Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act
A Democratic bill with 16 Democratic cosponsors · See all 16 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Small Business, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 aims to fix competition issues in the meatpacking industry by breaking up massive companies and stopping foreign-controlled meatpackers from operating in the United States. It requires large meatpacking enterprises to stick to a single line of protein, like beef, pork, or poultry, instead of controlling multiple types. The Federal Trade Commission and the Small Business Administration are given specific powers to oversee business breakups and help fund new independent competitors and farmers' cooperatives. The legislation also addresses price discrimination and unfair pricing practices at both the wholesale and retail levels to help bring down food costs for American families. Finally, it provides private rights of action and heavy financial penalties for companies that break these new rules.
Yes· 3 of 20
- Scored +8
Would farmers be better off under this?
Independent cattle producers and farmers gain stronger bargaining power, protections from abusive contracts, and new cooperative opportunities.
- Scored +7
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The legislation provides significant support, loans, and technical assistance for small businesses and farmers' cooperatives acquiring divested assets.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural communities benefit economically from the promotion and funding of local and regional independent meat processing facilities.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Large dominant meatpacking enterprises face forced divestitures and strict operational limitations.
- Scored -2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Owners and major investors in consolidated meatpacking conglomerates face negative impacts from structural breakups.
- Scored -2
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Major stakeholders in covered foreign-controlled and large domestic meatpackers face asset divestitures.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 101 and Section 102: These sections prohibit large meatpacking enterprises from operating in more than one line of protein and require the Federal Trade Commission to oversee structural breakups or divestitures. This is a positive step because it stops massive corporations from dominating multiple food sectors, which can lower prices for consumers and create a fairer market for workers.
-
Section 203: This section makes it illegal for a beef meatpacking enterprise to slaughter more than 10 percent of the cattle produced by any single large feedlot, and it gives independent feedlot owners the right to sue for triple damages if violations occur. This benefits independent cattle producers by protecting them from unfair pricing and reducing the massive buying power of dominant meatpackers.
-
Section 302: This provision makes it unlawful for covered foreign-controlled meatpacking enterprises to operate in domestic interstate commerce and orders them to divest their United States assets. This protects national security and local food system resilience by removing foreign multinational corporations that have used corruption-derived financing to buy up American agricultural assets.
-
Section 402: This requires the Federal Trade Commission to submit a detailed report on how it is using its authority to address price discrimination and unfair pricing that disadvantages neighborhood and smaller grocery stores. This helps independent grocers stay in business and can lead to fairer food prices for local communities.
-
Section 501: This authorizes the Small Business Administration to provide financial assistance, loans, and technical help to farmers' cooperatives and small businesses acquiring divested meatpacking facilities. This benefits local rural economies by helping new, independent competitors enter the market.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 101 and Section 102: Forcing major meatpacking companies to divest assets and split up their businesses could cause short-term operational disruptions in the food supply chain. This might temporarily burden businesses and workers while the industry is being restructured.
-
Section 302: Requiring foreign-controlled meatpacking enterprises to completely divest their United States operations could lead to corporate restructuring pains. This might cause temporary uncertainty for American workers employed by those specific foreign-owned facilities during the transition period.
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 farmers be better off under this? — Independent cattle producers and farmers gain stronger bargaining power, protections from abusive contracts, and new cooperative opportunities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities benefit economically from the promotion and funding of local and regional independent meat processing facilities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced food costs directly relieve financial pressure on low-income families who spend a larger share of income on groceries. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from lower prices and increased choices for meat and poultry products. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban consumers benefit from lower retail food prices and increased oversight of grocery pricing. Would children be better off under this? — Lower meat prices help reduce overall household food expenses, benefiting families with children. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged consumers benefit from reduced food inflation and increased market competition. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from lower food costs and increased market transparency. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors on fixed incomes benefit from lower retail food prices. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Lower grocery costs benefit young adults establishing independent households. Would business owners be better off under this? — Large dominant meatpacking enterprises face forced divestitures and strict operational limitations. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaire owners of major agribusiness conglomerates are negatively impacted by anti-concentration mandates. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Owners and major investors in consolidated meatpacking conglomerates face negative impacts from structural breakups. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Major stakeholders in covered foreign-controlled and large domestic meatpackers face asset divestitures. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Temporary restructuring could introduce brief uncertainty for workers in affected processing facilities.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The legislation provides significant support, loans, and technical assistance for small businesses and farmers' cooperatives acquiring divested assets. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Measures address unfair pricing practices and price discrimination to protect consumers from inflated food prices. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By breaking up market concentration and addressing price discrimination, the bill aims to lower retail meat costs for families. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Fostering competition and supporting independent agricultural processors enhances overall market resilience. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill promotes new independent competitors and cooperatives, which can create jobs in local processing.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation grants the FTC and SBA substantial new oversight, reporting, and enforcement powers. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Restoring competition and prohibiting restrictive practices improves fairness in interstate commerce for food products. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandatory reporting requirements enhance transparency regarding market structure and pricing practices.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill bolsters rural economies and supports independent agricultural producers and local processing facilities.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Mandating divestitures for specific foreign-controlled enterprises could create temporary international trade frictions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Lowering food prices helps alleviate financial strain on low-income households.
- 8/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Small Business, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 13 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Valerie FousheeDemocrat · North Carolina
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Susie LeeDemocrat · Nevada
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Grace MengDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Patrick RyanDemocrat · New York
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey