SB 1693, the FARMER Act of 2025, would amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to increase premium support for certain crop insurance products and to expand and study supplemental coverage options. The bill specifically targets individual farm-based revenue protection and yield protection plans when elected through enterprise units or whole farm units, raising the federal premium support factors for those policies. It also changes the Supplemental Coverage Option by lowering the minimum county-level trigger from 14% to 10% and increasing the subsidy rate from 65% to 80%.
In addition to these immediate policy changes, the bill directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to study whether the Supplemental Coverage Option could be modified to provide coverage in areas larger than 1,400 square miles at a level smaller than county-wide but greater than individual coverage. The Corporation would have to report the study results and recommendations to the agriculture committees of both chambers within one year of enactment. Overall, the bill is aimed at making crop insurance more affordable and more flexible for producers, especially for farms using enterprise or whole-farm risk management structures.
Impact
The bill would amend several provisions of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, primarily section 508 and section 522, by increasing premium subsidy levels and altering the design of supplemental crop insurance coverage. Its effect would be to raise federal support for certain crop insurance plans, potentially reducing producer out-of-pocket premium costs and encouraging broader participation in revenue and yield protection products. It would also require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to conduct and report on a feasibility study that could lead to future changes in how supplemental coverage is structured geographically.
Sentiment
The available context shows the bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators, including members from major agricultural states, and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry without recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials. That suggests generally favorable or at least constructive interest in the measure among agricultural lawmakers. The bill’s framing as a risk management and resilience measure also indicates support for strengthening the crop insurance safety net.
Contention
No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote totals are provided in the available context, so specific points of contention are not documented. Based on the text, the most likely policy debate would concern the cost of higher federal premium subsidies, the extent to which the bill benefits larger or more sophisticated farm operations using enterprise or whole-farm units, and whether expanding supplemental coverage could increase federal exposure. Any disagreement would likely center on subsidy levels, program cost, and how broadly the crop insurance system should be expanded.