H.R. 9483

H.R. 9483: To require the Corps of Engineers to carry out advanced planning for dredging activities in areas with known PFAS contamination, and for other purposes.

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

H.R. 9483 requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct advanced planning for dredging activities in locations where there is known contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This aims to ensure that dredging operations are carried out in a way that addresses environmental and health concerns associated with PFAS contamination.

Positive Media Summary

Media coverage has highlighted the bill as a proactive measure to address environmental contamination, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding public health and ecosystems from the harmful effects of PFAS. Supporters argue that this legislation represents a significant step towards responsible environmental management and remediation efforts.

Negative Media Summary

Critics have raised concerns that the bill may lead to delays in necessary dredging activities, arguing that advanced planning could complicate and prolong the process. Some have also pointed out that the focus on PFAS might detract from other urgent environmental issues that require attention and resources.

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

While there are no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor's top donor industries and the subject matter of H.R. 9483, there are significant lobbying activities in the area of dredging and environmental management. Notably, RESPOND-US, which contributed $140,000, and GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC., which contributed $60,000, are involved in sectors that may intersect with environmental remediation efforts related to PFAS contamination. This raises questions about potential influences on the bill's direction and implementation, particularly given the substantial financial contributions from these entities. Voters should be aware that while the bill aims to address a critical environmental issue, the financial interests of lobbyists could shape its outcomes.

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
AMERICAN FLOOD COALITION ACTION INC ALPINE GROUP PARTNERS, LLC. $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
BASIS PATH BUTLER SNOW LLP undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Hillary Scholten, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $240,000,000
Individuals: $240,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $75,000,000
Individuals: $75,000,000 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