A Democratic bill with 13 Democratic cosponsors · See all 13 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill establishes the Fresh Bucks Pilot Program within the Department of Agriculture to award grants to states. These grants will provide eligible households with a monthly payment of $60 to purchase qualifying produce. States must create plans to reach low-access areas, expand retailer participation, and prioritize food-insecure communities. The program requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study and report on the effectiveness and outcomes of the program. The pilot program is set to terminate five years after the date of enactment.
Yes· 3 of 32
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly provides $60 monthly for produce to households at or below 80% AMI.
- Scored +6
Would farmers be better off under this?
Increases demand for produce at farmers markets and farm stands.
- Scored +6
Is this likely to lift people out of poverty?
Provides direct financial assistance of $60/month for food to households below 80% of area median income.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle class households are generally excluded due to the 80% AMI income cap.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill creates a new grant-funded pilot program, increasing government expenditures.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes new spending for grants to States to provide monthly payments.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Assistance for Low-Income Households: Under Section 2(e)(1)(C) and Section 2(f)(2), households making 80 percent or less of the area median income can receive $60 per month to purchase qualifying foods like fruits and vegetables, which helps families afford healthy food.
-
Support for SNAP Recipients: Under Section 2(e)(2), households receiving benefits under the SNAP program are deemed to meet the income requirement and benefit from an opt-in or auto-enrollment mechanism with minimized paperwork, making it easier to receive benefits.
-
Reaching Food-Insecure and Low-Access Communities: Under Section 2(b) and Section 2(c)(2), states must include plans to reach low-access areas through mobile markets, delivery models, and partnerships, and the Secretary of Agriculture must give preference to applications that prioritize food-insecure communities.
-
Supplement to Existing Benefits: Under Section 2(f)(3), payments received under this program are explicitly required to supplement, not supplant, other benefits received by eligible households.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Time Limits on Funds: Under Section 2(f)(2), the $60 monthly payment may only be used during a 30-day period, meaning families cannot save or roll over unused funds into the next month.
-
Program Termination: Under Section 2(j), the Fresh Bucks Pilot Program terminates five years after the date of enactment, which could cut off assistance for participating households if the program is not extended.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly provides $60 monthly for produce to households at or below 80% AMI. Would farmers be better off under this? — Increases demand for produce at farmers markets and farm stands. Would children be better off under this? — Increases availability of fresh produce for low-income households with children. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Supports rural farm stands and farmers markets to increase food access. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses food insecurity in communities that disproportionately include African Americans. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases customer spending at eligible retailers like independent grocers and farmers markets. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Addresses food insecurity in communities that disproportionately include Hispanic Americans. Would men be better off under this? — Increases food security for low-income households. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides financial support for food to low-income middle-aged adults. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Addresses food insecurity in underserved areas, including tribal lands. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Provides food assistance to low-income individuals with disabilities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides food assistance to low-income retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides financial support for food to low-income seniors. Would students be better off under this? — Provides food assistance to low-income student households. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Focuses on low-access areas and urban food deserts. Would women be better off under this? — Increases food security for low-income households, which often benefits women as primary caregivers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides financial support for food to low-income young adults. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides food assistance to low-income households across various ethnicities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Low-income immigrant households meeting AMI requirements can benefit. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Provides financial support for food to low-income individuals. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Provides food assistance to low-income veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides food assistance to low-income households regardless of race. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle class households are generally excluded due to the 80% AMI income cap.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides direct financial assistance of $60/month for food to households below 80% of area median income. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Focuses on food insecure communities and low-access areas which often correlate with marginalized racial groups. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Supplementing food costs can reduce the overall financial burden on individuals at risk of homelessness.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports farm stands and farmers markets, which are critical to rural economic infrastructure.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Administers the program through grants to States, allowing state-level implementation. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a federal grant program that sets specific guidelines for State implementation.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill encourages partnerships with health clinics to reach food insecure communities. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill mandates a study to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of the pilot program.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Independent grocers, farm stands, and farmers markets are listed as eligible retailers for the payments. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increased purchasing power for low-income households can stimulate local food retail economies. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes new spending for grants to States to provide monthly payments. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill creates a new grant-funded pilot program, increasing government expenditures.
- 10/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/2/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Alma AdamsDemocrat · North Carolina
Nanette BarragánDemocrat · California
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Shomari FiguresDemocrat · Alabama
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Adam SmithDemocrat · Washington
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan