PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 11, 2013
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the House managers 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 (Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) 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 authority of the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to manage sugar supplies to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices.
People & committees
Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 192 - 212, 1 Present (Roll no. 545).
House roll call 545 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 192 - 212, 1 Present (Roll no. 545).
House roll call 545 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6556)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 378, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Peterson demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing the resolution until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6520)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 378.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 380. (consideration: CR H6520-6527; text of measure as introduced: CR H6520)
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.378 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.378 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.378 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.378 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.