast track’’ procedures because they expedite the consideration of specified legislation in one or both 

chambers. 

Time periods under such statutory rules 

are usually calculated in one of two ways. 

The first way marks time by counting days 

of ‘‘House/Senate session.’’ Under such a 

mechanism, any day which the House or Senate meets counts toward the deadline established by the law. Under the terms of the 

Congressional Review Act, for example, the 

Senate has 60 days of ‘‘Senate session’’ to act 

under fast track procedures on a joint resolution which would disapprove a proposed 

rule promulgated by the Executive Branch. 

Both branches understand and have agreed 

to this time period for expedited action before a proposed agency rule can enter into 

force. When calculating time periods under 

statutory rules of this type, pro forma sessions of the Senate count as days of Senate 

session; that is, they are viewed as a session 

of the Senate like any other. 

The second way of counting time which is 

common in such statutory rules is known as 

counting ‘‘days of continuous session.’’ This 

way of calculating time periods takes into 

account the differing schedules of the House 

and Senate. When counting days of continuous session, every calendar day is counted, 

including Sundays and holidays, and the 

count pauses only when either the House or 

Senate (or both) have adjourned for more 

than three days pursuant to an adjournment 

resolution. For example, under the terms of 

the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Act of 1990, the Secretary of Defense may not 

close or realign any of the specified military 

installations until 45 ‘‘days of continuous 

session’’ have elapsed after a base closure 

plan is submitted to the House and Senate. 

As with the Congressional Review Act described above, both the Legislative and Executive Branch understand and have agreed to 

be bound by this manner of counting. 

As with days of Senate session, pro forma 

meetings of the Senate are also taken into 

account by both branches when calculating 

‘‘days of continuous session’’ for purposes of 

such statutory rules. Should the Senate 

meet in a series of pro forma sessions, a statutory ‘‘days of continuous session’’ clock 

would continue to run not only on the days 

of the pro forma sessions themselves, but 

also during the intervals of three or fewer 

days between the pro forma sessions, when 

the Senate was absent but formally in recess. 

CRS has identified 22 statutory legislative 

procedures now in law which calculate time 

periods in either or both of the ways discussed above and which take pro forma days 

of Senate session into account in conducting 

a specific calculation. These statutory rules 

are: 

Executive Reorganization Authority (5 

U.S.C. 902–912). (Days of continuous session); 

District of Columbia Home Rule Act, 

303(b), 602(c), 604. (Days of continuous session); 

Title X of the Congressional Budget and 

Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 1011–13, 

1017. (Days of continuous session); 

Multiemployer Guarantees, Revised Schedules [Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974, 4022A (29 U.S.C. 1322a)]. (Days of 

continuous session); 

Atomic Energy Act Provisions on Nuclear 

Non-Proliferation [42 U.S.0 2153–60]. (Days of 

continuous session); 

Trade Act of 1974, Procedures for Trade Implementing Bills and Resolutions of Disapproval [19 U.S.C. 2191–2192]. (Days of continuous session); 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act [42 

U.S.C. 6421]. (Days of continuous session); 

Nuclear Waste Fund Fees [42 U.S.C. 10222]. 

(Days of continuous session); 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)). (Days of continuous 

session); 

Federal Election Commission Regulations, 

311(d) [2 U.S.C. 438(d)] (Days of Senate session); 

Crude Oil Transportation Systems, [43 

U.S.C. 2008]. (Days of continuous session); 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 3232–3233]. (Days of continuous session); 

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 [43 U.S.C. 1701]. (Days of continuous 

session); 

Marine Fisheries Conservation Act [16 

U.S.C. 1823]. (Days of continuous session); 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 [42 U.S.C. 

10101]. (Days of continuous session); 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment of 

1990, as amended [10 U.S.C. 2687 note]. (Days 

of continuous session); 

Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 [2 

U.S.C. 1384]. (Days of continuous session); 

Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking [5 U.S.C. 801, 802, 804]. (Days of continuous session and days of Senate session); 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act 258 [2 U.S.C. 904(i), 907a–907d]. 

(Days of continuous session); 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

Medicare Cost Containment, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 [31 U.S.C. 1105 note]. 

(Days of Senate session); 

Minimum Standards for Identification of 

Documents; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 [49 U.S.C. 44901 

note]. (Days of Senate session); and 

Independent Payment Advisory Board [42 

U.S.C. 1395kkk]. (Days of continuous session). 

TABLE I. PRO FORMA SESSIONS OF THE U.S. SENATE: 

2005–2012 

[As of March 8, 2012] 

Congress & Years Pro forma Day 

112th (2011–2012) ............................................................... ....................... 02/24/2012 

02/21/2012 

01/20/2012 

01/17/2012 

01/13/2012 

01/10/2012 

01/06/2012 

01/03/2012 

12/30/2011 

12/27/2011 

12/23/2011 

12/20/2011 

11/25/2011 

11/22/2011 

10/27/2011 

10/24/2011 

10/07/2011 

09/29/2011 

09/02/2011 

08/30/2011 

08/26/2011 

08/23/2011 

08/19/2011 

08/16/2011 

08/12/2011 

08/09/2011 

08/05/2011 

06/03/2011 

05/31/2011 

111th (2009–2010) ............................................................... 11/12/2010 

11/10/2010 

11/08/2010 

11/04/2010 

11/01/2010 

10/29/2010 

10/26/2010 

10/22/2010 

10/19/2010 

10/15/2010 

10/12/2010 

10/08/2010 

10/05/2010 

10/01/2010 

01/19/2010 

01/05/2010 

10/09/2009 

08/10/2010 110th (2007–2008) ............................................................... 12/30/2008 12/26/2008 

12/23/2008 

12/19/2008 

12/16/2008 

12/12/2008 

12/05/2008 

12/02/2008 

11/29/2008 

11/26/2008 

11/24/2008 

11/13/2008 

11/10/2008 

11/06/2008 

11/03/2008 

10/30/2008 

10/27/2008 

10/23/2008 

10/20/2008 

10/16/2008 

10/14/2008 

10/10/2008 

10/07/2008 

10/06/2008 

09/05/2008 

09/02/2008 

08/29/2008 

08/26/2008 

08/22/2008 

08/19/2008 

08/15/2008 

08/12/2008 

08/08/2008 

08/05/2008 

07/27/2008 

06/30/2008 

05/29/2008 

05/27/2008 

05/23/2008 

03/27/2008 

03/24/2008 

03/21/2008 

03/18/2008 

02/22/2008 

02/19/2008 

TABLE I. PRO FORMA SESSIONS OF THE U.S. SENATE: 

2005–2012—Continued 

[As of March 8, 2012] 

Congress & Years Pro forma Day 

02/ I 5/2008 

01/18/2008 

01/15/2008 

01/11/2008 

01/09/2008 

01/07/2008 

01/03/2008 

12/31/2007 

12/28/2007 

12/26/2007 

12/23/2007 

12/21/2007 

11/29/2007 

11/27/2007 

11/23/2007 

11/20/2007 

11/09/2007 

10/05/2007 

09/14/2007 

109th (2005–2006) ............................................................... 01/24/2006 

01/20/2006 

01/03/2006 

Source: CRS analysis of relevant issues of the Congressional Record, Senate Calendar of Business, and data from the Legislative Information System 

of the U.S. Congress (LIS). 

I trust that this information meets your 

needs. If I can be of any additional help, 

please do not hesitate to contact me at 7– 

0656 or cmdavis@crs.loc.gov. 

f 

DROUGHT 

Mr. DURBIN. About 2 weeks ago, I 

visited a farm near my home town of 

Springfield, IL to see the impact of the 

ongoing drought. 

From the road, I couldn’t tell there 

was anything wrong with the crop. 

But as we went into the field, it 

quickly became clear that the crop was 

in poor shape. 

Following that visit, I met with the 

Illinois corn growers and the soybean 

growers and farmers from across the 

state. 

The message I heard was straightforward; it is as bad or worse than it 

has been in decades. 

Since that visit to a Springfield 

farm, drought conditions have only 

gotten worse. 

100 percent of Illinois and 64 percent 

of the country is facing severe or 

harsher drought conditions. 

Today, USDA announced 66 additional Illinois counties as primary disaster counties. 

With this announcement, all but four 

counties, Will, Cook, Kane, DuPage—in 

Illinois qualify for disaster assistance 

Very little rain, combined with abnormally high temperatures, is decimating many of the primary cropgrowing areas of the country. 

71 percent of the corn crop and 56 percent of the soybean crop in Illinois is 

rated as poor or very poor. 

This is in a State that regularly 

ranks as a top producer for both of 

these commodities. 

That means feed prices for livestock 

and eventually food prices for the rest 

of us are increasing. 

Everyone is going to feel the impact 

of this historic drought 

In response to conditions on the 

ground, Governor Quinn created a 

multi-agency drought task force in Illinois. 

The task force is coordinating State 

and Federal resources to ensure producers and communities are receiving 

the timely assistance. 

President Obama and Secretary 

Vilsack have done a commendable job 

of taking steps to help provide assistance to impacted producers and communities. 

They have sped up the disaster declaration process helping producers 

more quickly gain access to the limited disaster programs currently available. 

They have reduced interest rates on 

emergency loans. 

They have made it easier for land 

that is in conservation to open earlier 

for haying and grazing for livestock 

producers. 

And the administration is working 

with crop insurance companies to try 

to give producers more time to make 

premium payments. 

But we can do more. 

And since we can’t make rain, the 

single most important step Congress 

can take is to pass a farm bill. 

Most farmers will tell you they can 

survive one bad year. 

But right now farmers can’t even 

plan for future years. 

More than a month ago, the Senate 

passed the Local Food, Farms, and 

Jobs Act, more commonly known as 

the farm bill, with a 64—35 bipartisan 

vote. 

The bill would reauthorize several expired disaster programs to immediately help producers. 

Equally, if not more important, the 

bill would provide certainty for producers—allowing them to make longterm plans for getting through this 

drought and recovering from a bad 

year. 

Unfortunately the House has failed 

to act. 

In the roughly 40 days since the Senate passed a bill, the House has not 

even brought a companion measure to 

the House floor. During those 40 days 

another 20 percent of the country has 

developed drought conditions. During 

those 40 days, 98 of 102 counties in Illinois qualified for disaster assistance. 

During those 40 days, many farmers in 

Illinois have lost their crops. 

It is well past time for the House to 

take up and pass a farm bill that includes robust disaster assistance paired 

with the long-term policy farmers 

need. 

I will repeat something I said 2 weeks 

ago. 

Our producers and rural America already face a natural disaster. I don’t 

think it is too much that we spare 

them a manmade disaster by failing to 

pass a farm bill. 

f 

DEATH OF OSWALDO PAYA ́

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some of 

you may have seen in the press last 

week that an inspiring Cuban citizen 

who tirelessly fought for a peaceful 

transition to democracy recently died 

in a tragic car accident on that island. 

Oswaldo Paya ́ was a modest man. A 

brave man. A hero. A Cuban patriot. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE