A bill to provide that sales of agricultural commodities may not be made at prices which are less than 90 per centum of the parity prices therefor.
Introduced September 15, 1981
Latest action (Sep 15, 1981): Referred to House Committee on Agriculture.
Plain-Language Summary (cached)
This bill would set a price floor for agricultural commodities, meaning farmers could not legally sell their products below 90 percent of what is called the "parity price." The parity price is a benchmark figure calculated by the government that represents what a commodity's price would need to be to give farmers the same purchasing power they had during a specific historical reference period, typically the early 1900s. In practical terms, this creates a minimum selling price for covered farm products. The effect of this rule would be that no sale of an agricultural commodity could take place below that 90 percent threshold. This would apply broadly to sales of farm goods, meaning buyers and sellers in agricultural markets would need to conduct transactions at or above this floor. The bill does not specify exemptions or enforcement mechanisms in its summary, but the core requirement is straightforward: prices must stay at or above the established minimum. This type of price floor policy has historically been used as a tool to support farm income, since agricultural markets can be volatile and prices sometimes fall sharply due to overproduction or other factors. By guaranteeing a minimum price tied to the parity benchmark, the bill aims to ensure farmers receive a certain level of return on their goods. Such policies can also affect supply, demand, and market dynamics, since a mandated minimum price may influence how much of a commodity is produced and purchased.
How Each Side Frames It
How the Left Frames It
Left-leaning commentators and lawmakers who support legislation like this tend to frame it as a necessary protection for small and family farmers against the economic power of large agribusiness corporations and volatile commodity markets. They argue that guaranteeing a floor of 90 percent of parity prices ensures rural communities can sustain livelihoods and food security is protected as a public good rather than left entirely to market forces. Supporters on the left often connect this kind of price support to broader arguments about fair wages and economic dignity, drawing parallels to minimum wage legislation as a baseline protection for working people.
How the Right Frames It
Right-leaning commentators and lawmakers typically oppose legislation like this as a form of government price interference that distorts free markets, artificially inflates food prices for consumers, and rewards inefficiency in agricultural production. They argue that mandatory parity price floors prevent the market from signaling when supply exceeds demand, leading to overproduction, waste, and misallocation of resources that ultimately harms taxpayers and the broader economy. Conservatives also frequently contend that such price controls tend to benefit larger, more politically connected farming operations disproportionately, undermining the small-farmer rationale used to justify the bill while adding regulatory burdens that crowd out competitive agricultural innovation.
AI-synthesized based on each side's publicly stated policy priorities — not quotes from specific outlets.
Who's Backing This Bill
Sponsored by Rep. Hance, Kent R. [D-TX-19]
The dense, legislative-language version of this bill's summary.