H.R. 9464

H.R. 9464: To prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from closing any research and development facility of the Forest Service.

Introduced Maggie Goodlander (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9464 is a bill that aims to prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from closing any research and development facilities operated by the Forest Service. This legislation seeks to ensure that these facilities remain open and continue their work in forestry research and development.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9464 have praised the bill for its commitment to preserving critical research facilities that contribute to forest management and environmental sustainability. Advocates argue that maintaining these facilities is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and supporting local economies dependent on forestry.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9464 have expressed concerns that the bill may hinder necessary budgetary adjustments within the Department of Agriculture. Some argue that it could prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from making strategic decisions about resource allocation, potentially leading to inefficiencies in the management of federal resources.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Public Lands and Natural Resources

While there are no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor's top donor industries and the subject matter of H.R. 9464, the lobbying activity in the bill's policy area presents some potential conflicts of interest. Notably, RESPOND-US, which has contributed $140,000, and GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC., contributing $60,000, are involved in sectors that may benefit from research and development funding. This could create a perception of bias in favor of these entities should the bill pass, as it aims to prevent the closure of Forest Service research facilities that could impact various industries, including biotechnology and energy. Voters should be aware that while direct conflicts are not evident, the significant lobbying amounts suggest a vested interest in the outcomes of such legislation.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
RESPOND-US CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $140,000
SILVERLINING ALPINE GROUP PARTNERS, LLC. $80,000
MEDLINE CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $80,000
GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $60,000
PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. $50,000
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES CAPITOL POINT GROUP, LLC $50,000
MERIDIAM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITOL POINT GROUP, LLC $40,000
LEO TECHNOLOGIES BUTLER SNOW LLP $30,000
MAXIMUS BRICK STREET STRATEGY $30,000
JOHNSON & JOHNSON BRICK STREET STRATEGY $30,000
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION GTB PARTNERS $20,000
CHAMBERS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUTLER SNOW LLP $15,000
HEARTH, PATIO & BARBECUE ASSOCIATION HEARTH, PATIO & BARBECUE ASSOCIATION $15,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF WEST ALABAMA BUTLER SNOW LLP $12,000
BASIS PATH BUTLER SNOW LLP undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Maggie Goodlander, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 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