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 establish a price floor for agricultural commodities, meaning farm products could not legally be sold below 90 percent of what is called the "parity price." The parity price is a benchmark tied to historical ratios of farm income to farm costs, designed to reflect a fair or balanced price for agricultural goods relative to the costs farmers face. In practical terms, the bill would prevent farmers, buyers, or markets from completing sales at prices that fall too far below this established benchmark. If a market price dropped significantly, transactions at those lower prices would be prohibited under this legislation. The core effect of the bill is to set a minimum price level for farm goods. This kind of mechanism is intended to provide a degree of income stability for agricultural producers by ensuring they receive at least a set percentage of a historically grounded reference price, rather than being subject to prices that might fall to very low levels due to market fluctuations, oversupply, or other economic pressures.
How Each Side Frames It
How the Left Frames It
Left-leaning commentators and lawmakers tend to support price floor legislation like this as a matter of economic justice for farmers, arguing that guaranteeing 90 percent of parity prices protects small and family farmers from being driven out of business by volatile commodity markets and the pricing power of large agribusiness corporations. They frame it as a necessary government intervention to stabilize rural communities and ensure that food producers can earn a living wage for their labor. Progressive voices often connect such policies to broader concerns about corporate consolidation in agriculture and the need for the federal government to counteract market failures that disadvantage individual producers.
How the Right Frames It
Right-leaning commentators and lawmakers typically oppose price floor mandates like this, arguing that setting a minimum price at 90 percent of parity artificially distorts free markets, drives up food costs for consumers, and rewards inefficiency rather than letting market signals guide agricultural production decisions. They contend that such interventions expand government control over private economic activity, create perverse incentives for overproduction or underproduction, and ultimately harm taxpayers and working families who pay more at the grocery store. Fiscal conservatives also argue that price supports of this kind can lead to costly government expenditures and market distortions that disadvantage American agricultural exports in global competition.
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.