H.R. 9493

H.R. 9493: To require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report on the capacity of federally assisted housing to support broadband service, and for other purposes.

Introduced Nikema Williams (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9493 requires the Comptroller General to prepare and submit a report to Congress assessing how well federally assisted housing can support broadband internet services. The bill aims to evaluate the capacity and infrastructure of these housing units to ensure residents have access to reliable internet.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 9493 have praised the bill for addressing the critical issue of digital equity, particularly in federally assisted housing. They argue that improving broadband access is essential for education, telehealth, and economic opportunities, especially in underserved communities.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 9493 have expressed concerns that the bill may not lead to immediate improvements in broadband access and could be seen as merely a bureaucratic exercise. Some argue that without funding or concrete action plans, the report may not result in tangible benefits for residents in federally assisted housing.

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

The analysis of H.R. 9493, sponsored by Nikema Williams, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter—federally assisted housing and broadband service—and the sponsor's top donor industries. While there is lobbying activity in the policy area, the contributions from these entities do not directly relate to the bill's objectives. For instance, RPM International Inc. contributed $40,000, but their focus appears to be unrelated to housing or broadband. The other contributors, such as the National Association for Oilheat Research and Education and Cleveland State University, also do not align with the bill's focus. Therefore, the risk of conflict of interest is assessed as low, as there is no evident financial incentive that could influence the bill's outcome based on the sponsor's donor base.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION CRYPTO COUNCIL FOR INNOVATION $310,000
RPM INTERNATIONAL INC THE CJR GROUP, INC. $40,000
LA MAESTRA FOUNDATION ON BEHALF OF LA MAESTRA FAMILY CLINIC, INC. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $20,000
JEFFERSON PARISH CORONER'S OFFICE ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
GREENVILLE WATER SYSTEM ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
GRAND BAY WATER WORKS BOARD, INC. ADAMS AND REESE, LLP $20,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR OILHEAT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS $10,000
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY THE CJR GROUP, INC. $10,000
BELLEFAIRE JCB THE CJR GROUP, INC. $10,000
TERADAR BELTWAY GUIDED STRATEGIES $7,500
METABANK SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
MEAB SAL SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
M1 GROUP SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed
US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. US-INDIA STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FORUM, INC. undisclosed
H CYCLE, LLC SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Nikema Williams, 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