Dear House and Senate Agriculture Committee Leadership:

The undersigned organizations, representing consumers and taxpayers, as well as limited government and free market interests, write to express our opposition to imposing product restrictions on existing eligible grocery items covered under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We believe that having the federal government pick and choose what consumers can buy would be a significant overreach and is highly likely to result in higher taxes for consumers. Therefore, we strongly oppose the inclusion of this provision, or similar language, into the 2023 Farm Bill.

Our overarching concern is the proposed “Healthy SNAP” Act, which a number of lawmakers are attempting to jam into this iteration of the Farm Bill. This misguided proposal would remove a wide variety of everyday grocery items from SNAP eligibility, thereby infringing on consumer choice and creating a bad precedent that would most affect families in the unenviable position of receiving government help to pay for their groceries.

We object to the premise that government officials know better than individuals. Consumers, whether they are SNAP beneficiaries or not, should be allowed to make their own educated decisions in determining for themselves what foods and beverages to serve their families. They should not be subjected to top-down directives from policymakers and bureaucrats in Washington.

Furthermore, provisions in the Healthy SNAP Act would empower federal government bureaucrats to continuously impose prohibitions on grocery items they disfavor for an ever-widening number of reasons. As in the past, such a dynamic would surely be followed by calls to subject consumers to excise or “sin” taxes on those products. Today, the target may be treats not necessary to daily sustenance, or occasional snacks, but

future regulation could be used against any food producer as well as politically disfavored products like red meat, whole milk or farmed fish, for example.

The new regulatory framework in the Healthy SNAP Act would significantly increase the SNAP’s administrative costs. It would take significant resources to manage eligible versus ineligible products, track them, and communicate that information to states and retailers. This will add to the taxpayer burden at both the state and federal level, as SNAP’s administrative expenses are split equally between federal and state governments.

Our coalition deeply understands the need to address the rising cost of the Farm Bill. Many of the undersigned groups have proffered a number of solutions to address the need for comprehensive reform in this area. Yet we are skeptical of arguments that restricting certain products from SNAP eligibility would yield the savings promised by the authors of the Healthy SNAP Act. Restricting SNAP purchases won’t make Americans healthier, nor will it save money, but it will add more bureaucracy to the program and set a precedent for government intrusion into purchasing decisions made by everyday Americans.

Yael Ossowski
Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Dear Members of Congress:

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing in support of the Financial Innovation and Technology (FIT) for the 21^st Century Act (H.R. 4763). We also support complementary legislation (H.R. 5403) that prohibits the establishment of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) both directly to individuals and through the intermediated banking system.

The bipartisan FIT for the 21^st Century Act codifies a regulatory framework that directs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on how to distinguish between “restricted digital assets” under the SEC’s purview and “digital commodities” under the CFTC’s. The bill also establishes procedures for broker-dealers, trading systems, exchanges, clearing agencies, and custodians to register with one, or both, of these agencies. Further, this proposed framework explicitly acknowledges that decentralized protocols are fundamentally different and thus need separate regulatory treatment. This legislation is necessary to prevent unelected bureaucrats at the SEC and CFTC from unilaterally and arbitrarily reprimanding individuals and institutions that may be directly or indirectly operating within the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Cryptocurrencies have been unlawfully vilified by the SEC. The securities enforcement agency has attempted to create false narratives to justify a political agenda. Earlier this year, a federal judge determined that the SEC’s lawsuit against a cryptocurrency firm was “a gross abuse of the power entrusted to it by Congress.” In fact, the judge stated that:

If one affirmatively states something is true when there are no facts to support it, that cannot be characterized as an inference. That is a falsehood. The decision to communicate this assertion to the court as fact, when it lacked any factual basis, demonstrates subjective bad faith.

By enacting the FIT for the 21^st Century Act, elected officials in Congress are using their legislative authority to preempt future abuses of executive power. Checks and balances as a method for separating powers among the three branches of government is a fundamental tenet of the U.S. Constitution. The FIT for the 21^st Century Act is a check to preexisting and future executive abuse.

The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is also necessary legislation. CBDCs not only crowd out private cryptocurrencies, but they are also an existential threat to consumer privacy protections. Some academics have also posited that CBDCs could be weaponized to collect taxes and enable the IRS to harass small businesses and individuals. CBDCs have no place in American society.  

The cryptocurrency ecosystem is thriving with innovative investment opportunities and technological advancements. The creation of spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is the epitome of a free market economy—where supply meets demand. Additionally, embracing distributed ledger technology, which is the decentralized bedrock unto which many cryptocurrencies are embedded, could revolutionize not just finance but also supply chain management, healthcare, and real estate.

Lawmakers should embrace change by using their legislative powers to cogently establish rules of the road for the future of the American financial sector. This will ensure legislative authority stays with elected officials in Congress and is not ceded to the executive branch. 

Members of Congress should vote in support of the FIT for the 21^st Century Act and the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.   

Sincerely, 

Consumer Choice Center

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries,

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write in support of the Removing Our Unsecure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security (ROUTERS) Act. Specifically, we encourage House leadership to take up the ROUTERS Act posthaste. We further request that the House Appropriations Committee consider including report language in the FY2025 appropriations package encouraging agencies to investigate their information technology (IT) infrastructure and “rip and replace” any hardware manufactured by a company controlled by a foreign adversary nation.

Passed unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in March, the ROUTERS Act would require a report from the Department of Commerce informing policymakers of potential risks posed by consumer internet routers, modems, and other technologies produced by companies based in or controlled by foreign adversary nations. To safeguard America’s national and economic security, members of Congress need reliable information on technological vulnerabilities in consumer products produced in nations such as China and Russia. The ROUTERS Act would help provide such information.

The Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries have attempted to compromise our national and economic security at all levels of the “tech stack.” Congress previously addressed threats to our telecommunications infrastructure by passing the bipartisan Secure Equipment Act, which removed and banned the use of products made by Chinese telecommunications firms Huawei and ZTE. Congress recently addressed threats at the “edge” of the tech stack with legislation that enables the president to force the divestment of foreign-controlled platforms such as TikTok. Congress has requested studies that have helped illustrate the threats posed by the federal government’s use of other types of hardware, such as drones manufactured by Chinese-based drone company DJI. But Congress has not yet comprehensively examined the national security and economic vulnerabilities posed by the “middle” sections of our tech stack as represented by routers and modems.

Concerns about potential vulnerabilities in routers and modems are well founded, and passing the ROUTERS Act will help Congress take appropriate measures to secure our digital infrastructure. In January 2024, CCP-supported hacker groups in Europe exploited vulnerabilities in routers made by the Chinese company TP-Link to conduct cyber espionage operations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has logged hundreds of reports of cybersecurity vulnerabilities within TP-Link’s products in its National Vulnerabilities Database. Even with these known vulnerabilities, agencies such as the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the General Services Administration have reportedly purchased TP-Link hardware.

The ROUTERS Act would begin the process of identifying the level of threat that such technologies pose to American national and economic security. The bill marks another step in the bipartisan effort to secure our supply chains and tech stack from threats posed by products and vendors based in or beholden to countries of concern.

In addition to taking up the ROUTERS Act, we encourage Congress to include report language in the FY2025 appropriations package that recommends federal agencies conduct an inventory of their routers and remove any hardware manufactured in countries of concern that could have built-in cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Historically, when addressing national security threats to our tech stack, the federal government has led by example, voluntarily removing vulnerable hardware and software from government devices and networks. While, to our knowledge, no legislation has yet been proposed requiring federal agencies to do so, we believe that the appropriations report language this appropriations cycle could kickstart the removal of vulnerable routers and modems from federal IT systems. After the passage of the ROUTERS Act, this would be a great second step toward addressing threats at the highest level and proactively mitigating any potential harm.

Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this vital issue. We look forward to working with you to ensure that this piece of legislation becomes law and to continue the effort to secure our technological infrastructure.

Sincerely,

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center