H.R. 9320

H.R. 9320: To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow local educational agencies to use Federal funds for programs and activities that address chronic absenteeism, and for other purposes.

Introduced Christian Menefee (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9320 aims to modify the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by allowing local educational agencies to utilize federal funds for initiatives that specifically target chronic absenteeism in schools. This includes programs and activities designed to reduce the number of students who miss school frequently.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9320 have praised the bill for its proactive approach to tackling chronic absenteeism, which is seen as a significant barrier to student success. Media coverage highlights the potential for improved educational outcomes and increased funding flexibility for schools to implement targeted interventions.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9320 express concerns that the bill may lead to misallocation of federal funds, arguing that it could divert resources from other critical educational needs. Some media outlets have raised questions about the effectiveness of proposed programs in genuinely addressing the root causes of absenteeism.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Education

The analysis of H.R. 9320, sponsored by Christian Menefee, indicates a low risk of conflicts of interest. The bill focuses on amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to address chronic absenteeism, and there are no direct overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. While there is lobbying activity in the education policy area, the contributions from organizations such as OSF Healthcare System ($60,000) and others do not directly relate to education funding or chronic absenteeism initiatives. This lack of direct financial ties suggests that the sponsor's legislative actions are not influenced by donor interests in this context. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, it does not appear to create a significant conflict with the bill's objectives.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM $60,000
EGAN-JONES RATINGS COMPANY INVARIANT LLC $50,000
GRADIUM MEGA COIN HARTWELL CAPITOL CONSULTING $50,000
DRAI HEALTH HARTWELL CAPITOL CONSULTING $50,000
VALTHOS INC. INVARIANT LLC $40,000
SANDY BAY PARTNERS, LLC GRACE BAY STRATEGIES, LLC $20,000
ORGANOGENESIS DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $15,000
ANTENNA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $15,000
NETSCOUT DONOVAN STRATEGIES LLC $10,000
ALLLIANCE OF MARINE MAMMAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS MEA STRATEGIES LLC undisclosed
REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUP COALITION ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSULTING, LLC undisclosed
JACKSON WALKER LLP ON BEHALF OF SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
ANTHEIA INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
RAILROAD INVESTIGATION PROJECT GROUP EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC undisclosed
EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC EAGLE 1 RESOURCES, LCC undisclosed

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

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