A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
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 Converting Our Waste Sustainably Act of 2025, or COWS Act of 2025, updates agricultural programs to focus on manure management and composting. It defines new composting and alternative manure management practices to reduce greenhouse gases and improve soil health. The bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture to provide payments covering up to 100 percent of costs for these practices. It specifically prioritizes small and mid-sized dairy and livestock operations, including socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers. Additionally, the Secretary is tasked with providing technical assistance and developing new conservation standards for on-farm composting.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +9
Would farmers be better off under this?
Provides up to 100% cost coverage for manure management and composting practices.
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Directly invests in rural agricultural infrastructure and public health.
- Scored +8
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Specifically targets the reduction of methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gas emissions.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes the Secretary to provide payments up to 100 percent of costs for specific practices.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases government spending through payments to farmers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Financial Support for Farmers: Section 4(c)(1) allows the Secretary to provide payments covering up to 100 percent of costs for planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, and training for alternative manure management.
-
Upfront Funding: Section 4(c)(2) requires the Secretary to provide at least 50 percent of total payments in advance for materials, equipment, and technical assistance.
-
Support for Small and Underserved Producers: Section 5(2)(D) directs the Secretary to award the majority of alternative manure contracts to small and mid-sized operations, including beginning, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
-
Environmental and Public Health Improvements: Section 2 and Section 5(2)(A) state that these practices are intended to reduce greenhouse gases, improve local air quality, and maximize public health benefits, including improved water quality and quantity.
-
Collaborative Opportunities: Section 5(2)(C) allows groups of producers to submit joint applications for shared composting facilities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Strict Eligibility Criteria: Section 5(2)(B)(iii) limits priority participation to operations that have a demonstrated track record of adopting conservation measures and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Payment Limitations: Section 7(a) maintains existing payment limitations, although Section 7(b) gives the Secretary the authority to waive them or impose separate limits.
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? — Provides up to 100% cost coverage for manure management and composting practices. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly invests in rural agricultural infrastructure and public health. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers for grants. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers for grants. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides significant capital for agricultural business owners to upgrade equipment. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers for grants. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers for grants. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes limited resource and socially disadvantaged farmers for 100% cost coverage. Would women be better off under this? — Includes socially disadvantaged farmers, which often encompasses women in agriculture. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Directly supports beginning farmers who are often young adults. Would men be better off under this? — Benefits farm operators generally. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides financial support for established small and mid-sized farm owners. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Benefits mid-sized farm operators through financial assistance. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Benefits small and mid-sized farm operators generally. Would children be better off under this? — Potential for improved air and water quality benefits children's health. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improved air and water quality from rural areas can benefit nearby urban areas.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Invests heavily in rural agricultural infrastructure and soil health. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Specifically targets the reduction of methane and nitrous oxide greenhouse gas emissions. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Aims to improve water quality, quantity, and local air quality through manure management. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Promotes better land stewardship and soil health on agricultural lands. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Promotes composting and organic waste conversion as sustainable alternatives.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Specifically prioritizes small and mid-sized dairy and livestock operations for funding. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides direct financial investment into agricultural infrastructure and sustainable practices. Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for installation, labor, and management of manure systems may create local agricultural service jobs. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes the Secretary to provide payments up to 100 percent of costs for specific practices. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases government spending through payments to farmers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Directly prioritizes socially disadvantaged farmers for financial assistance. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides high levels of financial support to limited resource and disadvantaged farmers.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Requires the Secretary to determine and publish factors for estimating carbon sequestration.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to set standards and provide payments.
- 3/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
- 10/31/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Adam GrayDemocrat · California
John MannionDemocrat · New York
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
David ValadaoRepublican · California