IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 40 

Expressing the sense of Congress that all direct and indirect subsidies that 

benefit the production or export of sugar by all major sugar producing 

and consuming countries should be eliminated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. YOHO (for himself, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

SCHRADER, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. HASTINGS, 

Mr. THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. GIBBS) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and 

in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that all direct and indirect 

subsidies that benefit the production or export of sugar 

by all major sugar producing and consuming countries 

should be eliminated. 

Whereas every major sugar-producing and sugar-consuming 

country in the world maintains some form of direct or indirect subsidy to support its sugar growers, processors, or 

consumers; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 40 IH 

Whereas virtually all of the more than 100 countries that 

produce sugar maintain market distorting subsidy programs, including— 

(1) the Government of Brazil which provides direct 

and indirect subsidies of at least $2,500,000,000 per year 

for programs to promote its sugar and ethanol industry 

and has increased subsidies in recent years in the form 

of preferential loans, debt forgiveness, and increased ethanol usage mandates; 

(2) the Government of India which provides at least 

$1,700,000,000 in subsidy supports to prop up its inefficient sugar industry, including WTO-illegal export subsidies in 2014 and 2015; 

(3) the Government of Thailand which has more 

than tripled its sugar exports since 2004 by providing at 

least $1,300,000,000 in subsidies and government programs to its sugar industry and by maintaining domestic 

prices well above export prices; 

(4) the Government of the European Union which 

will be sending $665,000,000 in subsidy checks a year to 

sugar farmers by 2019; and 

(5) the Government of Mexico which has used direct 

and indirect subsidies to keep open sugar mills owned by 

private industry and the government has sent direct payments to sugarcane growers, and has been found guilty 

of injuring United States sugar producers by dumping 

subsidized sugar into the United States market; 

Whereas the world sugar market is the most volatile commodity market in the world; 

Whereas the foregoing clauses provide ample evidence there 

is no undistorted, free market in sugar in the world 

today; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 40 IH 

Whereas if such a free market did exist, United States sugar 

farmers and processors could compete effectively in that 

market: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) the President should seek elimination of all 

4 direct and indirect subsidies benefiting the produc5 tion or export of sugar by the government of— 

6 (A) each country that exported more than 

7 200,000 metric tons of sugar in 2014, 2015, or 

8 2016; and 

9 (B) by any other country with which the 

10 United States has in effect a free trade agree11 ment; 

12 (2) if the President determines that all such 

13 subsidies by all such countries have been eliminated, 

14 the President should submit a report to Congress 

15 providing detailed information about how each of the 

16 countries has eliminated such subsidies; and 

17 (3) after submitting such a report, the Presi18 dent should propose to Congress legislation to imple19 ment United States sugar policy reforms. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS