[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 142 (Friday, October 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6520-H6527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
 EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE RELATING TO TARIFF-RATE QUOTAS FOR RAW AND 
                             REFINED SUGAR

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 378) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding certain provisions of the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 2642 relating to the Secretary of Agriculture's administration of 
tariff-rate quotas for raw and refined sugar, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 378

       Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House of the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2642 
     (an Act to provide for the reform and continuation of 
     agricultural and other programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture and other programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes) 
     should advance provisions to repeal the Administration of 
     Tariff Rate Quotas language as added by the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and thus restore the 
     Secretary of Agriculture's authority to manage supplies of 
     sugar throughout the marketing year to meet domestic demand 
     at reasonable prices.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the resolution and call on the House to support 
reforming the sugar program in upcoming negotiations on the farm bill.
  Just a few months ago, I offered a reform amendment to the farm bill 
that gained unprecedented support and which made modest, but essential, 
reforms to our government's sugar program. Today, we debate this 
resolution, one that is even more modest but just as critical to 
bringing stability and balance to our sugar market. As a matter of 
fact, my resolution is even more timely. Following our debate on this 
program, the government began shoveling out money to support sugar 
growers--$250 million worth in 4 months. We were told by the opposing 
side that it operated at no cost. We need to address this wasteful 
practice.
  Mr. Speaker, every single one of us has a small food business in his 
district. Sugar is an essential ingredient even in many foods that 
aren't necessarily sweet. We all know how hard it is on small 
businesses right now. We know how critical these jobs are to our 
economy. Shouldn't we do everything we can to help them grow strong?
  Today, millions of American families are on tight budgets. They watch 
their spending carefully, especially when it comes to buying food; and 
when they walk down the grocery aisle, they may not realize the costs 
that go into the products that they buy for themselves and their 
children. Very few of them know that they are paying significantly more 
for these products in order to ensure the profits of a small handful of 
sugar producers. They don't realize that, altogether, Americans are 
paying an additional $3.5 billion a year because of a government sugar 
program that makes little sense.
  Tens of millions of Americans are looking for jobs. Many don't 
understand why there isn't more work available right now. What they 
don't know is that a nationwide industry is suffering because we have a 
sugar program that favors the few over the many. There are more than 
600,000 jobs in sugar-using industries today. However, that industry 
has seen tough times. More than 127,000 jobs have been lost since the 
late 1990s. The Department of Commerce estimates that, for every one 
job the sugar program saves, three are lost in sugar-using industries. 
The sugar program is a bad deal for businesses, for consumers, for job 
seekers, and for taxpayers. When the House passed a farm bill this 
summer, every single commodity program was reformed except for one--the 
sugar program.
  The sugar program is probably more in need of reform than any other 
commodity. The program controls prices to ensure that at all times 
sugar farmers and producers profit. When prices are high, as they were 
for 4 out of the last 5 years, producers do very well. When prices are 
low, the government buys sugar and makes sure that farmers and 
producers make their money back. This isn't a functioning sugar market. 
It is a nonstop bailout.
  Meanwhile, the world price for sugar is typically much lower than 
here in the United States, and this is a big advantage for foreign 
competitors. In fact, Canada even advertises their access to the world 
sugar market as a reason for American companies to relocate or to build 
new facilities in their nation. Mexican food companies also have lower 
and more stable prices and the advantages of importing products to the 
U.S. under NAFTA. Simply put, we are handicapping our food industries 
at a time when they face intense competition. Good jobs are flowing out 
of the U.S. into other nations.
  In the farm bill we sent over to the Senate, every single commodity 
program was reformed except for sugar. Dairy farmers, peanut growers, 
cotton growers, and many more will all see changes to their programs. 
The resolution on the House floor today proposes a modest change to the 
sugar program.
  Currently, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to manage 
imports of sugar for 6 months out of the year. The other 6 months of 
the year, he can do nothing even if prices spike unreasonably high. The 
Secretary basically has to make an educated guess about how much sugar 
should be imported. The way the statute is written, the Secretary must 
err on the side of the growers and producers. This means that, if the 
guess is wrong, Big Sugar benefits and consumers get fleeced.
  It is time that we put an end to a policy that makes little sense--a 
policy that didn't even exist until the 2008 farm bill. This is a 
failed experiment that has hurt lots of people and has helped only a 
handful.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that this resolution is on the floor 
today. I believe that the House should make a strong statement--that 
our conferees should work to get good reform to the sugar program in 
this year's farm bill. I am also grateful for the bipartisan support 
for this measure. At a time when it seems like Democrats and 
Republicans can't agree on much, we have a very strong bipartisan group 
working across the aisle to stand up for consumers, for job seekers, 
for businesses, and for taxpayers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to oppose this resolution and to say that we have very strong 
bipartisan opposition to this resolution. Frankly, I don't know why we 
are doing this, because we settled this issue when we had the debate on 
the floor earlier in June. This is a sense of the Congress, and there 
is no requirement that the conference committee pay any attention to 
this, so I don't quite understand why we are going through this 
process; but in any event, we are here.

[[Page H6521]]

  We have a sugar policy that supports $20 billion in economic activity 
and 142,000 jobs. The reason we have it is that every country in the 
world that produces sugar subsidizes those industries or supports them, 
in most cases substantially more than does the United States. So if we 
change this program or give up what we have put together here, what you 
are going to do is give this industry away to countries that subsidize 
and support their industries more than we are doing here in the United 
States. I don't know why we would want to do that, but that would be 
the effect of this.

  The Government of Mexico owns 20 percent of the industry in its 
country; and with NAFTA, we gave Mexico open access to our market. This 
is in spite of the fact that they own the industry down there. 
President Reagan once said that unilateral disarmament has never 
worked, that it only encourages aggressors. Reagan had it right. So 
whether it is defense policy or economic policy, you don't give 
something away for nothing to people who are doing more than what our 
opponents claim we are doing.
  The United States is the largest sugar importer in the world. We 
bring in 1.5 million tons of sugar from 40 countries. Nobody else does 
that. This is sugar we could make here in the United States, but we 
gave away 15 percent of our market to help other countries. We have 
been doing that for a long time, and we have had pretty good prices. 
All of a sudden, because Mexico had a good crop, I guess, the prices 
have collapsed. If you think that the loan rate--the bottom price that 
we have in the sugar program--is giving us some kind of a profit or 
some kind of a ``fat cat'' deal, I invite you to come up to American 
Crystal's annual meeting in December in my area and in Representative 
Cramer's area, at which they are going to be reporting that they have 
lost money this year because the sugar prices are at loan rates. So the 
loan rates that are in the bill are not guaranteeing anybody a profit. 
They are just putting a floor under it, trying to keep us in business 
until next year.
  There is no good reason to be doing this. We settled this issue 
before. The reason for the April 1 date is that, in the past, the USDA 
has made mistakes in terms of where we were with the market. So by 
having an April 1 date, we can make it less likely that these mistakes 
are going to happen in the future. That is the main reason that we have 
got it in there.
  The sugar program has operated at no cost for a long time. During 
that time, the opponents claim that the prices were too high. Now the 
prices have collapsed, and they are saying the safety net costs too 
much. So they are still complaining about the prices being too high. I 
will guarantee you that you could get the price down to almost nothing, 
and it wouldn't change the price that people charge for candy bars. You 
could probably give it away, and they wouldn't lower the price.
  This has been a good policy. It keeps sugar stable. There was a time 
in this country when we got rid of the sugar program. What happened? We 
had prices go up to 50 cents a pound, and we had the candy companies 
and the sugar users come in and ask for the government program to be 
put back in place so they could get the prices down to a more 
affordable level. I will guarantee you, if you get rid of the sugar 
policy, what you are going to have is a feast or famine situation. You 
might have low prices for a while, but you are going to have a time 
when high prices are going to do a lot more harm to you than this sugar 
program does.
  This is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be done, as we have already 
settled this issue. I ask my colleagues to reject this for any number 
of reasons.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, the cochair of the Sugar Reform 
Caucus.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have been very pleased 
to work in a very bipartisan way with Representatives Pitts, Goodlatte, 
Blumenauer, and others as we have shaped H. Res. 378.
  The domestic sugar program is an outdated system of strict government 
controls that cost consumers $4 billion a year in higher prices. 
Historically, the sugar program not only hurts consumers but it also 
costs us jobs. High sugar prices were responsible for the loss of 
112,000 jobs in sugar-using industries in the last decade. While 
growers of all commodities, including those for cotton, rice, peanuts, 
corn, soybeans, and wheat, have seen their benefits cut and their 
programs reformed, for some inexplicable reason sugar growers and 
processors continue to get a free ride and keep their program without 
any reform.
  No other crop has a program like sugar, which restricts both domestic 
production and imports. Peanut and tobacco growers once had a quota 
that limited production, but Congress reformed those programs a long 
time ago.
  Now we are only left with the sugar program, where it remains 
permanently in the 2013 farm bill to continue to cause higher consumer 
prices for food products containing sugar. This program is designed to 
benefit a few at a tremendous cost to many. Our current sugar policy 
offloads the program's cost onto consumers and food companies, entices 
U.S. companies to relocate overseas, destroys U.S. jobs, and limits 
export market opportunities for the rest of the economy.
  It is time for Congress to finally reform this relic of a program of 
the past and put an end to sugar's special status. We can now correct a 
specific aspect of the 2013 farm bill by supporting H. Res. 378.
  The 2008 farm bill directs the Secretary of the United States 
Department of Agriculture to manage the overall U.S. sugar supply, 
including imports, so that market prices on average can stay higher in 
the United States compared to the overall world price of sugar. We need 
to eliminate this same provision in the 2013 farm bill that would limit 
the Secretary of Agriculture's ability to allow sufficient sugar 
imports into the country so that consumers can pay their prices.
  All that we are asking is to give the Secretary of Agriculture some 
flexibility to adjust.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the relevant 
subcommittee in the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Pitts-Goodlatte 
amendment for a number of reasons.
  First of all, we have already voted on the Pitts-Goodlatte amendment 
provisions during the farm bill, and the House voted to reject it. I am 
not sure why we are here again today to retread all of these issues. 
Even if this resolution were to pass--which hopefully it doesn't--I 
hope our Members remember how they voted in July and understand why 
they voted the way they did in July and stick with that this week. But 
because the provisions in both bills in the House and Senate are the 
same this has even less effect than for the conferees to ignore it.
  Our trade laws allow a lot of sugar to be imported in this country. 
We can and do grant extra access above and beyond the commitments if, 
in fact, we do need more.
  But the farm bill simply says, let's wait to see how much Mexico is 
going to send us before we grant others extra access. Remember that 
Mexico has 100 percent access to our market. They heavily subsidize 
their sugar, and the Mexican government owns 20 percent of that 
industry.
  The Pitts resolution would ignore market forecasts and start granting 
extra access to Mexico and other countries right off the bat before the 
growing season. Mr. Speaker, that is reckless. The effect of this would 
glut our market with foreign subsidized sugar, depress our prices, and 
make it impossible for our farmers to repay our loans, resulting in 
forfeitures and additional taxpayer costs that shouldn't be there. How 
good is that for taxpayers?
  Sugar farmers are currently experiencing a 57 percent drop in sugar 
prices. I would argue that not one consumer in this America has 
benefited from that drop. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
argue that sugar costs way too much money. Yet with a 57 percent drop, 
where are those savings going to those consumers that you

[[Page H6522]]

want to protect? Where are those reduced soda prices? Where are those 
reduced candy bar prices? It is nowhere to be seen.
  I would argue that the policy works when prices are high, at above 
the levels. There is no cost to taxpayers. Then when prices are 
depressed, like they are now because of extra access from rural markets 
which are all subsidized, then prices are depressed and the safety net 
steps in. You either have a safety net or you don't. The argument that 
this one was not adjusted in this farm bill is specious on its face.
  Simply to say we change it for the sake of change makes no sense. If 
there is a legitimate change that you want, fine. But that is not what 
these folks are proposing. They are saying change it just because 
everybody else got changed. This program worked for 10 years without 
any cost to the taxpayer directly, and it would continue to work that 
way going into the future.
  They picked a great year to pick this price because prices are down. 
The safety net is supposed to kick in. I would argue that we need to 
maintain the sugar program because it works for American sugar 
producers.
  Confectioners cannot argue that prices in Canada are less. Prices in 
Canada right now are 29 cents a pound. So where are all those jobs 
coming back to the United States because sugar in America is 26 cents a 
pound? Where are the jobs that went to Mexico because sugar was cheaper 
there? Oh, it is not cheaper; it is 28 cents a pound there. Where are 
all those jobs coming back?
  You cannot argue with a straight face that sugar prices drive all 
those jobs out of this country.
  Reject the Pitts amendment, and let's move forward with a farm bill 
that we can make for American farmers.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Illinois for their leadership on 
this issue.
  A few months ago, we offered a reform amendment to the House farm 
bill that would have saved taxpayers money, kept American jobs at home, 
and ended special treatment to one farm commodity at the expense of all 
others.
  This farm bill makes major policy changes that leave no commodity 
untouched, except one. The farm bill makes absolutely no change to the 
sugar program. In fact, the sugar program wasn't even given the 
scrutiny of a hearing as the Ag Committee was constructing the current 
farm bill.
  Since 2008, manufacturers across the country have been struggling to 
run their operations due to the uncertainty created by the sugar 
program. In fact, for every job that proponents of this horrendous 
policy claim is maintained by the current sugar program, the Commerce 
Department estimates that the sugar program eliminated three jobs in 
food manufacturing.
  Although I wish we could be here debating even greater reform, what 
we are debating today is quite modest.
  This motion to instruct simply restores to the Secretary of 
Agriculture the flexibility to manage sugar imports, an authority the 
Secretary had prior to the 2008 farm bill. To be clear, this language 
will not allow a pound--a pound--more sugar to enter the U.S. unless 
the Secretary authorizes that it can come in upon a finding that is 
needed.
  Many of you may be wondering why we are discussing sugar again. Since 
the House last debated the farm bill, the negative effects of the sugar 
program have only gotten worse. While proponents of the current sugar 
program claim it is ``no cost,'' nothing could be further from the 
truth. The sugar program has cost American taxpayers more than $250 
million since July.
  To put this in perspective, in less than 3 months this broken policy 
has cost American taxpayers $250 million, which is almost as much as 
the amount of money available for an entire year for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, TEFAP, the USDA program that purchases commodities 
for food banks. It is nearly $50 million more than the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program for our Nation's senior citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Comedian Jay Leno recently joked--``The Department of Agriculture 
wants to use our tax money to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to limit supply 
and boost prices so sugar producers can pay back government loans that 
they could default on. You follow me here on this? We loaned them money 
and now we're giving them more money so they can pay back our loan. You 
still wonder why we're 16 trillion dollars in debt?''
  Sadly, this is no longer a joke. This is the reality of the sugar 
program and it is the American taxpayer who is saddled with the cost of 
this program.
  Since this government shutdown began we have been intensely debating 
the spending priorities for our country. I don't know how we can 
justify this horrendous program at all!
  While I wish we were able to go further in reforming the sugar 
program, today we have the opportunity to return a small bit of sanity 
to the program
  Please join me in supporting the Pitts sugar reform resolution to 
restore common sense to America's sugar policy.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that for the 12 
years before July there has been no cost at all, and the food stamp 
part of the farm bill had no hearings either.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am here today on behalf of our farmers 
in Minnesota and the midwest.
  My State is number one in sugar beet production. That means my 
State's economy and the State's rural economy take a direct hit because 
of this resolution. This resolution hurts our farmers, small 
businesses, hospitals, schools, the lives of real people in rural 
communities.
  American-grown sugar creates more than 142,000 jobs in 22 States and 
nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity. We have farmers in the 
beet fields right now finishing up harvesting. This resolution sends a 
message that this House wants to shut down sugar production, which will 
shut down jobs here at home.
  But some jobs will be created--in Brazil. Let's defend U.S. jobs, 
defeat this resolution, and stand with sugar beet farmers in Minnesota 
and across the United States.
  The Republican majority has shut down the Federal Government. I am 
not going to stand by and shut down the sugar program. So let's protect 
U.S. communities and U.S. jobs and vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California, Jackie Speier.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is kind of uncomfortable being on this side of the 
aisle, but it is also, I guess, a recognition that this is truly a 
bipartisan effort, and I am really thrilled to be joining in it.
  Imagine that when the farm bill was debated here, every single 
commodity program in the farm bill was amended, was reformed, with the 
exception of sugar. Now, why would that happen? Well, maybe it is 
because of some sweet-talking sugar lobbyists that made that happen.
  But nonetheless, let's be clear about what this resolution doesn't 
do. It does not undermine the sugar program in this country. The sugar 
program that exists in terms of price support remains, the domestic 
marketing allotment for sugar remains, and it does not eliminate sugar 
import quotas.
  What does it do? It basically says that the Secretary of Agriculture 
can make sure during the entire year, and not just 6 months, that the 
market supply is appropriate.
  What do we know about research that has been done on the cost to 
consumers? It is said to cost consumers $3.5 billion. Now, this figure 
doesn't come from the candy manufacturers; this figure comes from a 
number of studies by the Government Accountability Office, by OECD, by 
the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
  Now, what has happened since July? Since July, the taxpayers of this 
country have spent $250 million because they are guaranteed as sugar 
producers to 17 cents per pound. When they couldn't get 17 cents per 
pound, the U.S. had to buy the sugar and then try to sell it to ethanol 
producers.

[[Page H6523]]

  Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to reform the system.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend from Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our current U.S. sugar policy 
maintains that sugar will not become a solely foreign-grown product for 
the United States. When we weaken our sugar and our sugar growers, it 
hurts America but it helps Brazil, it helps Mexico--the biggest 
competitors for the United States.
  Brazil's yearly $2.5 billion subsidy has led them to controlling 50 
percent of the global sugar exports.
  Mexico has already unlimited access to the United States. And who is 
the biggest sugar producer and exporter in Mexico? The Mexican 
government. Mexico owns and operates 20 percent of the Mexican sugar 
industry. On top of that, Mexico already owes Texas 300,000 acre feet 
of water out of the Rio Grande. It is improperly taking that water out 
of the Rio Grande River--water that should go to Texas sugar growers, 
but it is not.
  House Resolution 378 will weaken the U.S. sugar industry, giving 
advantage to Mexico and Brazil. By allowing more foreign sugar into the 
United States we create unnecessary and hurtful competition. We prefer, 
if we pass this legislation, foreign farmers over American farmers.

                              {time}  1700

  Weakening our sugar program is not reform; it is crippling. It is 
crippling to the United States market, to the 140,000 sugar industry 
jobs. Once again, it only leaves us dependent on other countries for 
our sugar.
  Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to become dependent on foreign countries 
for our energy; it is another thing if we start moving into the area of 
becoming dependent on foreign countries for what we eat. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a leader in sugar reform.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this issue, as are 
many of my colleagues. I strongly support this resolution by Messrs. 
Pitts, Davis, Goodlatte, and others for a whole host of reasons, but 
let's be very clear about a few things here.
  This country consumes more sugar than it produces. We must import 
sugar, whether we like it or not. We also have to deal with some other 
very basic facts.
  I listened with intensity to the gentleman from Minnesota, a good 
friend, who talked about American Crystal losing money. Well, the 
answer is not to bail them out with our tax dollars. We have seen 
enough of that around here. It is time to stop those types of 
unnecessary bailouts.
  We also heard my good friend from Texas, who, I was relieved today, 
did not complain about sugar companies making money or confectioners 
making money, as if profits are something that is evil. We want these 
companies to make money. We have had 4 years of high sugar prices, and 
that simply incentivizes more Mexican imports. It provides more 
incentives for those imports.
  But let's look at the numbers. The current program is a remnant of 
the Depression era. It puts 600,000 American jobs in the food industry 
at risk. Between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 jobs were lost in 
segments of the food and beverage industries that use sugar in their 
operations. And, yes, Hershey is located in my district.
  The current sugar program hits American consumers and businesses with 
$3.5 billion of extra costs every year. The CBO projects that the 
Sugar-to-Ethanol Program, known as the Feedstock Flexibility Program, 
will cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years, including 
$51 million this year alone. Some analysts project costs of up to $100 
million this year and $250 million over the next 2 years combined.
  When sugar prices drop below a certain level, the Federal Government 
buys that sugar and then sells it at a loss to the ethanol producers. 
The taxpayers are abused twice. When is enough enough? It is 
unacceptable and wrong to call on the American people to support the 
current sugar program, not only with their hard-earned consumer 
dollars, but with their tax dollars as well.
  Yes, we are having debates around this place right now about the 
government shutdown and the debt ceiling. The point is we need to get 
on with this. Let's protect the American people, show them we can do 
our jobs. I ask my colleagues to reform, not repeal, the current sugar 
program, but reform it. Let's save the American consumers money in the 
midst of this tough economy. Let's show the American people we can act 
responsibly on their behalf.
  I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the Record. We 
do not need to import. The farmers in my district could easily produce 
that 15 percent. We gave those markets to these countries out of the 
goodness of our heart.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the ranking member, and thank you for your 
leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Again, it is 
nothing but an attack on thousands of family farms in this country and 
in my district.
  If it were the sense of Congress that it was right to end the 
successful sugar program, the House would have done that last June. 
Instead, we did the opposite. We defeated this same attack, clearly 
indicating that this program should be preserved.
  The district that I represent is home to Michigan Sugar. And I hear 
these references--I heard them on the floor earlier, and I just saw it 
again--to Big Sugar. These are family farms that have banded together 
in cooperatives. You can call that Big Sugar if you want. It is a term 
I suppose that is intended to elicit certain thoughts about who these 
farmers are. That is a shame. These are family farmers who work hard 
every day and are forced to be in competition with multinational 
corporations.
  We talk about the price of sugar. The price of sugar in a candy bar 
in 1985, there was 3 cents of sugar in that candy bar and it cost 35 
cents. Today, that same candy bar is $1.39, and there is 3 cents of 
sugar in that candy bar.
  Let's deal with the facts here. This is a struggle between companies 
that want to marginally increase their profit because not enough 
profits are going to these companies. They are among the highest, most 
profitable companies in the country, and they should be. That is good. 
But when is enough enough? Why is it that the family farmers are always 
the ones that are asked to give more, to potentially risk their 
livelihood, generations of livelihood?

  This is wrong. It was wrong when we defeated it in June, and it is 
wrong again today.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), another leader in 
sugar reform in our Nation.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I don't want to get into the crosshairs of 
my friend from Minnesota, and if I had sugar beet farmers in my 
district, I suppose I might have a different position; but I would like 
to talk about jobs because that is why I support restoring the 
Secretary of Agriculture's ability to keep sugar prices at a reasonable 
level year-round, not just during the arbitrary 6-month period dictated 
by the 2008 farm bill.
  Between 1997 and 2011, nearly 127,000 jobs were lost in segments of 
the food and beverage industry that use sugar in the products they 
make, while employment actually rose in food industry segments that 
don't use sugar. Today, there are an estimated 600,000 Americans 
directly employed in the food manufacturing industry. It is an 
enormously important industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce says 
that for every one sugar production job saved, our current sugar 
program eliminates three jobs in food manufacturing. That is a loss of 
manufacturing jobs at a rate of 100,000 per year.
  And the fiscal impacts of our sugar policies are just as disturbing. 
Since this issue was debated on the House floor only 6 weeks ago, the 
sugar program has cost the taxpayer $90 million. And I am informed that 
the total cost to the taxpayer this year alone will exceed $150 
million. The Congressional Budget Office projects another $239 million 
in the outyears of the bill.

[[Page H6524]]

  We don't need to be hitting up the taxpayer for this money. We can 
make modest reforms to U.S. sugar policy while still leaving a safety 
net in place for U.S. sugar farmers and processors. This motion strikes 
the right balance. It is modest and commonsense policy. It is scaled 
back to include just one of the reforms that the House considered 2 
months ago.
  Madam Speaker, I think this should be supported. It is a modest, 
important reform. I think it is appropriate in light of the context of 
our farm policy. We are making reforms in other areas, and this is one 
area where we really do need to reform on behalf of the American 
consumer and on behalf of the need for more manufacturing jobs in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of things today. 
We have heard from those of us who think that it is a good program, 
that it has been efficient, and that it hasn't cost the taxpayers money 
for the last 10 years; and we have heard from the other side that it is 
not efficient. We have heard conflicting numbers of jobs, about 
potentially what jobs may have been lost. But what is not debatable are 
the jobs that are created by the sugar industry, including 142,000 
nationally and 12,000 jobs just in Florida alone.
  We are going to continue to hear conflicting sides here, but let me 
tell you what is not really debatable. What is not really debatable is 
that this is an industry that, around the entire planet, is subsidized. 
And what we are talking about here is a unilateral disarmament of the 
U.S. industry that creates, again, 142,000 jobs.
  I keep hearing, also, the fact that consumers here are struggling. 
Wait a second. Sugar here for consumers is among the lowest prices on 
the entire planet.
  And then I have heard, again, that it is affecting the food 
manufacturing industry. By the way, now we are getting to the real 
substance of the issue. But let's ask the question: prices of sugar 
have dropped dramatically this year. Have you seen a dramatic shift, 
the lowering of prices in the food manufacturing industry? By the way, 
let me not get that dramatic. Have you seen a dramatic lowering of 
prices of diet sodas versus ones that contain sugar? No.
  Look, if that was the case, if the price reductions were going to be 
passed on to the consumers, then you would see, obviously, products 
that don't contain sugar would be a lot less expensive than the ones 
that do contain sugar.
  Again, we are going to hear a lot of conflicting issues, but let's 
not forget the basic principle here: We have thousands of jobs that 
depend on this industry, including in Florida. We have, again, some 
large manufacturers that want lower prices, and I don't blame them. But 
please don't say they are going to pass them on to the consumer, 
because they never have. Just look at the price of Diet Coke versus 
regular Coke.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Madam Speaker, I spoke earlier on the floor today, 
and I think it is wonderful that we are having this great debate in 
this great Chamber. Obviously, this is a bipartisan issue, and I am so 
glad that some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have 
joined me in this great debate for sugar reform.

  I represent the great Third District of Tennessee, and I have spent a 
lot of time in my district in manufacturing plants where I believe, and 
I would argue, that we manufacture the best baked goods in the country, 
some of the finest candies in the country, and we distribute these 
goods all over our great Nation. We use sugar. We use a lot of sugar.
  But as we have been involved in this great debate and since the last 
time on the farm bill, I have noticed a couple of things. It is just 
not working. Since we had that last vote, it has cost the American 
taxpayer over $250 million. In addition to that, I have made a 
commitment to the workers in these plants that I am going to fight hard 
to keep their jobs in the United States of America, in particular in 
the great Third District of Tennessee. In order to do that, we have to 
stop this madness. This is not a radical change to sugar reform. It is 
a modest proposal that allows the Secretary of Agriculture the 
discretion to help the American consumer against skyrocketing costs and 
potential skyrocketing costs in the price of sugar.
  Let's face it; sugar is a commodity, plain and simple. And if you use 
it and the price goes up, and if it is kept artificially high, it 
drives the price up and you become uncompetitive. I believe in the free 
market. I fervently argue for the free market, but the Pitts-Goodlatte 
amendment does a couple of things. It protects American consumers; it 
protects American jobs; and it is the right side of the argument for 
good, free-market Americans.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to put all this 
in perspective. U.S. sugar policy from the 2008 farm bill has been 
very, very successful. As a matter of fact, the committees of 
jurisdiction both on the House and Senate side decided not to alter the 
sugar provisions in the 2013 farm bills passed by both the House and 
the Senate. As a matter of fact, this has been argued, as we have 
heard, again and again. This amendment and amendments similar to this 
have been rejected each time.
  This would be a very damaging amendment at a time when American 
farmers are already hurting. This is exactly the inappropriate time to 
go after American jobs. These guys would end up going bankrupt, and I 
don't think you want to sacrifice existing American jobs with the hope 
that some new jobs might be created.
  The other thing that is missing here is the acknowledgment that the 
Secretary of Agriculture already has the authority to increase U.S. 
sugar imports if there is an emergency. So why do we need this 
instruction? I don't get it.
  The other point, if we are going to get back to some semblance of 
regular order in the conference process, since the House and Senate 
farm bills are identical here, this should not even be conferenceable 
at the end of the day. I think it is out of order and inappropriate.
  Right now, Mexico, as has been stated, is well subsidized. Twenty 
percent of their production is outright subsidized, owned by their 
government, is driving sugar prices in the tank for Americans. That is 
not right. This should be WTO conferenceable at the end of the day.
  This is the wrong time to go about trying to end a policy that has 
worked great for the last 12 years and finally is paying off for those 
sugar producers, sugar farmers, and all the sugar beet seed growers in 
my district that need a little help in this tough, tough time. I think 
if you are in favor of supporting a good balance of trade, supporting 
American agriculture, supporting the American taxpayer, at the end of 
the day, you do not want to vote in favor of Pitts amendment. I urge 
its defeat.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Pitts 
amendment on the House resolution on the farm bill.
  The sugar program included in the 2008 farm bill that became 
permanent in the 2013 House farm bill, contains a harmful restraint on 
trade and sugar between the 6 months of October and April, which makes 
it so that the Secretary of Agriculture cannot allow an increase in 
sugar imports, even if the marketplace needs it.
  This detrimental restriction led to record-high prices for both the 
sugar producers and consumers alike. The higher costs resulted in many 
manufacturing companies, some are located in my district, struggling or 
having to even shut down because they are unable to sustain these high 
costs, killing good manufacturing jobs in the process.
  This resolution ensures that the U.S. will not be forced to face 
higher sugar prices that are two times the world

[[Page H6525]]

price because of an erroneous restriction in the current law. These 
high sugar prices have unfairly cost consumers $3.5 billion a year.
  Simply, the U.S. should be able to control these costs and adjust 
accordingly so that we do not impose unjust costs upon our consumers, 
especially in these economically trying times.
  The bottom line is this: the problem is not Mexico. The problem is an 
outdated anti-taxpayer, anti-consumer, anti-business sugar-reform 
program. The Pitts resolution will help restore some balance to the 
program and remove artificial pressure from the current government 
intrusion into the marketplace, which is what we are looking for here.
  What will the Pitts resolution do? It will help fix our broken sugar 
program by, one, allowing sugar farmers to retain their commodity 
program; two, to help ensure taxpayers will be less likely to have to 
pick up the tab for this program; and, three, help to ensure that 
hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs and sugar industries 
will be less threatened.
  I urge support of the Pitts resolution. It is a commonsense approach.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.
  I oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution, H. Res. 378.
  Sugar is the only commodity where the U.S. is a net importer. This 
puts U.S. producers at a disadvantage. Our sugar farmers have to 
compete with sugar-producing governments and countries that heavily 
subsidize their farmers' production. Yes, this year this program did 
cost our government, but it is because Mexico is allowed to dump their 
sugar on our market because of NAFTA. This is a trade issue that we 
need to look at deeper.
  U.S. farmers would gladly give up their safety net as long as every 
other country discontinued their heavily subsidized programs as well. 
U.S. sugar farmers can compete with any other foreign sugar farmer and 
we can out-perform them, but they can't compete against a foreign 
government and subsidies. At the end of the day, this is a jobs issue. 
There are over 142,000 jobs in the domestic sugar industry, with over 
12,000 in Florida alone. Many of these jobs would move to Brazil or 
Mexico if the intent of this resolution becomes law. There again, 
another industry would be weakened by our government policies.
  We in government should work to keep America stronger and more 
competitive, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 378.
  The current U.S. sugar program is uncompetitive, outdated, it stunts 
American job creation, harms U.S. confectioners, and forces food 
manufacturers and families to pay a higher cost for any product made 
with sugar. Recent data suggests that without reform, the program puts 
600,000 jobs in the sugar-using industries at risk. I am all too aware 
of these negative economic impacts during a recent visit to a leading 
confectioner in my district.
  Headquartered in Bryan, Ohio, Spangler Candy Company is a family-
owned business that has been providing consumers with Dum Dums, Saf-T-
Pops, Circus Peanuts, candy canes, and other confections since 1906. 
This company currently has over 400 U.S. employees; but if it could 
purchase sugar at world-market prices instead of U.S. prices, that 
number would be closer to 600. That's a difference of 200 highly 
skilled manufacturing jobs in a single small midwestern town. Imagine 
the positive economic growth that would result from sugar reform 
nationwide.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. 
Reforming the U.S. sugar program will restore fairness in the sugar 
market, encourage U.S. investment, and spur job creation in our local 
communities.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Madam Speaker, listening to the debate here this 
afternoon, I am reminded of a statement from an old University of 
Minnesota law professor who once said that ``all political decisions 
revolve around who you're for.'' And I've heard both sides of this 
issue castigating one side or the other; but it becomes rather clear, 
as you listen to this debate, that the supporters of this resolution 
are in support of those multinational corporations and foreign 
corporations and foreign governments that stand to benefit from a 
change in our U.S. sugar policy.
  On the other side, the side that I choose to stand with, we have the 
producers such as the cane growers, the beet growers who put their 
crops in the field at risk every year, the men and women who work in 
the fields, who work in the plants processing sugar, and the consumers 
who benefit from a stable supply of reasonably priced sugar to satisfy 
our food needs here in this country.

  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge that we defeat this resolution and 
stick with the sugar program that has worked so well in this country 
for so long. In Minnesota alone, we have 32,500 people working in that 
industry. There are 142,000 people working throughout the country in 
this industry.
  Madam Speaker, this was a jobs bill. This was an American 
manufacturing and production bill. Let's defeat this resolution. Let's 
support the farmers. Let's support the workers. Let's support the 
consumers. Let's defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I ask for support of my colleagues on a 
resolution in support of making a simple correction to the House-passed 
farm bill during the conference with the Senate.
  The 2008 farm bill overreached in limiting the USDA's ability to 
allow sugar imports if there is a shortage in domestic supply. This 
misguided policy has resulted in extreme shortages and now surpluses, 
adding unnecessary volatility to the marketplace and creating 
uncertainty for our manufacturers. Because of these policies, we have 
been losing food manufacturing jobs at the rate of almost 10,000 per 
year. We cannot afford these job losses.
  The district I represent in Illinois is home to a number of food 
manufacturers, including Jelly Belly, TruSweets Confectionery, 
Cornfields, Ford Gum, and Long Grove Confectionery. These companies 
employ hundreds of people and support hundreds of families in the 10th 
District. These are economic drivers of our community.
  In addition to costing our manufacturers and workers, this policy is 
costing taxpayers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Since July, this policy is estimated to have cost more 
than $250 million. Keep in mind that we were told this program would 
operate at zero cost.
  The reform called for by this resolution would make a modest change 
to U.S. sugar policy while still maintaining a safety net for U.S. 
sugar farmers and processors.
  Please join me in supporting this commonsense resolution. Express 
support for this reasonable reform.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), my good friend and the 
clean-up hitter on our side.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my neighbor 
for yielding the time and for his leadership on this very important 
issue that supports the sugar farmers of the Red River Valley of the 
north, and I am very pleased to confirm that there is, in fact, plenty 
of room for all of our colleagues to attend American Crystal Sugar's 
annual meeting; so I appreciate his invitation, as well.
  How many Federal programs only cost money every 10 to 12 years? We 
hear that this program has cost $250 million since July. Yeah, since 
July of 2002. That's all it has cost.
  I want to speak less, perhaps, to the merits of the program because 
they have already been so eloquently illustrated and speak more to an 
issue of unity. At a time when unity is so rare, it is unfortunate that 
some of our colleagues have chosen to attempt to dismantle one of the 
very few, frankly,

[[Page H6526]]

successful achievements of this Congress.
  The committee work on the 2013 farm bill began years ago before many 
of us were even elected to Congress. An anti-sugar amendment was 
thoughtfully debated on this floor, including the provisions in this 
resolution, and the House killed it. At that time, a sense of the House 
was reached and a farm bill was passed.
  The Senate passed the exact same language pertaining to the sugar 
program that is making today's action not only divisive, but a total 
waste of time, as House rules prohibit the conferees from even 
considering its language. This maneuver undermines the very integrity 
of this great institution, and it ignores the unifying achievement of 
this farm bill by dismantling the support system for our sugar farmers 
who are facing a 57 percent collapse in prices as we speak.
  We don't need more division, Madam Speaker. We need accomplishments. 
Let's not impose division where there is unity. Let's vote ``no'' on 
this amendment. Let's allow our conferees to do their jobs, bring back 
a report that a majority of us can vote for and a farm bill that we can 
all vote for, that the Senate can agree to, that the President can 
sign, and demonstrate our functionality once again.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 378.
  The current sugar policy in this country is outdated and this year 
will cost American taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. It is 
time for us to recognize that there is a global supply of sugar that 
American manufacturers need to be able to access, and the world price 
for sugar futures consistently trades lower than domestic futures. If 
it weren't bad enough that our policy causes food prices to be 
artificially high, this year taxpayers will pick up the bill to the 
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars when the USDA purchases the 
excess supply. We will be converting our excess sugar into ethanol to 
support an industry which does not need any more taxpayer help. In 
fact, that is another discussion for another day of bad policy.
  At a time when we are all taking a hard look at every dollar we 
spend, we need to take a hard look at this sugar program. Every Member 
of Congress should ask themselves: Is this the best way we can use 
limited taxpayer dollars?
  Taxpayers are paying for the current sugar program when they write 
their checks to the IRS, and they are paying for it when they write 
their checks to the local grocery store. We need to support this 
resolution, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. KILMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the importance of 
this resolution.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I spent a decade working in economic 
development in Tacoma, Washington; and during that time, it was my job 
to go and meet with employers and find out how to keep jobs and try to 
grow jobs in our area.
  One of the first meetings I had was with a company called Brown and 
Haley, a confectioner that has been producing the legendary and, if I 
might add, delicious Almond Roca since 1923. In discussing the economic 
challenges facing that company, the number one issue that they raised 
was the competitive disadvantage they faced from the high cost of 
sugar.
  We are a northern border State. From where I grew up, on a clear day 
you could see Canada. For a region that is struggling to grow jobs and 
keep jobs, the threat of businesses in my district moving across the 
border isn't a theoretical policy conversation; it is a real threat.
  The current program puts 600,000 American manufacturing jobs at risk 
in all 50 States. Since the 2008 farm bill, the U.S. cost of sugar has 
skyrocketed to almost two times the world price. That price increase is 
passed directly on to our confectioners, who have to make tough 
operating adjustments to sustain their business.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KILMER. Our neighbors realize how expensive U.S. sugar is and how 
high the prices are; and in the case of Brown and Haley in my district, 
those north of the border have already explicitly approached and 
advertised the cheaper sugar prices across the border.
  This current sugar program doesn't just affect large corporations. It 
impacts small family-owned businesses like Brown and Haley in Tacoma, 
Washington, that have been in our communities for generations. So I ask 
for support for this resolution to help American small businesses and 
American manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues this afternoon to support this 
resolution, to further reform a harmful and unnecessary sugar program 
that puts 600,000 American manufacturing jobs at risk.
  Back home in Indiana's Third Congressional District, companies like 
Aunt Millie's, small candy maker Plyleys Candies in Lagrange, Indiana, 
and Edy's Ice Cream in Fort Wayne are forced to pay artificially 
inflated prices, thanks to Washington's top-down control. This kind of 
price-fixing should be a bygone relic of the Soviet era and has no 
place in free-market policies. Today we have an opportunity to make 
commonsense reforms to help protect these jobs.
  I would also like to urge this body to protect the victory for 
limited government when the House split the farm bill and ended the 
unholy alliance between food stamps and agricultural policy. These 
policies are completely different and must be considered separately, 
just like we are doing now in debating sugar policy.
  For the first time in 40 years, we gave taxpayers an honest look at 
how Washington spends their money. We took a commonsense approach and 
considered food stamp policy and traditional ag policy separately.
  Today the House sent to conference a bill that keeps these policies 
separate. We can make sure that, going forward, we keep our commitment 
to transparency and limited government.
  I urge the conference committee to adopt this resolution, protect 
these jobs, and keep food and farm policies separate.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would just reiterate that 
we, in sugar-producing areas, we, who are in the sugar production 
business, would happily give up the sugar program if everybody else in 
the world gave up their sugar programs. That is the problem; and as I 
said in my opening statement, as President Reagan said, when you 
unilaterally disarm, you are asking for trouble.
  We are bringing in 15 percent of our market in imports that we don't 
need to do. We could easily produce that in the United States.
  So I would say to these other countries, you give up all of your 
support for your sugar industry, you bring in 15 percent in Brazil and 
Thailand and these other big sugar-producing areas, and we would be 
happy to compete because we will run them out of business.
  The problem is, that is not the real world. So if you want to 
maintain these jobs and this industry in the country, the way to do it 
is with this current program. That is why it was put in in '08. That is 
why it was supported on both sides, in both the House and the Senate in 
2013. And it works.
  One of the speakers had said that we have these high consumer prices 
in the United States. That is not true. We have the cheapest, most 
affordable, most abundant, and safest food supply in the world in the 
United States, including sugar. And one of the reasons is because of 
the policies we have in place. One of those policies is the sugar 
policy.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this resolution. As it 
was

[[Page H6527]]

stated, it is unnecessary. It is not something that is going to be 
considered by the conference committee anyway. I don't know why we are 
doing it, but it should be defeated in spite of that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, again, this is reform. It is 
not a repeal of the sugar program. It is a very modest reform, simply 
going back to what the Secretary had before 2008 with the ability, the 
flexibility to allow sugar imports, when necessary, to meet domestic 
demand.
  It allows sugar farmers to retain their price supports. It helps save 
American taxpayers and consumers money, about $3.5 billion per year. It 
helps protect hundreds of thousands of good American manufacturing 
jobs. It does not require the import of a single additional pound of 
sugar, and it reduces market manipulation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to 
support this resolution. And with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________