HB3283, the Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience Act or “FARMER Act,” would amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to increase federal premium support for certain crop insurance products. The bill targets individual farm-based revenue protection and yield protection plans when producers elect enterprise units or whole farm units, raising the applicable premium support factors for those plans. It also changes the Supplemental Coverage Option by lowering the minimum county-level trigger from 14% to 10%, increasing the associated premium subsidy from 65% to 80%, and adjusting the coverage parameters to expand the option’s usefulness for producers.
In addition to changing subsidy and coverage levels, the bill directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to study whether the Supplemental Coverage Option could be modified for counties larger than 1,400 square miles to provide coverage at a level smaller than county-wide but greater than individual coverage. The Corporation would have to report its findings and recommendations to the House and Senate agriculture committees within one year of enactment. Overall, the bill is designed to make crop insurance more affordable and more flexible, especially for producers using enterprise or whole-farm risk management structures.
Impact
The bill would amend sections 508(c), 508(e), and 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, changing federal crop insurance subsidy formulas and coverage rules administered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Its practical effect would be to increase federal outlays for premium support on certain plans, expand access to Supplemental Coverage Option protection, and require USDA/Farm Service or crop insurance administrators to conduct and report on a feasibility study for more granular coverage in large counties. The affected parties are crop producers, crop insurance providers, and the federal crop insurance program itself.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available context suggests a generally supportive, pro-agriculture policy approach focused on risk management and affordability for farmers. The bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of House members and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, which is consistent with a policy proposal intended to improve crop insurance tools rather than restrict them. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is available in the provided materials.
Contention
No specific contention is documented in the provided transcripts or vote history, but the likely policy debate would center on the cost of higher federal premium subsidies and whether expanding crop insurance support could increase federal spending or distort market incentives. Supporters would likely emphasize improved affordability, broader coverage, and better resilience for producers, while critics might question subsidy levels, administrative complexity, or whether the proposed changes favor certain insurance structures over others. The study provision on smaller-than-county coverage in large counties may also raise questions about feasibility and implementation.