Agriculture and Corn

Posted: March 11, 2016





In the United States, there have been some federal statutes enacted by the Congress. Some of the statues aim at creating favorable conditions for both the farmers, manufacturers and consumers of agricultural corns. Among other things, the Federal Statues aims at lower the prices of agricultural corns to enhance the farmers to obtain them at a fair price. Significantly, this is reflected in the increasing agricultural and corns’ production in the US. Subsec (a) of Pub. L. 85-835 is an agricultural and corn federal statute that was enacted in 1959 ( 1). The Statue had immense benefit to the US in terms of the prices of corn and the farming and production cost. The Congress laid down effective strategy to ensure that the statue was implemented, but this was coupled with several assumptions. To ensure the effectiveness of the Statue, the Congress delegates some authority to the lower ranks and also finds the necessary finance for its implementations.   Though confined in the United Codes, the statue has undergone several amendments and its implementations effects have been experienced in the United States as focused in this paper.

The purpose of the statue

Subsec (a) of Pub. L. 85-835 is an agricultural and corn statute that has a great purpose in the US. The statute looks into the crop prices as per 90 centrum of the mean prices that the farmers were receiving within the three calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the crop marketing commenced ( 1). I this case, the quantity of the corn was adjusted to align with the offset effect such that the corns marketed in such a year should be a minimum of 65 for every centum in parity price regarding any corn crop.

Assumptions made by the Congress

The Congress made assumptions that for the statute to be effective, it had to underscore the notwithstanding of other provisions of the law ( 2). The Congress anticipated that this would help to reduce or eliminate the excess inventories associated with burley tobacco and Flue-cured held by the agriculture and corn associations as from 1976 to 1984 ( 2). Further, the Congress argued that for the sake of efficient disposition of the unwanted tobacco inventories, the statute would not interfere with the marketing order of the new tobacco, the notwithstanding provisions of the law had to be respected. The Congress pointed that this was imperative since it will help in minimizing the losses that may accrue to the Federal government (Hyman 15).

What authority the Congress delegates

The congress delegates some powers and responsibilities to lower ranks such as Agriculture-Environmental Protection Agency, the secretary of agriculture among others. For instance, the Secretary of Agriculture is mandated to ensure that the US flag flow half way during the major agricultural occasions or the death of a key icon in the agricultural sector ( 10). He or she should oversee the proper use of Agriculture controlled facilities that are run by the USDA under delegation programs ( 12).  The Congress also delegates authority to the corporative market associations whereby each producer-owned cooperative can enter into a loan contract with the commodity credit organization to support the availability of prices not only to the producers of burley but also to offer them sales of burley stock as provided in this statute (Pomeranz 22).

What money the Congress appropriate

To implement the statute, the Congress approximate that 160 million US dollars per year will be spent on the statue (Plant Quarantine Act Amendment: Hearings Before 37). However, it is clear that agricultural corporation remains an elusive asset in the agricultural and corn industry such that they will benefit from the government subsidiaries. Furthermore, the farm subsidies have been persistently high, and to reduce the cost of farming corns, the government has offered to subsidize 20 percent of the agricultural inputs to lessen the cost of production and increase the profit realize by the corn farmers (Hyman 57). 

Statue’s legislative history

The Subsec (a) of Pub. L. 85-835 is an agricultural and corn federal statute that was started in the 1820s a time when the US agricultural policies were dominated by policies that were directed at supporting and developing family farms (Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress 81). The cartel also regulated and controlled the agricultural sector in terms of human labor, research, and land. The increasing cost of farming and reduced profit was an issue of concern by the government in 1920.  Following the exploitation of farmers due to reduced market prices, the Congress convened and enacted the statute. In 1959, Subsec (a) of Pub. L. 85-835 became in force as a price support mechanism that availed support to corn prices (Pomeranz 92). The statue focused at eliminating parity in corn prices, and in return brings in fair and reasonable price relations. The statue had two main amendments one in 1973 and the other on 1990. 1973 amendment extended the statute to cover other agricultural products including; milk, sugar, and peanuts (Pomeranz 101). It also sets guidelines under which the statue may or may not be applicable. The appealing of the amendment look into how to the state would eliminate excessive inventories of Burley tobacco and Flue-cured health by the agricultural associations (Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress 72). The statue also looks into the future status of agriculture and corn and possible measure to be taken for its escalation.

Confinement of the statue in the United States Codes

The federal statute in this case is confined to the section that was ordained as part of the food security act of 1985 ( 2). Additionally, the statue has a relationship to loan rates land diversification, acreage limitation and set aside program, disaster payment, and target payment thus its confinement extends to other statutes including; disaster management and finance ( 2). The confinement is effective only for crops and feed grains. However, it should be noted that it is not part of the 1949 agricultural act that is primarily classified under section 1421 of this statute.  


Since its enactment, the statute has undergone several amendments. The first amendment is termed as effective and termination of 1970. The amendment holds the title pub. L. 91-524, title, v, $ 501, Nov. 30. 1970, 84, Stat. 1368 ( 1). The amendment could only be effective if it were in respect to the crops of feed grains of 1971, 1972, and 1973.  The amendment extended to cover various types of crops such as; sugar, cotton, milk. The bill also stipulated under section 105 that it shall not apply to the 1991 via 1995 crops of feed grains (Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the  Congress 45). Additionally, the amendment also shall not compromise the 1982 and 1985 crop of feed grains act. Most importantly, unless otherwise stated, the section 501 of this act shall only be effective for 1977 act but through 1981 of crop feed grains ( 2). 

The second amendment is that of 1990-subsec. (a). pub. L. 101-624 that laid down the introductory provisions. The amendment aimed at harmonizing the price support for the high moisture feed grains (Hyman 54). Apart from this, the amendment was repealed such that it was not to interfere with the liability of any individual, and it was to be in accordance with the earlier statue of liability on tobacco as stated in section 1445 to 1445-2 of this statue (Hyman 67).    

Did the statute achieve its purpose or any negative consequences?

The Subsec statue was an effective approach that availed the price support of crops as from 1959.  The main crops catered by this statue include some of the following; grain sorghums, barley, rye, and oats. In this case, the crops mentioned were to be sold as per the parity prices stipulated by the secretary of agriculture (Pomeranz 87). In fact, the prices were deemed fair since they were in reasonable relation to the price support of the corns. While establishing the prices the secretary of agriculture was obliged to look into the feeding cost of such commodities and their relationship to scorn.  Additionally, other factors set in the section 1421 (b) of this statute were to be taken into account (Pomeranz 99). Therefore, the statute was comprehensive to underscores various factors facing Agriculture and scorns. As a result, there was no opposition geared towards its enactment.            

In conclusion, Subsec (a) of Pub. L. 85-835 as an agricultural and corn federal law plays a significant role in championing the interest of the farmers in terms of affordable resources and protection from exploitative corn prices. Besides, the congress delegates some authority to ensure that the statue is effectively implemented. However, the future significance of the statue is somehow unclear. Thus, further research and amendments need to be done.

Work cited

Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress. Washington: G.P.O, 1873. Print.,. 'TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE'. N.p., 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Hyman, Harold M. 'Reviews Of Books:Unintended Consequences Of Constitutional Amendment David E. Kyvig'. AM HIST REV 107.1 (2002): 178-180. Web.

Plant Quarantine Act Amendment: Hearings Before ..., 69-2 on H.r. 16172, January 17 and 18, 1998. , 1998. Print.

Pomeranz, Jennifer L. Food Law for Public Health. , 2013. Print.,. 'U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250'. N.p., 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.


Ultimate discount!

Check the discount here

Order now
Chat Now