John Thune (R-SD)
Strengthening Local Processing Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text: CR S2666-2668)
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
The Strengthening Local Processing Act of 2025 aims to support small and very small meat and poultry processing businesses. It requires the Secretary to provide free databases, model plans, and guidance for safety plans. The bill increases federal funding for state inspections and expands the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program. It also creates a grant program for processing resilience and funds career training programs, including apprenticeships.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +9
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Provides direct grants, free technical resources, and expanded interstate shipping capabilities for small processors.
- Scored +8
Would business owners be better off under this?
Provides grants and reduces regulatory burdens for small meat and poultry processors.
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Directly supports the rural infrastructure of meat processing and local agriculture.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases federal spending through grants and higher cost-shares for state inspections.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes new federal spending totaling $30 million annually.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases federal expenditures without specifying an offset.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Easier Safety Planning: Small and very small establishments get access to a free database of validation studies and model safety plans to help them develop required plans (Section 2).
-
Increased Federal Funding: The federal share for state inspection expenses increases from 50 percent to 65 percent for both poultry and meat products (Section 3).
-
Expanded Shipping Opportunities: The Cooperative Interstate Shipment program increases the employee threshold from 25 to 50 employees, potentially allowing more businesses to ship products across state lines (Section 4).
-
Financial Assistance for Growth: Eligible entities can apply for competitive grants up to $500,000 to improve health and safety, increase processing capacity, or purchase equipment like cold storage and humane handling infrastructure (Section 5).
-
Job Training: Grants are provided to colleges, vocational schools, and nonprofits to create career training and structured apprenticeships for meat and poultry processing (Section 6).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Competitive Grant Risk: Because the Processing Resilience Grant Program and Processor Career Training Programs are competitive, many eligible entities or schools may not receive the funding they apply for (Section 5 and Section 6).
-
Limited Funding Pool: The total authorized appropriations for the resilience grants ($20 million) and training programs ($10 million) per year may limit the number of people or businesses that can actually benefit (Section 5 and Section 6).
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 business owners be better off under this? — Provides grants and reduces regulatory burdens for small meat and poultry processors. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly supports the rural infrastructure of meat processing and local agriculture. Would farmers be better off under this? — Increases slaughter options within a 200-mile radius of farmers and ranchers. Would students be better off under this? — Funds career training and apprenticeships at vocational and land-grant colleges. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Creates new apprenticeship and career training opportunities for those entering the workforce. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides grants and technical support for business owners in this age bracket. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potential for job creation in rural areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Supports small business owners and employees in the processing sector.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides direct grants, free technical resources, and expanded interstate shipping capabilities for small processors. Is this likely to create jobs? — Grants for capacity increases and career training programs are likely to stimulate job growth in the meat processing sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Support for small businesses and increased processing capacity contributes to local economic development. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Provides resources to help small businesses comply with food safety and HACCP plans. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases federal spending through grants and higher cost-shares for state inspections. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases federal expenditures without specifying an offset. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes new federal spending totaling $30 million annually.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Expands the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program to allow more businesses to sell across state lines. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Increases federal cost-sharing for state inspection programs, reducing state financial burden. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight and funding roles in state inspection programs.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Specifically targets small and very small processing facilities, which are typically rural operations.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Economic support for small rural businesses can help reduce poverty in those communities.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/29/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text: CR S2666-2668)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan