H.R. 9299

H.R. 9299: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program to award amounts to eligible entities to develop and carry out programs to incorporate eDNA monitoring techniques into and use eDNA monitoring techniques in carrying out spor

Introduced Hillary Scholten (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9299 directs the Secretary of the Interior to create a grant program that provides funding to eligible organizations. The goal of this program is to develop and implement environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring techniques, which are used to assess biodiversity and monitor ecosystems.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9299 have praised the bill for its potential to enhance conservation efforts and improve scientific understanding of ecosystems through innovative eDNA monitoring. They highlight that this technology can lead to more effective management of natural resources and better protection of endangered species.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9299 express concerns about the allocation of federal funds for eDNA monitoring, arguing that the bill may divert resources from other pressing environmental issues. Some also question the practicality and effectiveness of eDNA techniques in certain contexts, suggesting that the bill may not yield the intended benefits.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$52,500,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Public Lands and Natural Resources

The analysis of H.R. 9299, sponsored by Hillary Scholten, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. Scholten's largest donor industry is Health Professionals, contributing $40 million, followed by Retired individuals at $12.5 million. While these industries are significant in terms of financial contributions, they do not appear to have a direct connection to the eDNA monitoring techniques outlined in the bill. The lobbying activity in this policy area is primarily associated with health-related companies, but the absence of direct overlaps suggests that the risk of conflict is minimal. Voters should be aware that while there is substantial financial backing from health professionals, it does not directly influence the environmental focus of this legislation.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
MIDSIZED BIOTECH ALLIANCE OF AMERICA (MBAA) LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $230,000
STEALTH BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $60,000
SAVARA INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $60,000
REGENXBIO INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $60,000
PTC THERAPEUTICS, INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $50,000
INCYTE CORPORATION LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $50,000
HARMONY BIOSCIENCES LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $50,000
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $50,000
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $30,000
NEUROPACE, INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $30,000
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $30,000
ERISA INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (ERIC) LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $30,000
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE HEALTH LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $20,000
NATERA, INC. LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $20,000
MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION LMH STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS $20,000

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Hillary Scholten, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $40,000,000
Individuals: $40,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $12,500,000
Individuals: $12,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us