Updated the expenditure-tracking flow to Mermaid and kept the rest of the document intact.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10507: Poultry insurance pilot program

Executive Summary

Section 10507 creates a new poultry insurance pilot program within the Federal Crop Insurance Act. It directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, administered through USDA’s Risk Management Agency, to establish an index-based insurance option for contract poultry growers, including broiler and laying-hen growers, to protect against extreme-weather-related increases in utility costs tied to poultry production.[1]

The section does not itself state a direct appropriation, premium subsidy rate, county list, enrollment cap, or total program size. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate amendment version of Section 10507 would increase budget authority by $155 million and estimated outlays by $136 million over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[2]

In practice, this is a targeted expansion of federally supported agricultural insurance into a cost category that is especially important for contract poultry houses: natural gas, propane, electricity, water, and other utility costs that can spike when extreme weather raises heating, cooling, ventilation, water, or energy needs.[1] The provision is likely most important in major poultry-producing states and counties, because the statute requires the pilot to operate in enough counties to evaluate feasibility, effectiveness, and producer demand in top poultry-producing states.[1]

What Section 10507 Actually Does

Section 10507 amends Section 523 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act by adding a new subsection for a “Poultry Insurance Pilot Program.”[1] The program is aimed at contract poultry growers rather than poultry integrators or processors. It covers poultry growers, including growers of broilers and laying hens, who may elect to receive index-based insurance for extreme-weather-related risk that results in increased utility costs associated with poultry production.[1]

The core statutory design is:

The section requires the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to engage poultry industry stakeholders when establishing the pilot program.[1] That means USDA will need to consult growers, insurers, poultry-sector representatives, and other relevant participants before converting the statutory authorization into an insurance product.

The program must be conducted in enough counties to allow a comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, effectiveness, and demand among producers in the top poultry-producing states, as determined by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.[1] This does not guarantee national availability at launch. It authorizes a geographically targeted pilot designed to test whether the product works and whether growers will use it.

The section also directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board to approve a policy or plan of insurance based on the pilot not later than two years after enactment, using the process in Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act.[1] Because Public Law 119-21 was enacted on July 4, 2025, the two-year approval deadline points to July 4, 2027, unless implementation is affected by later law or administrative action.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10507 uses an amendment-to-existing-law mechanism. It does not create a free-standing poultry assistance program outside the crop insurance system. Instead, it inserts a new subsection into 7 U.S.C. 1523, the Federal Crop Insurance Act’s pilot-program authority.[1]

This matters because the program will likely operate through the federal crop insurance infrastructure rather than through an ad hoc disaster-payment model. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA’s Risk Management Agency, approved insurance providers, actuarial materials, underwriting rules, premium calculations, loss procedures, and crop-insurance data systems are likely to be the operational backbone.

The section also makes two important procedural choices.

First, it says the pilot applies “notwithstanding subsection (a)(2).”[1] That signals Congress wanted this poultry pilot to proceed even if ordinary limits or requirements in Section 523(a)(2) would otherwise interfere.

Second, it requires approval of a policy or plan under Section 508(h), which is the Federal Crop Insurance Act pathway for developing and approving new crop insurance policies or plans.[1] That means implementation will require product design, data selection, actuarial review, policy terms, coverage triggers, and Board approval before growers can actually buy or elect the coverage.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10507 creates a federally supported insurance product rather than a conventional grant program. Public tracking is therefore likely to be clearer at the broad crop-insurance-program level than at the individual statutory-section level.

The most likely tracking sources are CBO cost estimates, USDA Risk Management Agency crop insurance program data, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation financial reporting, Treasury account reporting, OMB budget materials, and oversight by USDA’s Inspector General, GAO, and congressional agriculture committees.

flowchart TD
    A[Statutory pilot authority] --> B[Federal Crop Insurance Corporation]
    B --> C[USDA Risk Management Agency]
    C --> D[Stakeholder engagement]
    D --> E[Policy design]
    E --> F[Board approval]
    F --> G[Approved insurance providers]
    G --> H[Contract poultry growers]
    H --> I[Coverage election]
    I --> J[Premium subsidy administration]
    I --> K[Indemnity administration]
    J --> L[USDA budget execution]
    K --> L
    L --> M[Treasury reporting]
    L --> N[OMB budget materials]
    L --> O[USDA RMA program data]
    L --> P[FCIC financial reporting]
    O --> Q[Public visibility]
    P --> Q
    M --> Q
    N --> Q
    Q --> R[Likely aggregated or delayed]
    L --> S[Oversight]
    S --> T[CBO estimates]
    S --> U[USDA Inspector General]
    S --> V[GAO reviews]
    S --> W[Congressional oversight]

The key limitation is that Section 10507 does not create a separate public reporting dashboard, annual report, or dedicated account named in the section itself. As a result, the section’s costs may be hard to isolate in routine public spending datasets unless USDA or CBO publishes line-item information. CBO did provide a section-specific score for the Senate amendment version, estimating $155 million in budget authority and $136 million in outlays over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[2]

Because this is insurance, not a grant, public-facing spending may appear as part of broader crop insurance premium subsidy, delivery, underwriting, indemnity, or FCIC account activity. Payments to producers may not be visible in the same way as grants on USAspending.gov, and producer-level insurance information may be protected or aggregated.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA, the main process change is the creation of a new insurance product development track. USDA’s Risk Management Agency and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will need to design an index-based product that translates extreme-weather-related utility-cost risk into measurable triggers. That likely requires decisions about what index to use, what weather events qualify, how to measure utility-cost changes, how to define eligible poultry production facilities, and how to avoid moral hazard or duplicative coverage.

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Board, the section creates a deadline-driven approval responsibility. The Board must approve a policy or plan based on the pilot within two years of enactment and must do so through the Section 508(h) process.[1]

For approved insurance providers and agents, the change could create a new product line for contract poultry growers. They may need new training, underwriting materials, sales tools, data systems, and claims procedures specific to poultry-house utility costs.

For growers, the day-to-day impact is likely to be administrative rather than immediate at first. Growers in pilot counties would need to review coverage terms, assess premium costs, document eligible production operations, and decide whether the index trigger matches their actual exposure to electricity, propane, natural gas, water, and other utility-cost spikes.

Effects on Consumers

The direct consumer effect is likely limited. Section 10507 does not regulate retail poultry prices, grocery stores, processors, or household utility bills. It also does not directly subsidize consumers.

However, the indirect consumer effect could matter if the pilot improves the financial stability of contract poultry growers during extreme weather. Poultry production depends on climate-controlled housing, ventilation, heating, cooling, water systems, and reliable electricity. If extreme weather causes utility costs to spike, growers may face financial stress even when their production contracts limit their ability to pass those costs along.

If the pilot works, it could modestly reduce the risk that weather-driven utility shocks disrupt poultry production in covered areas. That could support supply continuity for chicken and eggs, although the effect on retail prices would likely be indirect, localized, and hard to separate from feed costs, disease outbreaks, processor pricing, labor costs, energy markets, and broader food inflation.

Effects on Businesses

The most direct business beneficiaries are contract poultry growers in eligible pilot counties. These growers often operate poultry houses under contracts with larger integrators and may bear significant facility, energy, heating, cooling, and water-management costs. Section 10507 gives them a potential new risk-management tool for utility-cost spikes tied to extreme weather.[1]

Approved insurance providers may also benefit from a new federally supported product line. Insurance companies and agents participating in the federal crop insurance system may have new sales, servicing, compliance, and claims-administration work.

Poultry integrators could experience indirect benefits if growers are better able to absorb extreme-weather-related utility shocks and keep poultry houses operating. But the statute is written for contract poultry growers, not as a direct payment or insurance benefit for integrators.[1]

The main business risks are design risk and accessibility risk. If the index does not match real-world utility-cost exposure, growers may pay premiums but receive little protection when costs rise. If the pilot is offered only in selected counties, similarly situated growers outside pilot areas may receive no benefit. If paperwork, premiums, or eligibility terms are too burdensome, uptake may be weak even in poultry-heavy regions.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10507 is climate-adaptation policy more than climate-mitigation policy. It responds to the financial consequences of extreme weather by helping growers insure against utility-cost increases, but it does not require lower emissions, renewable energy adoption, energy-efficiency upgrades, or changes in poultry-house design.

The environmental upside is that the pilot may help growers manage extreme heat, cold, storms, water stress, and energy volatility without being pushed into financial crisis. That can be especially relevant for animal welfare because poultry houses require reliable heating, cooling, ventilation, and water systems.

The environmental downside is that the program may soften the financial signal created by rising energy and water costs without requiring investments that reduce energy demand or climate vulnerability. For example, a grower may receive insurance protection for higher utility costs without also installing more efficient ventilation, insulation, backup power, solar, geothermal, or water-conservation systems.

The net climate impact is therefore mixed. The section could improve resilience for existing poultry operations, but it does not directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions or require climate-smart infrastructure.

Impact Summary

Section 10507 is a narrow but meaningful expansion of the federal agricultural insurance system. It recognizes that contract poultry growers face a specific risk: extreme weather can sharply increase the cost of electricity, natural gas, propane, water, and related utilities needed to keep poultry houses operating.[1]

The section’s strength is that it targets a real operational vulnerability in poultry production and requires a pilot in top poultry-producing states. Its weakness is that it leaves many important details to USDA and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, including the index design, county selection, premium structure, data sources, and practical fit for growers.

The policy is likely to help some poultry growers manage weather-related cost volatility. It is unlikely to have a clear or immediate consumer-price effect. Its public expenditure trail may be difficult to isolate unless USDA and CBO continue publishing section-specific data. Based on CBO’s Senate amendment estimate, the provision is relatively small compared with the broader farm safety net, but still financially meaningful at an estimated $155 million in budget authority and $136 million in outlays over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[2]

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “Section 10507. Poultry insurance pilot program,” GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Summary Table and Title I spreadsheet, June 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/61534-hr0001-Sen-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx.

[3] Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, “7 U.S.C. 1523: Pilot programs,” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title7-section1523.

[4] Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Section-by-Section Summary,” https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_anf_section_by_section_final.pdf.

[5] Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation, “Reviewing the Agricultural Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” https://www.calt.iastate.edu/post/reviewing-agricultural-provisions-one-big-beautiful-bill-act.

[6] American Farm Bureau Federation, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Final Agricultural Provisions,” https://www.fb.org/market-intel/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-final-agricultural-provisions.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10507: Poultry insurance pilot program is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10506: Reviews, compliance, and integrity

Executive Summary

Section 10506 increases the annual funding cap for a specific Federal Crop Insurance Corporation review, compliance, and integrity authority from $7 million to $10 million beginning in fiscal year 2026 and for each fiscal year thereafter.[1] The section does not create a new crop insurance product, change producer premium subsidy rates, or directly alter indemnity eligibility. Instead, it strengthens the administrative and oversight side of the federal crop insurance system by allowing more insurance-fund money to be used for policy review, actuarial review, program integrity, and financial integrity work.[2]

The practical effect is modest but important. USDA’s Risk Management Agency and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation can support more review activity, actuarial scrutiny, data analysis, and compliance infrastructure connected to crop insurance policy materials and program soundness.[3] The direct federal financial change is an additional $3 million per fiscal year in authorized use of the insurance fund above the prior $7 million cap, beginning in fiscal year 2026.[4]

This section primarily affects USDA, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Risk Management Agency, approved insurance providers, policy developers, and taxpayers. Producers and consumers are affected indirectly through the reliability, actuarial soundness, and integrity of the crop insurance system.

What Section 10506 Actually Does

Section 10506 amends Section 516(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)(C)(i).[5] Before this amendment, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation could use the insurance fund for review, compliance, and integrity costs, but only up to $7 million for each fiscal year. Section 10506 preserves the $7 million cap for fiscal years 2014 through 2025 and raises the cap to $10 million for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter.[6]

The money may be used for costs to reimburse expenses incurred for operations and review of policies, plans of insurance, and related materials, including actuarial and related information. It may also be used to help the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation maintain actuarial soundness and financial integrity.[7]

This is not a direct payment to farmers. It is not a new grant program. It is not a premium subsidy increase. It is an internal crop insurance oversight and review funding adjustment inside the larger federal crop insurance framework.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10506 uses a narrow textual amendment. It does not rewrite the overall crop insurance compliance regime. It changes the timing and amount language in 7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)(C)(i) by replacing the prior phrase “for each fiscal year” with language that distinguishes fiscal years 2014 through 2025 from fiscal year 2026 and later years.[8]

The amended statutory structure matters because Section 516 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to use the insurance fund for specified expenses. The relevant subsection allows the Corporation to use the fund for review, compliance, and integrity work up to the statutory cap.[9] The statute also allows the Secretary of Agriculture, for these purposes, to merge some or all of these funds into Risk Management Agency accounts and obligate them without further appropriation.[10]

In plain terms, Congress is not setting up a new public-facing benefit. It is increasing the amount of crop insurance program money that USDA may use for oversight, actuarial review, and integrity work.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

The relevant financial pathway is likely to run through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation insurance fund and Risk Management Agency budget execution. The amended authority is tied to the insurance fund established under 7 U.S.C. 1516(c), which receives premium income, amounts made available under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, and certain civil fines.[11] If the insurance fund is insufficient, the statute allows use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds to carry out the relevant FCIC expenses, to the extent CCC funds are available.[12]

Public tracking is likely to be partial and aggregated. The $10 million cap is section-specific in law, but public financial reporting may not isolate every dollar spent under Section 10506 as a separate line item. Spending may appear in RMA or FCIC budget execution, USDA financial statements, OMB apportionment materials, Treasury account data, or agency audit materials rather than as a clean, dedicated public award record.[13]

USDA financial statements describe RMA as operating and managing FCIC, receiving mandatory funding for FCIC under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, and receiving mandatory apportionment based on the program’s “such sums as may be necessary” authority.[14] RMA’s own compliance work includes reviews, evaluations, audits, operational reviews of approved insurance providers, oversight of data-mining processes, and fraud referrals to the Office of Inspector General when required.[15]

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10506 authority] --> B[FCIC insurance fund]
    B --> C[RMA accounts]
    C --> D[Policy review]
    C --> E[Actuarial review]
    C --> F[Compliance work]
    C --> G[Integrity analysis]
    D --> H[USDA budget execution]
    E --> H
    F --> H
    G --> H
    H --> I[OMB apportionment]
    H --> J[Treasury reporting]
    H --> K[USDA financial statements]
    F --> L[OIG and GAO oversight]
    K --> M[Public visibility aggregated]
    J --> M
    L --> M

The likely reporting protocol is:

The clearest public evidence may be annual RMA budget justifications, FCIC and RMA financial statements, improper payment materials, and oversight reports. It may be difficult for the public to isolate Section 10506 spending from broader RMA compliance, actuarial, product-review, and program integrity expenses.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA, this section gives RMA and FCIC more budgetary room for review and integrity work. Day to day, that may mean more capacity to examine policy materials, review actuarial assumptions, support product oversight, evaluate financial integrity risks, and respond to program vulnerabilities.

For RMA compliance staff, the change aligns with existing workstreams. RMA compliance already conducts reviews, evaluations, audits, operational reviews of approved insurance providers, data-mining oversight, and fraud referrals.[16] A higher cap can support more of that work, although the statute does not prescribe exactly how USDA must allocate the additional $3 million per fiscal year.

For approved insurance providers, the practical effect may be more documentation requests, more operational reviews, more scrutiny of policy servicing, or more engagement with RMA on compliance issues. RMA’s improper payment review process already involves statistically valid samples of policies and requires approved insurance providers to submit documentation through the Compliance Activities Results System.[17]

For policy developers and submitters, the section may support deeper review of policy proposals, plans of insurance, actuarial materials, and related documentation. That could slow some review steps if scrutiny increases, but it could also reduce long-term program risk by catching weaknesses earlier.

Effects on Consumers

The section has no direct household consumer benefit and does not change food prices by itself. Consumers do not receive payments, credits, insurance policies, rebates, or direct assistance under this section.

The indirect consumer interest is taxpayer protection and food-system stability. A more reliable crop insurance system can help stabilize farm operations after weather and market shocks, which can support rural economies and agricultural continuity. RMA describes federal crop insurance as a financial safety net for farmers and ranchers and as a tool that supports rural jobs and economic growth.[18]

The consumer downside is that this section authorizes more federal spending for administrative and integrity activity, up to $3 million more per fiscal year than the prior cap. That is small relative to the overall federal crop insurance program, but it is still a continuing federal cost.

Effects on Businesses

The most directly affected businesses are approved insurance providers, crop insurance agents, reinsurers, and private entities involved in developing crop insurance products. Section 10506 may increase the review and oversight infrastructure around their work.

For approved insurance providers, the effect could include:

The section could benefit responsible businesses by reducing fraud, abuse, actuarial weakness, and uneven enforcement. It could also increase compliance friction for businesses if RMA uses the added capacity for more reviews or data requests.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10506 has no direct environmental program, conservation requirement, emissions provision, land-use mandate, or climate funding stream. It does not pay for conservation practices, renewable energy, disaster mitigation, or climate adaptation projects.

Its environmental and climate relevance is indirect. Crop insurance is heavily exposed to weather, drought, flood, heat, disease, and other climate-related production risks. RMA’s financial statements identify weather, climate information, widespread natural disasters, and actuarial soundness as part of the risk environment for the federal crop insurance program.[19] By increasing support for actuarial review and program integrity, Section 10506 may help USDA better evaluate whether crop insurance policies and pricing remain financially sound under changing production conditions.

However, stronger review capacity does not necessarily mean stronger climate adaptation. The section does not require USDA to incorporate climate projections, reward lower-risk land management, restrict coverage on environmentally sensitive land, or change premium treatment for climate-exposed production. The environmental impact is therefore best understood as indirect, administrative, and dependent on how RMA uses the added review capacity.

Impact Summary

Section 10506 is a small but consequential crop insurance oversight provision. Its core change is a $3 million annual increase in the cap on FCIC insurance-fund use for reviews, compliance, and integrity beginning in fiscal year 2026. The section is about administrative capacity, not producer benefit levels.

Its strongest public-interest argument is that a large, complex crop insurance system needs adequate review, actuarial, compliance, and integrity resources. Its main limitation is transparency: the additional funding authority may be difficult for the public to track separately because it can be merged into broader RMA accounts and reported through aggregated budget and financial systems.

The section is likely to matter most to USDA, RMA, FCIC, approved insurance providers, product developers, and oversight bodies. Farmers, ranchers, consumers, and taxpayers are affected indirectly through the integrity and reliability of the federal crop insurance system.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 Enrolled Bill Text, Section 10506. Reviews, compliance, and integrity,” primary text increasing the cap to $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and thereafter, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[2] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516 — Funding,” current codified language describing review, compliance, actuarial, and financial integrity purposes, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[3] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” discussion of RMA compliance, reviews, evaluations, audits, data mining, and fraud referrals, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

[4] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 Enrolled Bill Text, Section 10506. Reviews, compliance, and integrity,” statutory change from the prior $7,000,000 cap to $10,000,000 beginning in fiscal year 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[5] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 Enrolled Bill Text, Section 10506. Reviews, compliance, and integrity,” identifying the amendment to Section 516(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[6] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516 — Funding,” codified cap for fiscal years 2014 through 2025 and fiscal year 2026 and thereafter, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[7] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)(C)(i),” purposes for operations and review of policies, plans, actuarial information, actuarial soundness, and financial integrity, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[8] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 Enrolled Bill Text, Section 10506. Reviews, compliance, and integrity,” amendment language replacing the prior timing phrase, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[9] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2),” FCIC authority to use the insurance fund for policy consideration, implementation, reviews, compliance, and integrity costs, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[10] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516(b)(2)(C)(ii),” authority for the Secretary to merge funds into RMA accounts and obligate them without further appropriation, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[11] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516(c),” insurance fund structure and deposits, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[12] Legal Information Institute, “7 U.S.C. 1516(c)(2),” Commodity Credit Corporation backup funding authority for FCIC expenses, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1516.

[13] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” financial reporting and budgetary resources for FCIC and RMA, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

[14] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” reporting entity and mandatory funding discussion, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

[15] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” compliance function description, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

[16] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” RMA compliance activities and operational reviews of approved insurance providers, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

[17] USDA Risk Management Agency, “COM-25-001: Risk Management Agency Improper Payment Reviews,” April 4, 2025, describing annual improper payment review, statistically valid sample, approved insurance provider documentation, and CARS submission process, https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/informational-memorandum/com-25-001-risk-management-agency.

[18] USDA, “FY 2027 Risk Management Agency Explanatory Notes,” purpose statement describing crop insurance as a safety net supporting agricultural producers, rural communities, jobs, and economic growth, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2027-Chapter-27-RMA.pdf.

[19] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” discussion of weather, climate information, natural disasters, actuarial data, and program risk management, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10506: Reviews, compliance, and integrity is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10505: Program compliance and integrity

Executive Summary

Section 10505 is a narrow crop-insurance oversight funding provision. It amends Section 515(l)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, which funds data mining and related information-technology tools used to administer and enforce the Federal crop insurance program.1

The section raises the statutory annual cap for data-mining funding from $4 million per fiscal year for fiscal years 2009 through 2025 to $6 million for fiscal year 2026 and each later fiscal year.2 The practical effect is an additional $2 million per year in available Federal Crop Insurance Corporation funding authority for program-integrity analytics, fraud detection, improper-payment review support, and compliance targeting.

This section does not directly change producer eligibility, crop insurance premium subsidy rates, indemnity formulas, approved insurance provider reimbursement formulas, or consumer food prices. Its impact is administrative: USDA’s Risk Management Agency and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation receive more room under the statutory cap to use crop-insurance insurance-fund resources for data mining and compliance analytics.

What Section 10505 Actually Does

Section 10505 changes only one funding limit in the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Before the amendment, Section 515(l)(2) allowed the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to use up to $4 million per year from the crop insurance insurance fund for data mining. After the amendment, the law preserves the $4 million cap for fiscal years 2009 through 2025 and sets a new $6 million cap for fiscal year 2026 and every subsequent fiscal year.3

Over the standard fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2034 budget window, the increase equals up to $18 million in additional available authority if the full annual increase is used each year. That figure is a mechanical comparison between the old $4 million cap and the new $6 million cap; it is not a separate appropriation line and may not appear in public budget materials as a stand-alone Section 10505 account.4

The underlying statute says the purpose of Section 515 is to improve compliance with, and the integrity of, the Federal crop insurance program. It also directs the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to work with approved insurance providers on compliance and integrity issues as they arise.[5] Section 515 separately directs USDA to use data mining, data warehousing, and other information technologies to administer and enforce the crop insurance program.[6]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10505 is a text-substitution amendment. It does not create a new program. It amends Section 515(l)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1515(l)(2), by replacing the old single cap with a two-period structure:

• $4 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2025; and
• $6 million for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year.[7]

The administering entity is the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, operating through USDA’s Risk Management Agency. The funding source is the insurance fund established under 7 U.S.C. 1516(c), because Section 515(l)(2) authorizes FCIC to use amounts made available from that fund for data mining.[8]

The policy mechanism is therefore not a new entitlement to producers or insurers. It is an increase in the ceiling on how much FCIC may use for a specific administrative enforcement purpose.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10505 involves federal financial flows because it increases the annual amount that FCIC may use from the crop insurance insurance fund for data mining and program-integrity enforcement. Public tracking is likely to be partially visible but not cleanly isolable as “Section 10505 spending.”

The most likely tracking sources are USDA Risk Management Agency budget execution records, FCIC financial statements, Treasury account reporting, USDA improper-payment materials, OMB payment-integrity reporting, and congressional oversight. RMA’s compliance materials show that the agency conducts improper-payment reviews using statistically valid samples and requires approved insurance providers to submit documentation through the Compliance Activities Results System.[9] RMA’s fiscal year 2025 financial statement materials also describe the crop insurance program as a public-private partnership and identify program integrity and taxpayer-fund safeguarding as core RMA responsibilities.[10]

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10505 authority] --> B[FCIC insurance fund]
    B --> C[RMA compliance work]
    C --> D[Data mining]
    C --> E[Improper payment reviews]
    C --> F[AIP documentation]
    D --> G[Compliance actions]
    E --> G
    F --> G
    G --> H[Agency budget records]
    G --> I[Treasury reporting]
    G --> J[OMB payment integrity]
    G --> K[USDA OIG and GAO oversight]
    H --> L[Public visibility limited]
    I --> L
    J --> L
    K --> L

The reporting protocol is likely to work this way: RMA and FCIC execute funds internally; approved insurance providers submit policy and claim documentation when selected for review; RMA compiles improper-payment and compliance results; USDA and OMB use those results in payment-integrity and financial reporting; and USDA OIG, GAO, and Congress may review the program through audits, financial statements, hearings, or oversight letters.

Public visibility is likely to be aggregated. The $6 million cap is specific in statute, but actual spending may be embedded in broader RMA or FCIC administrative, compliance, information-technology, or insurance-fund reporting. USAspending.gov may show some related contracts if RMA uses outside vendors for data or technology services, but section-specific outlays may be difficult to isolate unless USDA, CBO, OMB, or congressional materials break them out.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA, the day-to-day change is more budget room for compliance analytics. RMA can support more or better data-mining work without hitting the previous $4 million annual ceiling as quickly. This may affect how RMA prioritizes anomaly detection, policy sampling, acreage and production cross-checks, improper-payment estimation, and investigations of suspected waste, fraud, or abuse.

For approved insurance providers, the section may lead to more data requests, more targeted reviews, and more documentation submissions when RMA identifies policies for compliance review. RMA’s 2026 improper-payment review memorandum shows that AIPs can be required to provide policyholder and provider documentation through CARS for selected policies.[11]

For producers, the provision may not change ordinary enrollment or claim-filing steps. However, producers whose policies are flagged through data mining, random sampling, or targeted compliance review may face more documentation review, follow-up questions, or verification of acreage, production history, claim information, or eligibility.

For Congress and oversight bodies, the provision modestly increases the resources available for detecting improper payments in a program with very large insured value. RMA reported more than $198 billion in total insurance in force on more than 563 million acres for crop year 2025.[12] Against that scale, a $2 million annual increase is small, but it is targeted at oversight and integrity rather than benefit expansion.

Effects on Consumers

Section 10505 has no direct consumer benefit, price support, nutrition benefit, or retail food-price mechanism. Consumers do not receive payments, tax credits, subsidies, or new rights under this section.

The indirect consumer effect is institutional. If stronger data mining reduces improper payments or deters fraud, federal crop insurance may operate with better stewardship of taxpayer funds. That could marginally improve public confidence in the farm safety net. However, the provision is too narrow to expect measurable changes in grocery prices, food availability, or consumer choice.

Effects on Businesses

The most affected businesses are approved insurance providers, crop insurance agents, loss adjusters, data contractors, and agricultural producers that buy federally supported crop insurance.

Approved insurance providers may experience additional compliance workload if RMA uses the higher cap to expand data-mining-driven reviews. This could mean more requests for documentation, more policy file checks, and more interaction with RMA compliance offices. Agents and loss adjusters may also face greater scrutiny of training, records, and claim handling because the underlying statute ties program integrity to the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse and to continuing education for agents and adjusters.[13]

Technology and analytics vendors could see limited opportunities if USDA contracts for private-sector expertise or technological resources. The underlying statute authorizes USDA to use private-sector expertise and technological resources for these information-technology functions, subject to periodic competition as determined by the Secretary.[14]

For producers, the business impact is mixed but limited. Honest producers may benefit if better compliance reduces abusive claims and protects the long-term credibility of subsidized crop insurance. Producers subject to review may face higher recordkeeping burdens, especially if their acreage, production, or claim patterns trigger data-mining flags.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10505 has no direct environmental or climate mandate. It does not change conservation compliance, crop insurance premium subsidies for conservation practices, climate-smart agriculture programs, disaster eligibility, acreage use, irrigation rules, pesticide rules, or greenhouse-gas reporting.

The indirect environmental impact is likely minimal. Stronger data mining could theoretically improve enforcement of eligibility and reporting rules that intersect with acreage, cropping practices, or conservation-related compliance, but Section 10505 does not itself create a new environmental standard. Any environmental effect would depend on how RMA uses compliance analytics in practice.

Impact Summary

Section 10505 is best understood as a small but meaningful administrative integrity increase inside the federal crop insurance system. It raises the annual data-mining cap from $4 million to $6 million beginning in fiscal year 2026, giving RMA and FCIC additional room to fund analytics and enforcement tools.

The provision does not expand crop insurance coverage, increase premium subsidies, or alter producer payment formulas. Its main effect is to strengthen the government’s capacity to identify improper payments, fraud risks, inconsistent data, and compliance problems in a large public-private crop insurance program.

The main implementation concern is transparency. The statutory cap is clear, but actual Section 10505 spending may be hard for the public to isolate because the money flows through FCIC insurance-fund and RMA compliance structures rather than through a new stand-alone grant, contract, or benefit account.

Key References and Sourcing

1 7 U.S.C. 1515, “Program compliance and integrity,” purpose and data-mining provisions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

2 Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10505. Program compliance and integrity,” statutory amendment to 7 U.S.C. 1515(l)(2), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm. (GovInfo)

3 7 U.S.C. 1515(l)(2), amended data-mining funding cap, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

4 Calculation by comparison of the prior $4 million annual cap and the amended $6 million annual cap for fiscal years 2026 through 2034; statutory cap from Public Law 119-21 and 7 U.S.C. 1515(l)(2), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[5] 7 U.S.C. 1515(a), “Purpose,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

[6] 7 U.S.C. 1515(j)(2), “Use of available information technologies,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

[7] Public Law 119-21, Section 10505 text, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm. (GovInfo)

[8] 7 U.S.C. 1515(l)(2), funding from the insurance fund established under 7 U.S.C. 1516(c), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

[9] USDA Risk Management Agency, “COM-26-005: Risk Management Agency Improper Payment Reviews,” April 22, 2026, https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/informational-memorandum/com-26-005-risk-management-agency. (Risk Management Agency)

[10] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” January 2026, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf. (U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG)

[11] USDA Risk Management Agency, “COM-26-005: Risk Management Agency Improper Payment Reviews,” AIP documentation and CARS submission process, https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/informational-memorandum/com-26-005-risk-management-agency. (Risk Management Agency)

[12] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025,” crop year 2025 insurance in force and acreage figures, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2026-01/05403-0002-11%20FR%20508%20-%20signed_0.pdf. (U.S. Department of Agriculture OIG)

[13] 7 U.S.C. 1515(k), continuing education for loss adjusters and agents, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

[14] 7 U.S.C. 1515(j)(3), private-sector expertise and technological resources, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1515. (Legal Information Institute)

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10505: Program compliance and integrity is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10504: Premium support

Executive Summary

Section 10504 increases federal premium support for several levels of buy-up crop insurance coverage under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. It does not create a new crop insurance product, a new grant program, or a direct farmer payment. Instead, it raises the percentage of eligible crop insurance premiums subsidized by the federal government for specified coverage levels.[1]

The practical effect is to reduce the producer-paid share of premiums for many individual crop insurance policies. USDA’s Risk Management Agency has implemented the change for policies with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2025, and published updated premium subsidy rates for Common Crop Insurance Policy coverage levels.[2]

The section affects federal spending because higher premium support increases federal crop insurance subsidy costs. CBO-related farm policy analysis reports that the premium subsidy increase enacted in the reconciliation law was projected to add just over $3.1 billion in federal costs over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3]

What Section 10504 Actually Does

Section 10504 amends Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, which governs federal premium support for crop insurance policies.[1] The section changes five statutory subsidy percentages:

USDA RMA’s implementation bulletin translates the statutory changes into updated premium subsidy rates for Common Crop Insurance Policy coverage and unit elections.[2]

The section contains no explicit dollar appropriation in its own text. Its fiscal effect occurs because FCIC and RMA pay a larger federal share of qualifying crop insurance premiums through the existing federal crop insurance delivery system.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10504 uses a direct amendment to an existing statutory formula. It does not instruct USDA to design a new rule from scratch. Instead, it changes the percentages embedded in Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act.[1]

That mechanism matters because crop insurance premium support is formula-driven. Once the statutory percentage changes, RMA, FCIC, and Approved Insurance Providers must apply the revised subsidy rates through existing policy issuance, premium billing, acreage reporting, and settlement systems.

The implementation pathway is:

Statutory percentage increase
|
v
USDA RMA updates policy and actuarial materials
|
v
Approved Insurance Providers apply revised subsidy rates
|
v
Producer-paid premium share decreases
|
v
Federal premium subsidy share increases
|
v
FCIC budget execution and crop insurance accounting reflect higher federal cost

The change is therefore administrative but financially significant. Farmers see the change as a lower premium bill for affected coverage. The federal government sees the change as higher subsidy exposure inside an already large mandatory crop insurance program.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10504 involves federal financial flows because it increases premium subsidies paid through the Federal Crop Insurance Program. The relevant administering entities are USDA RMA and FCIC. The spending is not likely to appear as a stand-alone “Section 10504” public line item in ordinary public spending portals because it is embedded in crop insurance premium subsidy payments and program accounting.[2]

Likely tracking sources include:

Reporting will be partly visible but not perfectly isolateable. RMA’s Summary of Business can show federal premium subsidy data by crop year, crop, state, county, plan, coverage level, and other dimensions, but the public may need custom analysis to separate Section 10504’s incremental subsidy effect from weather, crop mix, acreage, prices, farmer enrollment decisions, and other crop insurance changes.[4]

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10504] --> B[Higher subsidy rates]
    B --> C[USDA RMA guidance]
    C --> D[Approved insurers]
    D --> E[Policies and premium bills]
    E --> F[Lower farmer premium share]
    E --> G[Higher federal subsidy share]
    G --> H[FCIC budget execution]
    H --> I[RMA Summary of Business]
    H --> J[FCIC financial statements]
    H --> K[CBO estimates]
    H --> L[OMB and Treasury reporting]
    I --> M[Public visibility partial]
    J --> M
    K --> M
    L --> N[Public visibility aggregated]

The main public tracking limitation is that Section 10504 changes a formula inside a broader premium subsidy system. Public datasets can show total subsidies after implementation, but isolating the exact marginal effect of this section requires baseline comparison, modeling assumptions, and separation from other OBBBA crop insurance changes.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA RMA, Section 10504 requires policy documents, actuarial materials, rate tables, filing systems, and guidance to reflect the new subsidy percentages. RMA’s August 20, 2025 bulletin states that it is implementing Section 10504 along with several other OBBBA crop insurance changes and that the changes apply to policies with sales closing dates on or after July 1, 2025.[2]

For Approved Insurance Providers, the change affects policy servicing and producer communications. Insurers must apply revised premium support levels when calculating the producer-paid and federally subsidized portions of the premium. RMA directed Approved Insurance Providers to distribute the relevant amendment to affected insureds within the required implementation window.[2]

For producers, the daily process is simpler: crop insurance agents and insurers should quote and bill affected policies using the revised subsidy structure. Producers may see lower out-of-pocket premiums at the same coverage level, or they may use the lower net price to choose different coverage or unit structures.

For oversight staff, the day-to-day issue is attribution. Total premium subsidy spending may rise, but oversight bodies must determine how much of the increase reflects the statutory subsidy percentage change, how much reflects producer behavior, and how much reflects commodity prices, liability, acres insured, and weather risk.

Effects on Consumers

Section 10504 does not directly change grocery prices, SNAP benefits, consumer eligibility rules, or retail food regulation. Its consumer effect is indirect.

The strongest consumer-facing argument for the provision is farm risk stabilization. By lowering producer-paid premiums for affected coverage levels, the section may help more producers maintain crop insurance or choose more robust coverage, which can reduce farm financial shocks after drought, flood, disease, freeze, hail, wind, price decline, or revenue loss.[5]

The consumer downside is fiscal and distributive. Higher federal subsidy rates increase taxpayer exposure. Because crop insurance subsidies are tied to insured premiums and liabilities, larger farms or higher-premium policies can receive larger dollar subsidies even when the percentage subsidy is the same. Farmdoc analysis notes that a percentage subsidy means the dollar subsidy rises with the premium amount.[3]

Consumers should not expect an immediate retail food price decrease from this section. Crop insurance affects farm risk management more directly than supermarket prices.

Effects on Businesses

The most direct business beneficiaries are farm and ranch businesses that buy eligible crop insurance coverage. The provision lowers the federally subsidized share of the producer’s premium for affected coverage levels, improving cash flow at purchase or billing time.

Approved Insurance Providers and crop insurance agents may also be affected. Lower net premiums can make policies easier to sell or renew, potentially supporting participation in the federal crop insurance market. However, this section primarily changes premium support for policyholders; separate provisions address administrative and operating reimbursements.

Agribusiness lenders may view the change positively because crop insurance coverage is often part of farm credit risk management. A producer with subsidized insurance may be better positioned to satisfy lender expectations for risk protection.

The distribution of benefits will not be uniform. Benefits will be larger where producers buy affected coverage, where premiums are high, and where insured liabilities are large. Producers who do not buy crop insurance, who rely on different risk-management tools, or who operate crops or regions with lower participation may see little or no direct benefit.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10504 has no explicit conservation condition, climate requirement, emissions target, or environmental compliance mechanism. It changes premium subsidy rates, not conservation program eligibility or farming practice standards.

The environmental effect is therefore indirect and ambiguous. Crop insurance can help farms survive climate-related losses, including drought, flood, freeze, wind, and excess moisture. That may improve resilience for insured producers facing more volatile weather.[5]

At the same time, higher premium subsidies can reduce the private cost of farming in higher-risk areas or choosing riskier production systems. If subsidies encourage production on marginal land, repeated planting in high-loss areas, or reduced private risk discipline, the section could increase environmental pressure. The statutory text does not include safeguards to steer the added premium support toward soil health, water quality, greenhouse gas reduction, or climate adaptation practices.[1]

The practical climate impact depends on producer behavior, RMA underwriting, conservation compliance rules that apply elsewhere, and whether lower producer-paid premiums increase participation in riskier geographies or simply make existing coverage more affordable.

Impact Summary

Section 10504 is a targeted but consequential crop insurance subsidy increase. It makes specified buy-up crop insurance coverage cheaper for producers by increasing federal premium support percentages. The section is likely to benefit insured producers, crop insurance delivery businesses, and lenders who rely on crop insurance as part of farm risk management.

The tradeoff is higher federal cost and weaker transparency at the section-specific level. Public data can show overall premium subsidies, but the incremental effect of Section 10504 will be difficult to isolate without modeling. The section also does not target support by farm income, farm size, conservation performance, or climate-risk reduction.

In practical terms, this is a federal cost-shift: producers pay less of the premium, taxpayers pay more, and the existing crop insurance system carries out the change through RMA, FCIC, and Approved Insurance Providers.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “H.R. 1 Enrolled Bill, Section 10504: Premium support,” primary statutory text amending Section 508(e)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/html/BILLS-119hr1enr.htm.

[2] USDA Risk Management Agency, “MGR-25-006: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Amendment,” implementation guidance for Sections 10303(b), 10501, 10502, and 10504, https://rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/managers-bulletin/mgr-25-006-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-amendment.

[3] Jonathan Coppess, farmdoc daily, “The Reconciliation Farm Bill: The Top Five Most Problematic Changes to Farm Policy, #5,” analysis of Section 10504 premium subsidy changes and projected budget effect, https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/07/the-reconciliation-farm-bill-the-top-five-most-problematic-changes-to-farm-policy.html.

[4] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Summary of Business,” public crop insurance reporting database, https://rma.usda.gov/tools-reports/summary-of-business.

[5] USDA Economic Research Service, “Crop Insurance at a Glance,” background on federal crop insurance coverage and risks, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/risk-management/crop-insurance-at-a-glance.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10504: Premium support is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10503: Administrative and operating expense adjustments

Executive Summary

Section 10503 changes the federal crop insurance delivery subsidy system by increasing administrative and operating reimbursements paid to approved crop insurance providers and agents. The section does not directly raise a producer’s premium subsidy or create a new consumer-facing benefit. Instead, it increases federal support for the private companies and agents that sell, service, and adjust crop insurance policies under the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and USDA Risk Management Agency structure.[1]

The section has three main effects. First, beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, it creates an additional administrative and operating expense subsidy equal to 6 percent of net book premium for eligible contracts in states where eligible contracts have a loss ratio greater than 120 percent.[2] Second, it establishes a minimum administrative and operating reimbursement rate for specialty crop contracts of at least 17 percent of the premium used to define loss ratio, unless the otherwise applicable Standard Reinsurance Agreement rate is higher.[3] Third, it requires inflation adjustments to total administrative and operating reimbursements beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year, using a method tied to prior Risk Management Agency bulletin treatment and capped for 2026 by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.[4]

The budget effect is significant even though the mechanism is obscure. Farm policy analysis citing CBO’s score reports that the additional administrative and operating subsidy in Section 10503 was estimated to cost $1.275 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[5] That amount is a federal payment stream to crop insurance delivery companies rather than a direct payment to farmers or consumers.

What Section 10503 Actually Does

Section 10503 amends Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 1508(k), which governs reimbursement of administrative and operating costs in the federal crop insurance program.[1] The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, administered through USDA’s Risk Management Agency, already pays approved insurance providers administrative and operating subsidies to help deliver federally subsidized crop insurance.[6]

The section adds three new reimbursement rules.

The new 6 percent payment applies only to an “eligible contract.” The section defines that term as a crop insurance contract entered into by an approved insurance provider in an eligible state, but excludes catastrophic risk protection, area-based plans or similar plans, and policies where the approved insurance provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses.[2]

An “eligible state” is a state where, for the insurance year, the loss ratio for eligible contracts is greater than 120 percent of the total net book premium written by all approved insurance providers.[2] In plain English, the bonus reimbursement is targeted to states where indemnities and losses are high relative to premiums.

This is not a direct producer payment. Farmers may experience indirect effects if the added reimbursements make private insurers and agents more willing to continue selling and servicing crop insurance in high-loss states or specialty crop markets. But the statutory recipient of the additional administrative and operating subsidy is the approved insurance provider, not the producer.[2]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10503 uses an amendment to the Federal Crop Insurance Act rather than creating a stand-alone grant, pilot, or appropriation account. It inserts new paragraphs into Section 508(k), the part of federal crop insurance law that governs administrative and operating reimbursements.[1]

The operative mechanism is mandatory program administration through the existing crop insurance delivery system:

1. USDA’s Risk Management Agency and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation administer the Standard Reinsurance Agreement with approved insurance providers.[6]
2. Approved insurance providers sell and service eligible crop insurance contracts.
3. The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation reimburses administrative and operating expenses under statutory and Standard Reinsurance Agreement rules.
4. Section 10503 adds new statutory payment formulas that operate on top of, or as minimums within, that existing reimbursement system.

The section also includes an important administrative shield: the specialty crop reimbursement adjustment and the inflation adjustment are not treated as renegotiations under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement renegotiation provision.[3][4] That matters because it lets Congress impose these adjustments without requiring the broader agreement to be reopened.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10503 involves federal financial flows because it increases administrative and operating subsidies paid through the federal crop insurance program. These are likely tracked through Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and Risk Management Agency budget execution, crop insurance program accounting, Standard Reinsurance Agreement settlement processes, Treasury outlay reporting, USDA financial reporting, and CBO baseline or cost-estimate materials.[5][6][7]

The relevant federal entity is the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned government corporation administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency.[7] The likely account pathway is the FCIC insurance fund or related crop insurance program financing structure, because USDA Inspector General materials describe the insurance fund as the source used to pay losses, administrative and operating subsidies, and other costs authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act.[8]

Public tracking is likely to be partially visible but not cleanly section-specific. Aggregate crop insurance premium, subsidy, liability, indemnity, and loss-ratio data are visible through USDA Risk Management Agency Summary of Business tools.[9] However, the new Section 10503 add-on payments may be difficult to isolate in public datasets unless RMA, CBO, USDA financial statements, appropriations documents, or oversight reports separately identify the payment category.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10503 authority] --> B[FCIC and RMA]
    B --> C[Standard Reinsurance Agreement]
    C --> D[Approved insurance providers]
    D --> E[Eligible crop insurance contracts]
    E --> F{Payment pathway}
    F --> G[High loss state bonus]
    F --> H[Specialty crop floor]
    F --> I[Inflation adjustment]
    G --> J[FCIC settlement records]
    H --> J
    I --> J
    J --> K[USDA budget execution]
    K --> L[Treasury outlay reporting]
    K --> M[USDA financial reporting]
    K --> N[RMA business data]
    K --> O[CBO estimates]
    K --> P[GAO and IG oversight]
    N --> Q[Public visibility partial]
    M --> Q
    O --> Q
    P --> Q

The reporting protocol is likely to work as follows:

Because the section changes an existing reimbursement formula rather than creating a separately named grant program, the public may see the fiscal effect more clearly in CBO scoring or analytical summaries than in transaction-level public spending data.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Section 10503 requires operational changes to crop insurance reimbursement calculations beginning with the 2026 reinsurance year.[2]

RMA will need to determine which states qualify as eligible states based on loss ratios for eligible contracts. It will also need to identify excluded contracts, including catastrophic coverage, area-based plans, similar plans, and policies where the provider does not incur loss adjustment expenses.[2]

Approved insurance providers will likely need to adjust internal accounting, claims administration, and settlement expectations. The new payment is tied to net book premium, so provider-level and state-level premium data become central to calculating the 6 percent add-on.

For specialty crops, RMA must ensure that reimbursement rates for covered specialty crop contracts are not below the new statutory floor. That may require actuarial, contractual, and settlement-system updates for policies covering fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, nursery crops, and other commodities within the specialty crop definition.[3]

For the inflation adjustment, RMA must apply a recurring annual adjustment to total administrative and operating reimbursements. The 2026 adjustment is limited by CPI-U change for the preceding reinsurance year, while later years follow the statutory method tied to the earlier RMA bulletin framework.[4]

In practical terms, this section increases the number of reimbursement checks, formula validations, and audit points within the crop insurance delivery system.

Effects on Consumers

The section has no direct consumer benefit. It does not provide a grocery rebate, nutrition benefit, direct farm payment, food-price control, or consumer-facing subsidy.

Consumers could experience indirect effects if the added support stabilizes the availability of crop insurance in high-risk agricultural regions. Stable crop insurance availability can help producers manage production risk, which may support continuity in agricultural supply chains. But those effects are indirect and uncertain.

The more immediate consumer concern is fiscal tradeoff. The provision increases federal spending on crop insurance delivery subsidies. Farm policy analysis citing CBO estimates the new additional administrative and operating subsidy at $1.275 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[5] To the extent those funds support private insurance delivery rather than lowering producer-paid premiums or consumer food costs, the consumer impact is diffuse.

Effects on Businesses

The clearest business beneficiaries are approved crop insurance providers and crop insurance agents. These firms and agents receive federal administrative and operating reimbursements for delivering subsidized crop insurance, and Section 10503 increases or protects those reimbursements in specific circumstances.[2][3][4]

The 6 percent add-on is especially relevant in high-loss states. Existing Standard Reinsurance Agreement materials already included an additional administrative and operating subsidy of 1.15 percent of net book premium in states where loss ratios exceed 120 percent.[10] Section 10503 adds a new statutory 6 percent payment for eligible contracts in eligible states, substantially increasing the high-loss-state delivery subsidy.[2]

Specialty crop insurers and agents may also benefit from the reimbursement floor. Specialty crop insurance can be more complex to sell, service, and adjust because crops may have diverse production practices, markets, quality standards, and localized risks. A statutory reimbursement floor may make these policies more attractive for providers to offer and maintain.

For farmers and ranchers, the business effect is indirect. Producers do not receive the Section 10503 administrative and operating payment. However, they may benefit if insurers remain active in states or crop sectors that companies view as costly to service. The effect is likely strongest in high-loss states and specialty crop markets.

For taxpayers, the section increases the cost of the crop insurance delivery system. Administrative and operating subsidies are not based on each company’s actual expense records in a simple reimbursement sense; CRS has described federal crop insurance delivery subsidies as calculated through premium-based formulas established in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement rather than actual expenses incurred.[11]

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10503 does not directly change conservation compliance, emissions rules, pesticide rules, irrigation requirements, soil standards, or climate resilience conditions. Its environmental impact is indirect.

By increasing reimbursement support in states with high loss ratios, the section may reinforce crop insurance availability in regions facing higher production risk. Those risks can include drought, heat, flood, storm, or other weather-related losses. The statute does not require that the additional reimbursement be conditioned on climate adaptation, water conservation, soil health, diversified rotations, or reduced planting in high-risk areas.

That means the environmental effect depends on how the crop insurance system behaves. If stronger insurer participation helps producers manage unavoidable risk while maintaining conservation compliance, the effect could be stabilizing. If it encourages continued production in increasingly risky areas without stronger resilience incentives, it could indirectly sustain exposure to climate-amplified losses.

The specialty crop reimbursement floor may support insurance availability for crops that are often important to diversified agriculture and regional food systems. But again, the section does not require any environmental performance metric as a condition of the added reimbursement.

Impact Summary

Section 10503 is a crop insurance delivery subsidy provision. It is not primarily a farmer premium subsidy, consumer food affordability provision, or environmental program. Its core function is to increase federal administrative and operating reimbursements paid to approved crop insurance providers and agents.

The most important policy change is the new 6 percent net book premium add-on for eligible contracts in states where eligible contracts have loss ratios above 120 percent.[2] The section also creates a specialty crop reimbursement floor and restores an inflation-adjustment framework for administrative and operating reimbursements.[3][4]

The likely winners are approved insurance providers and crop insurance agents operating in high-loss states and specialty crop markets. Farmers may benefit indirectly if the payments preserve access to crop insurance delivery networks. Consumers receive no direct benefit. Public tracking will likely be aggregated and difficult to isolate unless USDA, RMA, CBO, GAO, or the USDA Inspector General specifically report Section 10503 payment effects.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21 enrolled text,” Section 10503 amending Section 508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-119hr1enr.pdf.

[2] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21 enrolled text,” Section 10503, new paragraph 508(k)(10), additional expenses, eligible contracts, eligible states, and 6 percent payment amount, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-119hr1enr.pdf.

[3] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21 enrolled text,” Section 10503, new paragraph 508(k)(11), specialty crop minimum reimbursement rule, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-119hr1enr.pdf.

[4] GovInfo, “Public Law 119-21 enrolled text,” Section 10503, new paragraph 508(k)(12), A&O inflation adjustment and CPI-U special rule for 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-119hr1enr.pdf.

[5] Jonathan Coppess, farmdoc daily, “The Reconciliation Farm Bill: Top Five Most Problematic Changes to Farm Policy, #4,” discussion of Section 10503 and reported CBO score of $1.275 billion for fiscal years 2025 through 2034, https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/08/the-reconciliation-farm-bill-top-five-most-problematic-changes-to-farm-policy-4.html.

[6] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Reinsurance Agreements,” description of SRA and LPRA as establishing terms under which FCIC provides reinsurance and subsidies on eligible crop insurance contracts sold by insurance companies, https://rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/reinsurance-agreements.

[7] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,” description of FCIC as a wholly owned government corporation administering the federal crop insurance program, https://rma.usda.gov/about-rma/fcic.

[8] USDA Office of Inspector General, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency Financial Statements Audit,” discussion of insurance fund use for losses, A&O subsidies, and other costs authorized in the Act, https://usdaoig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/05401-0015-11FR508signed.pdf.

[9] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Summary of Business,” current and historical crop insurance reports and data, https://rma.usda.gov/tools-reports/summary-of-business.

[10] USDA Risk Management Agency, “2024 Standard Reinsurance Agreement,” existing additional A&O subsidy for eligible crop insurance contracts in states where loss ratio exceeds 120 percent, https://www.rma.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/SRA%202024.pdf.

[11] Congressional Research Service, “Federal Crop Insurance: Delivery Subsidies in Brief,” explanation that delivery subsidies are calculated as percentages of premium established in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement rather than based on actual expenses incurred, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45291.html.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10503: Administrative and operating expense adjustments is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10502: Area-based crop insurance coverage and affordability

Executive Summary

Section 10502 expands and subsidizes higher levels of area-based crop insurance coverage under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. It does not create a new grant program, direct appropriation, or stand-alone payment account. Instead, it changes the crop insurance rules that determine how much coverage producers can buy and how much of certain premiums the federal government pays.

The core changes are:

In practical terms, the section makes area-based add-on coverage cheaper and, in some cases, deeper. That is especially important for products such as Supplemental Coverage Option, and USDA’s Risk Management Agency has also applied the higher subsidy approach to similar area-based or index-based products including Enhanced Coverage Option, Margin Coverage Option, Hurricane Insurance Protection Wind Index, and Fire Insurance Protection Smoke Index.[1]

What Section 10502 Actually Does

Section 10502 amends section 508 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. It changes both coverage limits and federal premium support for area-based crop insurance coverage.[2]

The section does not state a direct dollar appropriation. Its fiscal effect occurs through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation paying a larger federal share of premiums for affected policies. A farm policy analysis citing the Congressional Budget Office reports that the Supplemental Coverage Option changes were scored as increasing federal premium subsidy outlays by $1.4 billion over fiscal years 2025 through 2034.[3]

The statutory text does three main things.

First, it preserves the 85 percent cap for individual yield or revenue coverage.[2]

Second, it allows individual yield or revenue coverage aggregated across multiple commodities to be purchased up to 90 percent.[2]

Third, it allows area yield or revenue coverage, as determined by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, to be purchased up to 95 percent.[2]

For Supplemental Coverage Option, the section also changes the coverage structure by replacing the prior 86 percent level with 90 percent and reducing the related deductible reference from 14 percent to 10 percent.[2] It also raises the federal premium subsidy rate for the affected coverage from 65 percent to 80 percent.[2]

USDA’s implementation bulletin makes the day-to-day effect clearer. RMA states that Whole-Farm Revenue Protection will increase its maximum insurable coverage level from 85 percent to 90 percent, with the 90 percent coverage level receiving the same premium subsidy rates as the 85 percent coverage level.[1] RMA also states that the premium subsidy rate for SCO increased from 65 percent to 80 percent and that the same increase will be applied to ECO, MCO, HIP-WI, and FIP-SI.[1]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10502 works by amending the Federal Crop Insurance Act rather than by creating a new program outside the crop insurance system.

The section’s mechanism is narrow but powerful:

1. It changes statutory coverage limits in section 508(c)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
2. It changes the Supplemental Coverage Option structure by moving the upper coverage level from 86 percent to 90 percent.
3. It changes the premium subsidy percentage in section 508(e)(2)(H)(i) from 65 percent to 80 percent.
4. It leaves implementation to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and USDA’s Risk Management Agency, which administer federal crop insurance through approved insurance providers.

The key policy choice is not a new check to producers. It is a larger federal payment toward the premium that producers would otherwise pay for certain higher-coverage insurance products. That means the benefit appears as lower producer-paid premiums, expanded take-up, or both, rather than as a separately labeled farm program payment.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10502 affects federal financial flows because higher premium subsidies increase mandatory crop insurance outlays through FCIC and RMA. The spending is likely to be tracked through USDA RMA and FCIC crop insurance financial systems, Treasury outlay reporting, OMB budget execution materials, and RMA Summary of Business data. It is unlikely to appear as a simple section-specific grant line in USAspending.gov because crop insurance premium subsidies are administered through the crop insurance delivery system rather than as ordinary discretionary grants or contracts.

The most useful public tracking source will likely be RMA’s Summary of Business, which provides current and historical crop insurance data from 1989 forward and allows users to view reports and create custom reports.[4] That source can show premium, subsidy, liability, indemnity, crop, county, and plan-level patterns, but isolating only the incremental effect of Section 10502 may require comparison across years, products, coverage levels, and assumptions about producer behavior.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10502] --> B[FCIC authority]
    B --> C[RMA policy updates]
    C --> D[Approved insurance providers]
    D --> E[Producer policy choices]
    E --> F[Higher coverage options]
    E --> G[Lower producer premium share]
    F --> H[Premium subsidy outlays]
    G --> H
    H --> I[FCIC and RMA accounting]
    I --> J[Treasury outlay reporting]
    I --> K[OMB budget execution]
    I --> L[RMA Summary of Business]
    I --> M[USDA financial reporting]
    L --> N[Public visibility by product and geography]
    J --> O[Aggregated federal reporting]
    K --> O
    M --> P[Oversight by USDA OIG GAO and Congress]

The reporting protocol is likely to operate as follows:

The main limitation is attribution. A visible increase in SCO, ECO, or other area-based premium subsidies after implementation may reflect Section 10502, crop prices, weather risk, premium rates, producer enrollment choices, acreage changes, or RMA administrative decisions. Section-specific spending may therefore be difficult to isolate without CBO estimates, RMA internal data, or a structured before-and-after analysis.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA RMA, Section 10502 requires policy and actuarial updates. RMA must revise policy materials, actuarial documents, premium subsidy calculations, and approved insurance provider instructions so the new coverage levels and subsidy rates can be offered correctly.

RMA’s August 2025 implementation bulletin states that the changes apply to policies with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2025.[1] RMA also directed approved insurance providers to distribute the One Big Beautiful Amendment to affected insureds within 30 days after the bulletin or 30 days before the cancellation date, whichever is later, until the changes are incorporated into policy language.[1]

For approved insurance providers, the day-to-day work includes updating quoting systems, agent guidance, policy forms, premium calculations, underwriting workflows, and producer communications.

For producers, the practical process changes happen during insurance sign-up and acreage reporting. Producers and agents will compare higher subsidized area-based options against existing individual coverage levels. Producers who previously viewed SCO or similar add-on coverage as too expensive may now find it more affordable because the federal share of premium is higher.

The RMA crop insurance cycle already requires producers to make coverage decisions by sales closing deadlines, file acreage reports, receive summaries of coverage, and work with loss adjusters if claims arise.[5] Section 10502 changes the choices and price signals inside that existing cycle rather than creating a separate application process.

Effects on Consumers

The direct consumer impact is limited. Consumers do not apply for the subsidy, receive the insurance coverage, or see a line-item crop insurance benefit at the grocery store.

The indirect consumer argument is that crop insurance can help stabilize farm income after drought, flood, price declines, hurricanes, wildfire smoke, or other covered losses. USDA ERS describes federal crop insurance as financial protection against adverse events including drought, excess moisture, freeze, hail, wind, disease, and price fluctuations.[6] By making area-based coverage more affordable, Section 10502 may reduce the chance that some producers respond to severe losses by exiting production or sharply reducing future planting.

However, the consumer price effect is likely to be diffuse. Grocery prices are shaped by processing, transportation, labor, retail margins, energy, global commodity markets, and supply-chain conditions. Higher crop insurance subsidies may help farm-level risk management, but they do not guarantee lower retail food prices.

Effects on Businesses

The largest direct business effects fall on farms, crop insurance agents, and approved insurance providers.

For farms, the benefit is a lower producer-paid premium share for affected coverage and access to deeper area-based protection. That may be valuable for producers who face county-level or area-level yield and revenue risks that are not fully addressed by an individual policy.

For crop insurance agents, Section 10502 increases the importance of explaining the difference between individual coverage and area-based add-on coverage. Agents will need to explain that area-based products can pay when area triggers are met, even if an individual farm’s experience differs from the area benchmark, and can fail to pay when the area trigger is not met, even if an individual farm experiences a loss.

For approved insurance providers, the section requires systems changes and policyholder communications. It may also increase demand for affected products because the federal subsidy makes them cheaper to buy.

For agricultural lenders, higher subsidized coverage may improve collateral confidence and cash-flow planning for some borrowers. A producer with more subsidized risk protection may be viewed as having a stronger risk management plan, especially in areas exposed to drought, hurricane, wildfire smoke, or price volatility.

The distributional effect may favor producers who already have access to agents, insurance literacy, and the cash flow needed to buy add-on coverage. Producers who do not buy crop insurance, who grow crops with limited product availability, or who operate at very small scale may receive little or no benefit.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10502 has no explicit conservation requirement, climate standard, emissions condition, soil-health requirement, or land-use guardrail. Its environmental impact is therefore indirect.

The climate resilience argument is that higher subsidized coverage can help producers manage increasingly volatile weather and revenue risks. If crop insurance helps farms survive severe weather shocks, it can support continuity in agricultural production and rural economies.

The environmental concern is moral hazard and production incentive effects. More subsidized risk protection can reduce the private cost of farming in higher-risk areas or using production systems exposed to repeated weather losses. If not paired with conservation compliance, climate adaptation, or risk-reduction incentives, higher subsidies may dull incentives to shift crops, improve soil water retention, reduce exposure, or avoid environmentally fragile land.

Because Section 10502 works through area-based coverage, the incentive effects may vary by region and crop. Area-based products can help manage systemic weather risk, but they do not necessarily reward farm-specific conservation practices unless those practices improve the producer’s underlying risk profile or interact with other USDA conservation and insurance rules.

The practical environmental conclusion is mixed: the section may improve financial resilience to climate-related losses, but it does not itself require climate adaptation or environmental performance.

Impact Summary

Section 10502 is a crop insurance affordability and coverage expansion provision. It makes certain higher-coverage and area-based insurance products more attractive by raising the federal premium subsidy and expanding coverage limits.

Supporters are likely to view it as a stronger farm safety net, especially for producers facing county-wide or regional weather and revenue risks. Critics are likely to focus on cost, targeting, and the possibility that larger premium subsidies encourage more risk-taking or deliver the largest benefits to producers already positioned to buy more insurance.

The most important accountability issue is tracking. The federal cost will flow through FCIC and RMA premium subsidy systems, not through a clean section-specific public spending account. RMA Summary of Business data can show product-level and geographic changes, but isolating the incremental fiscal and behavioral effect of Section 10502 will require careful analysis.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] USDA Risk Management Agency, “MGR-25-006: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Amendment,” implementation bulletin describing Section 10502 changes, effective dates, WFRP, SCO, ECO, MCO, HIP-WI, and FIP-SI implementation, https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/managers-bulletin/mgr-25-006-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-amendment.

[2] Government Publishing Office, “Public Law 119-21,” statutory text of Section 10502 amending Federal Crop Insurance Act coverage levels and premium subsidy rate, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21?link-type=pdf.

[3] farmdoc daily, “Circumventing the Federal Budget Process: Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies,” discussion of CBO scoring for SCO premium subsidy and coverage changes, https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/12/circumventing-the-federal-budget-process-crop-insurance-premium-subsidies.html.

[4] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Summary of Business,” public crop insurance reporting system, https://www.rma.usda.gov/tools-reports/summary-of-business.

[5] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Insurance Cycle,” explanation of ordinary crop insurance sales, reporting, coverage, and claims processes, https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-crop-insurance/managing-your-farm-risk/insurance-cycle.

[6] USDA Economic Research Service, “Crop Insurance at a Glance,” background on FCIP risks and program role, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/risk-management/crop-insurance-at-a-glance.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10502: Area-based crop insurance coverage and affordability is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10501: Beginning farmer and rancher benefit

Executive Summary

Section 10501 expands crop insurance benefits for beginning farmers and ranchers by changing the Federal Crop Insurance Act definition of a beginning farmer or rancher from a producer with no more than 5 crop years of active farm or ranch operation and management to one with no more than 10 crop years.[1] It also adds extra premium assistance on top of existing beginning farmer or rancher benefits: 5 additional percentage points for each of the first and second reinsurance years, 3 additional percentage points for the third reinsurance year, and 1 additional percentage point for the fourth reinsurance year.[2]

The section does not appropriate a fixed dollar amount. Its fiscal effect operates through higher federal crop insurance premium subsidies administered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and USDA Risk Management Agency, so section-specific spending will likely be visible only indirectly through crop insurance subsidy, policy, and budget data rather than as a separate line item in public spending datasets.[3]

What Section 10501 Actually Does

Section 10501 amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act in two main ways.

First, it changes the statutory eligibility window for beginning farmer or rancher status from 5 crop years to 10 crop years.[1] This means producers who would previously have aged out of the beginning farmer or rancher category after 5 crop years can remain eligible for the crop insurance benefit for up to 10 crop years.

Second, it increases premium assistance during the early years of participation by adding a new graduated premium-support schedule.[2]

USDA’s Risk Management Agency describes the implemented benefit as allowing eligible beginning farmers or ranchers to receive the existing additional 10 percent premium subsidy rate for up to 10 crop years, plus the new extra 5, 5, 3, and 1 percentage-point additions during the first four crop years.[4] The Federal Register explanation similarly states that, combining existing and new benefits, beginning farmers or ranchers may receive total additional premium support of 15 percentage points in the first two crop years, 13 percentage points in the third crop year, 11 percentage points in the fourth crop year, and 10 percentage points in the fifth through tenth crop years.[5]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10501 works by amending existing crop insurance statutes rather than creating a new stand-alone grant, loan, or direct-payment program.

The section amends:

In practical terms, this is a subsidy-formula change inside the Federal Crop Insurance Program. It does not create a new application program outside crop insurance. Producers still work through crop insurance agents and Approved Insurance Providers, while USDA RMA and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation adjust eligibility rules, policy documents, premium subsidy calculations, and reporting systems.[4]

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10501 involves federal financial flows because it increases federal premium assistance for eligible crop insurance policyholders. The spending pathway is indirect: the federal government does not usually send a separate check to the producer for the premium subsidy. Instead, the subsidy reduces the producer-paid premium and is administered through the Federal Crop Insurance Program.

The likely tracking sources are USDA RMA crop insurance policy and subsidy data, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation financial statements, USDA budget execution materials, Treasury outlay reporting, OMB budget materials, and oversight reports from USDA’s Office of Inspector General, GAO, and Congress.[3] RMA states that FCIC and RMA financial statements use accrual accounting and that net outlays reflect cash disbursements minus collections, meaning public budget totals may not line up exactly with policy-year subsidy data.[6]

Because Section 10501 changes eligibility and subsidy percentages rather than creating a separate appropriation, section-specific spending may be difficult to isolate in public datasets. The added cost will likely be merged into broader FCIC premium subsidy and crop insurance outlay accounts. RMA’s Summary of Business and program budget materials may show changes in premium subsidies and participation, but they may not cleanly identify how much of the change is attributable only to Section 10501 rather than weather, commodity prices, producer participation, acreage, or other OBBBA crop insurance changes.[6]

flowchart TD
    A[Statutory change] --> B[USDA RMA guidance]
    B --> C[Policy revisions]
    B --> D[Approved insurers]
    D --> E[Agents and producers]
    E --> F[BFR application]
    F --> G[Eligibility check]
    G --> H[Premium subsidy calculation]
    H --> I[Lower producer premium]
    H --> J[FCIC subsidy expense]
    J --> K[USDA budget execution]
    K --> L[Treasury outlays]
    K --> M[RMA data systems]
    M --> N[Summary of Business]
    K --> O[Financial statements]
    K --> P[OMB materials]
    K --> Q[GAO and IG oversight]
    N --> R[Public visibility partial]
    O --> R
    P --> R
    Q --> R

The reporting protocol is likely to work as follows: Approved Insurance Providers collect applications and policy information, transmit policy and premium data through RMA systems, and apply the subsidy in the premium calculation. RMA and FCIC record subsidy obligations, expenses, and outlays through federal budget and financial reporting channels. Public visibility will be partial because aggregate premium subsidy data are available, but a clean Section 10501-only spending total may not be separately reported.[3]

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

Section 10501 changes routine crop insurance administration in several concrete ways.

USDA RMA must revise policy materials, handbooks, actuarial systems, and eligibility instructions to reflect the 10-crop-year definition and the new premium-assistance schedule. RMA’s implementation bulletin states that it is incorporating policy revisions at the next applicable contract change date and requiring Approved Insurance Providers to distribute the OBBBA amendment to affected insureds within the required time frame until the provisions are incorporated into policy documents.[4]

Approved Insurance Providers and crop insurance agents must update producer-facing workflows. They need to identify producers who now qualify because the eligibility window expanded from 5 to 10 crop years, process new or amended beginning farmer or rancher applications, and apply the correct premium subsidy. RMA also gave special timing instructions for producers whose eligibility changed due to the law, including a November 30, 2025 deadline for certain 2026 crop year policies with sales closing dates on or after July 1, 2025 and on or before November 30, 2025.[4]

For producers, the day-to-day change is that more beginning farmers and ranchers may have to document their operating history and insurable interest, but those who qualify may see lower premium bills. For administrators, the practical burden is mostly eligibility verification, system coding, agent training, insurer notices, and audit readiness.

Effects on Consumers

The consumer effect is indirect. Section 10501 does not create a consumer rebate, food benefit, retail price control, or nutrition program. Its immediate beneficiaries are eligible beginning farmers and ranchers purchasing federally supported crop insurance.

The potential consumer benefit is resilience in agricultural production. By lowering crop insurance costs for newer producers, the section may help some farms and ranches manage losses from drought, flooding, storms, pests, disease, price declines, or other insured risks. USDA and GAO describe the federal crop insurance program as a subsidized risk-management system designed to protect farmers from financial losses tied to poor harvests, natural causes, and market conditions.[7]

However, any effect on grocery prices is likely to be diffuse and hard to measure. Crop insurance subsidies can help stabilize farm businesses, but retail food prices are shaped by many other factors, including processing, transportation, labor, energy, global commodity markets, retailer margins, and weather.

Effects on Businesses

The largest direct business effects fall on farms, ranches, crop insurance agents, and Approved Insurance Providers.

For beginning farmers and ranchers, the section reduces the cost of buying crop insurance if they qualify. That can improve cash flow, make higher coverage levels more affordable, and reduce early-year risk. This matters because newer producers often face high capital costs, thin margins, limited credit history, and greater exposure to catastrophic losses.

For crop insurance agents and Approved Insurance Providers, the section may increase administrative work and business volume. More producers may qualify for beginning farmer or rancher benefits, and insurers must process updated applications, notices, subsidy calculations, and compliance records. USDA RMA states that Approved Insurance Providers are required to distribute the OBBBA amendment to affected insureds until the changes are incorporated into policy provisions.[4]

For lenders and agricultural input suppliers, the effect may be modestly positive. A producer with subsidized crop insurance may be viewed as a lower credit risk because insured losses are more likely to be covered. That could support operating loans, equipment purchases, seed and fertilizer purchases, or land-rental decisions, although the section itself does not require lenders to change underwriting standards.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10501 has no direct environmental permitting, emissions, conservation, forestry, land-restoration, or climate-program provision. Its environmental and climate effects are indirect and depend on producer behavior.

On one hand, crop insurance can improve resilience to climate-related production shocks by making it easier for newer producers to manage losses from drought, flooding, hurricanes, excessive moisture, wind, hail, and other covered natural events. USDA’s RMA budget materials describe federal crop insurance as protection against agricultural losses from drought, excessive moisture, hail, wind, hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, and insects.[8]

On the other hand, higher premium subsidies can reduce the price signal producers face when choosing coverage and production strategies. GAO has previously noted that premium subsidies can affect program costs and incentives, and that the federal crop insurance program has long required oversight to manage cost, participation, and integrity risks.[7] The environmental result is therefore not automatic. The section may help beginning producers survive climate volatility, but it does not itself require climate-smart practices, soil health practices, water conservation, emissions reductions, or limits on production in high-risk areas.

Impact Summary

Section 10501 is a targeted expansion of the federal crop insurance safety net for beginning farmers and ranchers. It extends the eligibility window from 5 to 10 crop years and adds graduated premium assistance during the first four reinsurance years. The most important quantified changes are not dollar appropriations but subsidy-percentage changes: 5 additional percentage points in each of the first two years, 3 additional percentage points in the third year, and 1 additional percentage point in the fourth year.

The main policy effect is to lower crop insurance costs for newer producers and keep them eligible for beginning farmer or rancher treatment longer. The main fiscal effect is higher federal premium subsidy exposure through FCIC and RMA. The main transparency issue is that Section 10501 spending may be hard to isolate publicly because the cost is likely embedded within broader crop insurance premium subsidy data rather than reported as a separate section-specific account.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Senate Budget Committee, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Section 10501(a), amendment to Federal Crop Insurance Act section 502(b)(3), https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[2] Senate Budget Committee, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” Section 10501(b), amendment to Federal Crop Insurance Act section 508(e), https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf.

[3] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation,” FCIC role in administering federal crop insurance, https://rma.usda.gov/about-rma/fcic.

[4] USDA Risk Management Agency, “MGR-25-006: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Amendment,” implementation guidance for Section 10501, https://rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/managers-bulletin/mgr-25-006-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-amendment.

[5] Federal Register, “Expanding Access to Risk Protection,” discussion of RMA implementation of Section 10501 beginning farmer and rancher benefits, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/28/2025-21482/expanding-access-to-risk-protection-earp.

[6] USDA Risk Management Agency, “Program Budget,” explanation of FCIC/RMA financial statements, accrual accounting, and net outlays, https://rma.usda.gov/about-rma/program-budget.

[7] Government Accountability Office, “Reducing Crop Insurance Costs Could Fund Other Priorities,” crop insurance subsidy and oversight context, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106228.

[8] USDA, “FY 2027 Explanatory Notes — Risk Management Agency,” description of crop insurance protection against agricultural losses and FCIC Fund budget context, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY-2027-Chapter-27-RMA.pdf.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10501: Beginning farmer and rancher benefit is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10401: Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance

Executive Summary

Section 10401 expands several standing USDA disaster assistance programs for livestock, forage, honeybees, farm-raised fish, and trees. It does not create a single new disaster appropriation with a fixed dollar total. Instead, it changes eligibility rules, payment rates, and loss calculations inside existing permanent disaster assistance authorities administered primarily through USDA’s Farm Service Agency.

The section increases federal support for covered producers by:

• Setting Livestock Indemnity Program payments at 100 percent of market value for predation losses and 75 percent of market value for adverse weather or disease losses.[1]
• Allowing regional price premiums to be considered when USDA determines affected livestock market value.[1]
• Creating an additional payment for unborn livestock death losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024.[1]
• Making Livestock Forage Disaster Program assistance available earlier for certain drought conditions by allowing 1 monthly payment after 4 consecutive weeks of qualifying drought during the normal grazing period, while also providing 2 monthly payments for counties affected for 7 of the previous 8 consecutive weeks.[1]
• Adding Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish payments for farm-raised fish losses due to piscivorous birds, with a minimum payment rate of $600 per acre applied to 85 percent of eligible production acres.[1]
• Requiring USDA to use a 15 percent normal mortality rate for honeybee colony loss calculations under ELAP.[1]
• Lowering Tree Assistance Program loss thresholds by replacing the prior 15 percent damage or mortality language with normal mortality or normal tree damage and mortality, and increasing one TAP percentage from 50 percent to 65 percent.[1]

The practical effect is a broader and more generous agricultural disaster safety net for producers facing predator losses, drought-related forage losses, honeybee colony losses, aquaculture bird depredation, and tree losses. Consumers may see indirect benefits if disaster payments help producers recover and stabilize supply, but the section primarily benefits eligible agricultural businesses rather than households directly.

What Section 10401 Actually Does

Section 10401 amends Section 1501 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, codified at 7 U.S.C. 9081, which governs several Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance programs.[1] It modifies existing USDA payment formulas and eligibility triggers rather than establishing a separately named new grant program.

Because this section uses open-ended payment formulas in existing mandatory disaster programs, the final federal cost depends on actual qualifying disasters, livestock values, drought conditions, aquaculture acreage, honeybee losses, and tree losses. Public summaries of the enacted law describe the overall agriculture title as adding substantial farm safety-net spending, but Section 10401 itself is not written as a fixed-dollar appropriation.[2]

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10401 operates through amendments to existing permanent disaster assistance authorities. The mechanism is not a pilot program, block grant, or discretionary appropriation. It changes the statutory rules that USDA must use when administering standing programs.

The section’s main legal mechanisms are:

1. Replacement of Livestock Indemnity Program payment-rate language. The section replaces the prior LIP payment-rate paragraph with new rates: 100 percent for predation losses and 75 percent for adverse weather or disease losses.[1]

2. Addition of unborn livestock loss payments. The section adds a new statutory category for unborn livestock death losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024.[1]

3. Revision of Livestock Forage Disaster Program drought triggers. The section changes the relevant drought-duration language so that certain producers can receive 1 monthly payment after 4 consecutive qualifying weeks and 2 monthly payments after 7 of the previous 8 consecutive qualifying weeks.[1]

4. Expansion of ELAP for farm-raised fish losses. The section adds a new category of assistance for losses due to piscivorous birds, with USDA-directed payment-rate determination and a statutory minimum of $600 per acre.[1]

5. Honeybee and tree-loss calculation changes. The section fixes the honeybee normal mortality rate at 15 percent for ELAP and modifies TAP thresholds by using normal mortality or normal tree damage and mortality rather than the prior 15 percent language.[1]

In practical terms, Congress is telling USDA to pay more claims, pay some claims at higher rates, and recognize additional categories of loss within the existing disaster assistance framework.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10401 involves federal financial flows because it changes payment formulas for USDA disaster assistance. The likely expenditure tracking pathway runs through USDA Farm Service Agency program administration, Commodity Credit Corporation or USDA budget execution, Treasury outlay reporting, and oversight channels such as USDA financial reporting, Inspector General review, GAO review, and congressional oversight.

Public tracking is likely to be partially visible but not always cleanly isolatable by this exact section. Individual payments may appear in USDA or USAspending.gov award data where reported, but section-specific incremental costs may be difficult to separate from broader LIP, LFP, ELAP, and TAP program spending unless USDA, CBO, or Congress publishes a dedicated estimate or implementation report.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10401 authority] --> B[USDA FSA implementation]
    B --> C[LIP payments]
    B --> D[LFP payments]
    B --> E[ELAP payments]
    B --> F[TAP payments]
    C --> G[Producer applications]
    D --> G
    E --> G
    F --> G
    G --> H[FSA eligibility review]
    H --> I[Payment calculation]
    I --> J[USDA budget execution]
    J --> K[Treasury outlays]
    J --> L[Agency records]
    K --> M[Public reporting where visible]
    L --> M
    M --> N[Clear for some payments]
    M --> O[Aggregated for section costs]
    J --> P[Oversight]
    P --> Q[USDA IG]
    P --> R[GAO]
    P --> S[Congress]

The likely reporting protocol is:

The biggest tracking limitation is that Section 10401 amends standing programs instead of creating a new separately named fund. As a result, the public may be able to see disaster assistance payments, but not easily identify which dollars were paid only because Section 10401 changed the rules.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA, Section 10401 requires updates to program handbooks, software, forms, eligibility review, payment-rate tables, county-office training, and producer guidance.

For FSA county offices, the most visible workload changes are likely to include:

• New claim review for unborn livestock death losses beginning with losses incurred on or after January 1, 2024.[1]
• More detailed market-value documentation where producers claim regional price premiums above national average livestock values.[1]
• Updated drought-trigger processing for Livestock Forage Disaster Program payments.[1]
• New or revised ELAP processing for farm-raised fish losses tied to piscivorous birds.[1]
• Updated honeybee colony-loss calculations using a 15 percent normal mortality rate.[1]
• Revised TAP calculations using normal mortality or normal tree damage and mortality instead of the former 15 percent threshold language.[1]

For producers, day-to-day changes include more documentation opportunities and possibly more interactions with FSA offices. Livestock producers may need to document the date of death, cause of loss, regional value premium, pregnancy status, or species-specific unborn livestock factors. Aquaculture producers may need to document acres in production, bird depredation, deterrence costs, fish losses, revenue losses, and disease losses connected to bird depredation. Orchardists and nursery tree growers may need to document normal mortality and qualifying damage under the revised TAP standard.

For USDA oversight staff, the section may require new payment-integrity checks because higher reimbursement rates and broader eligibility can increase both legitimate claims and improper-payment risk.

Effects on Consumers

Section 10401 does not provide direct consumer rebates, nutrition benefits, tax credits, or price controls. Its consumer effect is indirect.

Potential consumer benefits include:

• More stable supply if disaster payments help livestock, honeybee, aquaculture, and orchard producers recover more quickly after losses.
• Reduced risk that some producers exit production after disaster events.
• Possible stabilization in affected regional markets for meat, honey-related pollination-dependent crops, fish, fruit, nuts, or nursery products.

However, consumers should not expect immediate or guaranteed grocery-price reductions. Disaster assistance payments generally flow to producers after documented losses. They may help maintain production capacity, but retail prices are also shaped by processing, transportation, wholesale markets, imports, labor, energy costs, and retailer pricing.

Effects on Businesses

The section primarily benefits agricultural businesses and farm operations that qualify under the affected USDA programs.

The section may be especially important for livestock operations exposed to predation, ranchers in drought-prone regions, aquaculture businesses affected by bird depredation, and specialty crop or nursery operations facing tree losses.

At the same time, participation will still depend on USDA eligibility rules, documentation, deadlines, payment limits, and implementation guidance. Businesses that cannot document qualifying losses or meet program requirements may not receive payments.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10401 is primarily a disaster-payment provision, not a conservation or emissions-reduction provision. It does not directly require climate adaptation plans, land stewardship practices, emissions reductions, habitat restoration, or water-use efficiency.

Its environmental and climate implications are indirect and mixed.

On the adaptation side, the section acknowledges that drought, adverse weather, disease, predation, honeybee losses, bird depredation, and tree mortality can impose large financial risks on agricultural producers. More generous disaster support may help producers recover from climate-related or weather-related shocks and maintain rural economic capacity.

On the risk side, larger disaster payments can reduce the financial signal to avoid high-risk production locations or practices if not paired with resilience requirements. For example, repeated drought assistance can help ranchers survive severe years, but it may not by itself encourage stocking-rate changes, forage planning, water conservation, or drought-resilient grazing systems. Similarly, aquaculture payments for bird depredation may support producers facing real losses, but implementation should avoid encouraging harmful wildlife responses or habitat conflict.

The environmental outcome will depend heavily on USDA implementation, producer behavior, and whether disaster assistance is coordinated with conservation, risk-management, animal-health, pollinator-health, and climate-resilience programs.

Impact Summary

Section 10401 makes the agricultural disaster safety net broader and more generous. It increases payment rates for livestock losses, creates new support for unborn livestock losses, expands drought forage assistance triggers, adds farm-raised fish bird-depredation assistance, sets honeybee normal mortality at 15 percent, and changes TAP thresholds in ways that may make tree-loss assistance more accessible.

The strongest direct beneficiaries are eligible agricultural producers. The strongest indirect beneficiaries may include rural lenders, input suppliers, local economies, and consumers who benefit from more stable agricultural production after disasters. The main accountability challenge is tracking: because the section changes standing USDA programs rather than creating a single new fund, public reporting may show disaster payments but not cleanly isolate the extra federal cost attributable only to Section 10401.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “Section 10401. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance,” July 4, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/119/public/21.

[2] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline,” July 21, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570.

[3] Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, “7 U.S.C. 9081: Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance,” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A7%20section%3A9081%20edition%3Aprelim%29.

[4] Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Section-by-Section Summary,” https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_anf_section_by_section_final.pdf.

[5] American Farm Bureau Federation, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Final Agricultural Provisions,” July 17, 2025, https://www.fb.org/market-intel/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-final-agricultural-provisions.

[6] National Agricultural Law Center, “Disaster Assistance and Crop Insurance Overview,” https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/disasterassistancecropinsurance/.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10401: Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10314: Implementation

Executive Summary

Section 10314 provides a dedicated implementation fund for the commodity-program changes made in Subtitle C of Title I of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It amends section 1614(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2014, codified at 7 U.S.C. 9097(c), by adding $50 million in additional funding that remains available until expended.[1]

This is not a direct farm payment section. It is an administrative capacity section. The money is aimed at helping USDA implement the surrounding commodity, sugar, dairy, payment-limit, marketing-loan, and related farm-program changes in Subtitle C. It also directs portions of the funding to technology modernization, producer education, web-based decision tools, dairy cost and yield surveys, and a refined-sugar import study.[2]

In practical terms, Section 10314 gives USDA more money to update systems, issue guidance, support outreach, collect data, and manage implementation. Consumers are affected indirectly, mostly through the reliability of dairy and sugar market information and the implementation of broader commodity programs. Businesses are affected more directly if they are farmers, dairy processors, sugar users, extension partners, universities, software vendors, or other entities interacting with USDA farm-program systems.

What Section 10314 Actually Does

Section 10314 adds a new paragraph to the implementation funding subsection of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The total new amount is $50 million, available until expended, to carry out Subtitle C of Title I of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the amendments made by that subtitle.[1]

The section divides part of that $50 million into specific required uses:

The key point is that Section 10314 funds implementation infrastructure. It does not itself create a new entitlement payment to producers, consumers, or businesses. Instead, it gives USDA resources to operationalize the farm-program changes made by neighboring provisions in Subtitle C.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10314 works by amending an existing administrative provision: section 1614(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2014, codified at 7 U.S.C. 9097(c). That section already contained prior implementation funding for FSA and farm-program administration. Section 10314 adds a new paragraph titled “Further funding.”[1]

The mechanism has three notable features.

First, it is mandatory implementation funding rather than a standard annual discretionary appropriation. The statute says the Secretary “shall make available” $50 million to carry out Subtitle C and the amendments made by that subtitle.[1]

Second, the money is available until expended. That means it does not expire at the end of a single fiscal year. USDA can use the funding over time as implementation needs arise, subject to normal budget execution, obligation, and oversight rules.[1]

Third, Congress earmarks several minimum or fixed uses within the $50 million. USDA has discretion over the balance, but it must reserve the stated amounts for producer education, web-based decision aids, dairy surveys, and the sugar study.[2]

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10314 involves a federal financial flow because it makes $50 million available to USDA for implementation. The likely administrative path is USDA budget execution through FSA and related USDA offices, with portions potentially involving cooperative agreements, grants, contracts, interagency support, or internal administrative spending.

Likely tracking sources include:

The public tracking picture is likely mixed. If USDA awards grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts for extension education, decision aids, information technology, surveys, or studies, those awards may appear in public spending datasets. But internal agency staff time, systems work, and broad implementation expenses may be aggregated within USDA accounts and may not be clearly separable as “Section 10314” spending.

flowchart TD
    A[Statutory authority] --> B[USDA makes funds available]
    B --> C[USDA allocates implementation funds]

    C --> D[FSA system implementation]
    C --> E[State extension education]
    C --> F[University decision aids]
    C --> G[AMS dairy surveys]
    C --> H[Sugar import study]

    D --> I[Budget execution records]
    E --> I
    F --> I
    G --> I
    H --> I

    I --> J[Tracking and oversight]

    J --> K[USDA financial records]
    J --> L[Treasury reporting]
    J --> M[OMB apportionment]
    J --> N[USAspending visibility]
    J --> O[IG GAO Congress]

    K --> P[Public visibility mixed]
    L --> P
    M --> P
    N --> P
    O --> P

The reporting protocol is therefore likely to depend on the spending channel. Grants or cooperative agreements would be reported through federal assistance systems and may surface on USAspending.gov. Contracts would likely be reflected through federal procurement reporting. Internal USDA implementation work would be visible mainly through agency budget execution, financial statements, congressional oversight, and, if examined, GAO or USDA Inspector General reviews.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

Section 10314 is likely to affect day-to-day USDA operations in several ways.

For FSA, the provision supports updates to forms, internal handbooks, payment systems, eligibility screens, producer records, contract tools, and county-office guidance. Commodity-program changes generally require both national office policy work and local office implementation. The funding gives USDA a pool of money to support that conversion.

For producers, the practical effect may be better outreach, updated online tools, and more ability to complete some program actions electronically. Existing law already directs USDA to reduce paperwork, improve data-sharing, use geospatial and precision agriculture data, and offer electronic signatures and multiyear contract options for ARC and PLC where practicable.[2] Section 10314 provides additional money for those implementation goals.

For universities and extension services, the section renews the role of outside educational and decision-support partners. State extension services and qualified universities may help translate complex farm-program choices into usable producer education and web-based tools.[3]

For dairy market administration, Section 10314 funds new mandatory surveys of dairy production cost and product yield information. Existing dairy mandatory reporting law already requires reporting of certain dairy product sales and storage information to provide timely, accurate, and reliable market information.[4] Section 10314 adds funding for a more specialized cost-and-yield survey function and requires biennial publication of survey results.[1]

For sugar policy administration, the section funds a study connected to refined sugar imports. This supports USDA’s broader evaluation of whether additional terms and conditions for refined sugar imports are necessary and appropriate.[5]

Effects on Consumers

Section 10314 does not directly change consumer eligibility, food prices, retail rules, or household benefits. Its consumer effects are indirect.

The most plausible consumer-facing effect is through market administration. Better implementation of commodity, dairy, and sugar provisions may affect how reliably USDA administers programs that support farm income, commodity markets, and dairy pricing information. Dairy cost and yield survey results could eventually inform policy debates about dairy pricing, Federal Milk Marketing Orders, and manufacturing-cost assumptions, although Section 10314 itself does not rewrite consumer prices or retail dairy pricing formulas.

Consumers may also benefit indirectly if implementation funding reduces administrative delays or confusion that could otherwise affect program delivery. However, the section is too administrative and indirect to claim a clear consumer price increase or decrease from this provision alone.

Effects on Businesses

Section 10314 has more direct relevance for businesses and institutions that interact with USDA farm programs.

Farm businesses may see clearer guidance, updated software, better decision tools, and easier sign-up or contract processes. This matters for producers making ARC, PLC, marketing-loan, dairy, sugar, or related commodity-program decisions under Subtitle C.

Dairy manufacturers covered by mandatory reporting requirements may face new survey interactions involving production cost and product yield information. The statute requires surveys of manufacturers already required to report under 7 U.S.C. 1637b and directs USDA to publish the results every two years.[4] This could increase reporting or validation work for some dairy processors, but it may also produce data that processors, producers, and policymakers use in pricing and regulatory debates.

Universities, extension services, and agricultural decision-tool developers may receive or compete for implementation-related funding. Section 10314 specifically directs $3 million to State extension services and $3 million to web-based decision aids through qualified universities or university-based organizations.[3]

Sugar refiners, sugar users, importers, and food manufacturers may be affected indirectly by the funded refined-sugar import study. That study could inform future USDA decisions about refined sugar import terms and conditions, though the study funding itself does not impose a new import restriction.[5]

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10314 has no direct environmental or climate mandate. It does not create a conservation program, emissions rule, land-use restriction, climate grant, or environmental permitting change.

There may be indirect administrative effects. The technology and data-modernization language in 7 U.S.C. 9097(b) includes geospatial data, common land unit information, conservation practices, and information sharing across USDA agencies.[2] Better data systems could improve USDA’s ability to administer farm programs that interact with conservation compliance, land records, and producer reporting. But that is an implementation capacity effect, not a direct climate or environmental outcome.

The dairy survey component may improve transparency around dairy manufacturing costs and yields, but it does not itself regulate methane, water use, manure management, energy consumption, or processing emissions. The sugar study component is similarly economic and trade-administrative, not environmental.

Impact Summary

Section 10314 is a back-office implementation provision with real operational significance. Its $50 million is designed to make the surrounding commodity-program changes workable by funding USDA systems, education, decision aids, dairy surveys, and a sugar study.

Its strongest direct effects are on USDA administration, FSA implementation, extension and university outreach, dairy manufacturers subject to survey activity, and farm businesses that rely on accurate program tools and timely guidance.

Its consumer and environmental effects are indirect. Consumers may experience downstream effects from better market information and smoother farm-program administration, but the section does not directly change consumer benefits or retail prices. Environmental impacts are also limited, though improved USDA data systems could modestly strengthen administrative capacity around land and conservation-related information.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] Public Law 119-21, “SEC. 10314. IMPLEMENTATION,” adding 7 U.S.C. 9097(c)(5), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[2] 7 U.S.C. 9097(b), “Streamlining,” including technology, data standards, electronic signatures, and multiyear contract options, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A7+section%3A9097+edition%3Aprelim%29.

[3] 7 U.S.C. 9097(c)(3) and 7 U.S.C. 9097(c)(5)(B)–(C), producer education and web-based decision-aid provisions, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A7+section%3A9097+edition%3Aprelim%29.

[4] 7 U.S.C. 1637b, “Mandatory reporting for dairy products,” and USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, “Dairy Mandatory Market Reporting,” https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A7+section%3A1637b+edition%3Aprelim%29 and https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/dmr.

[5] Public Law 119-21, Section 10312 and Section 10314, refined sugar import study and related funding under 7 U.S.C. 1359kk(d), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10314: Implementation is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.

Legislative and Policy Analysis

Section 10313: Dairy policy updates

Executive Summary

Section 10313 updates the federal Dairy Margin Coverage program, the USDA Farm Service Agency safety-net program that pays participating dairy operations when the national milk-feed margin falls below the coverage level selected by the producer.[1]

The section does four main things. First, it resets Dairy Margin Coverage production history for existing dairy operations to the highest annual milk marketings from 2021, 2022, or 2023.[2] Second, it updates the production-history method for new dairy operations that have been operating for less than one year.[3] Third, it raises the Tier I Dairy Margin Coverage threshold from 5 million pounds to 6 million pounds of milk.[4] Fourth, it extends Dairy Margin Coverage through 2031 and renews the multi-year premium discount structure for 2026 through 2031.[5]

The practical effect is to make Dairy Margin Coverage more useful for dairy farms whose production has grown since earlier baseline years and for mid-sized dairies that produce between 5 million and 6 million pounds of milk annually. It does not directly regulate consumer milk prices, mandate processor payments, or create a new environmental program. Its impact is primarily farm-income stabilization, federal payment administration, and dairy risk-management policy.

What Section 10313 Actually Does

Section 10313 amends the Dairy Margin Coverage provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014. It does not create a new standalone dairy program. It changes the operating rules for an existing USDA safety-net program administered through FSA and financed through the Commodity Credit Corporation.

Section 10313 itself does not state a new fixed appropriation amount. The direct fiscal effect comes from making more production eligible for Tier I treatment, resetting production history, extending program duration through 2031, and renewing premium discounts. Related implementation funding appears in Section 10314, which provides $50 million for implementation of Subtitle C, including $9 million for mandatory dairy production cost and product yield surveys to be published biennially.[6]

The most important operational change is the production-history reset. Dairy Margin Coverage payments are tied to production history, so a higher baseline can increase the amount of milk eligible for coverage when margins trigger payments.[7] For farms that expanded after earlier baseline years, the new 2021 through 2023 reference period can materially change the value of coverage.

The second major change is the Tier I expansion from 5 million to 6 million pounds. Tier I coverage is generally more favorable than Tier II because Tier I allows higher coverage levels and lower premium rates for the first block of covered production.[8] Raising the threshold helps operations whose production falls around or above the previous 5-million-pound boundary.

The third major change is program certainty. Instead of facing another near-term expiration, dairy producers and USDA offices have statutory authority to operate Dairy Margin Coverage through 2031.[9] That gives producers a longer planning window and gives FSA a clearer administrative timeline.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10313 works by amending several sections of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

It amends the definition of production history in 7 U.S.C. 9051 and the production-history rules in 7 U.S.C. 9055. The amended rule sets production history for most participating dairy operations as the highest annual milk marketings from calendar years 2021, 2022, or 2023.[10]

It also rewrites the rule for dairy operations that have operated for less than one year. A new operation may use actual milk marketings extrapolated to a yearly amount or an estimate based on herd size relative to national rolling herd average data published by USDA.[11]

Section 10313 then amends the Dairy Margin Coverage payment and premium provisions in 7 U.S.C. 9056 and 7 U.S.C. 9057 by replacing the 5-million-pound Tier I threshold with 6 million pounds.[12] Finally, it amends 7 U.S.C. 9059 by extending the program through 2031.[13]

This is a classic farm-bill-style statutory update. Congress does not direct USDA to create a new payment formula from scratch. Instead, it changes the eligibility baseline, coverage tier boundary, premium-discount period, and expiration date inside the existing Dairy Margin Coverage framework.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Section 10313 affects federal financial flows because Dairy Margin Coverage payments are federal program payments administered by USDA FSA and financed through the Commodity Credit Corporation. The section does not create a new public dashboard dedicated only to Section 10313. Public tracking is therefore likely to be partly visible but not cleanly separable from broader Dairy Margin Coverage and CCC reporting.

The most likely tracking pathway is:

flowchart TD
    A[Statutory DMC update] --> B[USDA FSA rule and guidance]
    B --> C[Dairy producer enrollment]
    C --> D[Production history reset]
    C --> E[Coverage and premium election]
    D --> F[Monthly margin calculation]
    E --> F
    F --> G{Payment triggered}
    G -->|Yes| H[CCC payment outlay]
    G -->|No| I[No monthly payment]
    H --> J[FSA program records]
    H --> K[USDA budget execution]
    H --> L[Treasury reporting]
    J --> M[Agency and oversight review]
    K --> M
    L --> M
    M --> N[Public visibility aggregated]

USDA FSA is the front-line administrator. Producers enroll through FSA, provide production evidence, select coverage levels and coverage percentages, and pay any applicable administrative fees or premiums. FSA maintains producer-level records, production-history records, premium records, and payment records.

The Commodity Credit Corporation is the likely financing vehicle for outlays. Dairy Margin Coverage is part of the farm commodity safety net, and CCC financial activity is generally reflected through USDA budget execution, Treasury account reporting, agency financial statements, and congressional budget materials.[14]

OMB may track the program through apportionment and budget execution controls. Treasury records the outlays at the account level. CBO estimates the budgetary effect of the public law at a broader legislative level, but section-specific public cost estimates may not isolate Dairy Margin Coverage changes with enough detail for a reader to attribute every outlay to Section 10313 alone.[15]

Public visibility is likely to be mixed. USDA may publish program information, enrollment announcements, fact sheets, and aggregate data, but individual farm payments are generally visible only through broader payment databases or disclosure systems where applicable. USAspending.gov may show some CCC or USDA account activity, but Dairy Margin Coverage outlays may be aggregated in ways that make Section 10313-specific effects difficult to isolate.

The related Section 10314 dairy survey funding is more specific. That provision directs $9 million for mandatory dairy production cost and product yield surveys and biennial publication of results.[16] Those survey funds should be easier to identify as an implementation activity than individual Dairy Margin Coverage payment effects, but they are technically in Section 10314 rather than Section 10313.

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA FSA, Section 10313 changes the annual Dairy Margin Coverage workload in several practical ways.

First, FSA offices must establish new production histories for participating dairy operations using the highest annual milk marketings from 2021, 2022, or 2023. That requires producers to provide milk marketing statements or other production evidence, and it requires county offices to verify and record the updated production history.[17]

Second, FSA must apply the new 6-million-pound Tier I threshold in enrollment software, payment calculations, premium billing, and producer notices. Operations that previously had production split between Tier I and Tier II after 5 million pounds now receive Tier I treatment for the first 6 million pounds.[18]

Third, FSA must administer multi-year coverage elections for the 2026 through 2031 period. Producers who lock in coverage for the full period may receive the statutory premium discount, so FSA must track long-term elections, annual administrative fees, premium obligations, and any changes in operation status.[19]

Fourth, USDA must update regulations and guidance. USDA’s 2026 rulemaking revised Dairy Margin Coverage rules to conform to OBBBA changes, including the production-history reset, 6-million-pound Tier I limit, and multi-year lock-in option.[20]

For producers, the day-to-day change is less about new paperwork categories and more about higher stakes in enrollment decisions. The updated baseline may increase eligible covered production, and the 6-million-pound Tier I limit can change the cost-benefit calculation for coverage.

Effects on Consumers

Section 10313 does not directly set retail milk prices, grocery-store dairy prices, or school milk prices. Consumers should not expect an immediate line-item price change at the supermarket because of this section alone.

The indirect consumer effect is through dairy supply stability. By improving the farm safety net, the provision may help participating dairy farms manage periods when feed costs are high or milk prices are low. In theory, that can reduce financial stress and support continuity of milk production. However, retail dairy prices are shaped by many other factors, including processing costs, transportation, labor, energy, retailer margins, regional supply conditions, and Federal Milk Marketing Order pricing rules.

Consumers may also benefit indirectly from better dairy market data if the related Section 10314 survey funding produces more timely cost and yield information. Better cost data can inform Federal Milk Marketing Order debates and processor make-allowance discussions, but that effect is indirect and depends on how USDA and stakeholders use the data.

The main consumer limitation is that federal dairy safety-net payments go to participating producers, not to households. Section 10313 is not a nutrition assistance provision and does not increase consumer purchasing power.

Effects on Businesses

The largest direct business effects fall on dairy farms.

Dairy operations with production growth after older baseline years may receive a more accurate and potentially higher production history. That matters because payment exposure depends on production history. A higher production history can increase the volume of milk protected when the margin falls below the selected coverage level.[21]

Mid-sized dairy farms near the old 5-million-pound boundary are likely to be especially affected. Moving the Tier I threshold to 6 million pounds gives those farms access to Tier I treatment for an additional 1 million pounds of milk. Since Tier I is generally more favorable than Tier II, this can improve the economics of coverage for farms in that range.[22]

Larger dairy operations also benefit from the updated production-history calculation, but production above 6 million pounds remains subject to Tier II treatment. Therefore, the section helps larger operations but does not eliminate the two-tier structure.

Dairy processors are not direct recipients of Dairy Margin Coverage payments under Section 10313. However, processors may be indirectly affected if the provision supports producer solvency and milk supply continuity. The related mandatory dairy cost surveys funded in Section 10314 may affect processors more directly because manufacturers required to report under the Agricultural Marketing Act may need to provide production cost and product yield information for USDA surveys.[23]

Agricultural lenders, cooperatives, accountants, and risk-management advisers may see additional advisory work because producers must evaluate whether to enroll, what coverage level to choose, whether to lock in multi-year coverage, and how the updated baseline affects their risk strategy.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10313 has no explicit conservation, emissions, manure-management, land-use, water-quality, or climate-resilience requirement. It is a dairy income-support and risk-management provision, not an environmental regulation.

The environmental effect is therefore indirect. By making Dairy Margin Coverage more valuable for some farms, the section may modestly support the continued operation of dairy farms that might otherwise face greater financial stress during low-margin periods. Continued dairy production carries environmental impacts associated with methane emissions, manure management, feed production, water use, and nutrient runoff. The section does not condition support on climate or conservation practices, so it does not directly steer producers toward lower-emission or lower-pollution systems.

At the same time, income stabilization can help some producers finance improvements such as manure storage, feed efficiency, herd health, or energy upgrades, but Section 10313 does not require or target those investments. Any positive environmental outcome would depend on producer choices and on other USDA conservation, energy, or state-level programs.

The clearest environmental conclusion is that Section 10313 preserves and expands a dairy safety-net tool without adding environmental performance conditions.

Impact Summary

Section 10313 is a targeted dairy safety-net update. It makes Dairy Margin Coverage more favorable by resetting production history to recent high-production years, expanding Tier I coverage from 5 million to 6 million pounds, renewing multi-year premium discounts, and extending the program through 2031.

The provision most directly helps dairy producers, especially farms whose production increased in 2021, 2022, or 2023 and farms near the 5-million-to-6-million-pound production range. It changes USDA FSA enrollment, verification, premium, and payment-administration work. It has indirect effects on consumers and processors, but it does not directly regulate retail dairy prices or create processor payments.

For tracking, the key issue is visibility. Payments will likely flow through existing FSA and CCC systems, while public reporting may be aggregated and difficult to isolate at the section level. Section 10313 does not itself create a dedicated public reporting mechanism for its payment effects.

Key References and Sourcing

[1] USDA Farm Service Agency, “Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” program overview and payment description, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/income-support/dairy-margin-coverage-program-dmc.

[2] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” production history amendment to 7 U.S.C. 9055, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[3] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” new dairy operation production-history election, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[4] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” amendment replacing 5,000,000 with 6,000,000 in DMC payment and premium provisions, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[5] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” premium-discount and duration amendments, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[6] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10314. Implementation,” $50 million Subtitle C implementation funding and $9 million dairy survey funding, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[7] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “7 CFR Part 1430 Subpart D—Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” payment and premium structure, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/subchapter-B/part-1430/subpart-D.

[8] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “7 CFR 1430.407,” Tier I and Tier II premium provisions, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/subchapter-B/part-1430/subpart-D.

[9] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” duration amendment extending DMC through 2031, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[10] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” production history amendment, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[11] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” election by new dairy operations, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[12] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” DMC payments and premium amendments, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[13] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10313. Dairy policy updates,” duration amendment, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[14] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21,” enacted public law budget context, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570.

[15] Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21,” summary of public-law fiscal effects, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61570.

[16] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10314. Implementation,” dairy survey funding and biennial publication requirement, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

[17] USDA Farm Service Agency, “Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” production history and evidence requirements, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/income-support/dairy-margin-coverage-program-dmc.

[18] USDA Farm Service Agency, “Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” 2026 Tier I increase from 5 million to 6 million pounds, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/income-support/dairy-margin-coverage-program-dmc.

[19] USDA Farm Service Agency, “Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” 2026 through 2031 lock-in option and 25 percent premium discount, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/income-support/dairy-margin-coverage-program-dmc.

[20] Federal Register, “Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, and Dairy Margin Coverage Programs,” January 12, 2026 final rule, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/12/2026-00313/changes-to-agriculture-risk-coverage-price-loss-coverage-and-dairy-margin-coverage-programs.

[21] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “7 CFR Part 1430 Subpart D—Dairy Margin Coverage Program,” payment calculation based on coverage and production history, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/subchapter-B/part-1430/subpart-D.

[22] Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “7 CFR 1430.407,” Tier I and Tier II premium schedule, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/subchapter-B/part-1430/subpart-D.

[23] Public Law 119-21, “Sec. 10314. Implementation,” mandatory surveys of dairy production cost and product yield information, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm.

---

Created with AI, Will be Polished by Humans, Powered by You.

Join the Conversation Today!

---

Please share how OBBBA Section 10313: Dairy policy updates is impacting you, your family, your business, your district and/or your state by telling your story.