H.R. 8454

H.R. 8454: To provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other purposes.

Reported by Committee Tom McClintock (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8454 is a bill that proposes to transfer control of certain federal lands between Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest in California. The change aims to allow cattle grazing on these lands to be managed by the Forest Service, which supports grazing as part of its multiple-use management approach.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8454 have praised the bill for promoting sustainable land management practices. They argue that transferring the land to the Forest Service will better align with the needs of local ranchers and enhance the management of grazing activities, contributing to both economic benefits and environmental stewardship.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8454 have expressed concerns that the bill may undermine conservation efforts in Yosemite National Park. Some environmentalists argue that allowing grazing on these lands could lead to habitat degradation and negatively impact wildlife, raising alarms about the potential long-term consequences for the park's ecosystem.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$315,000,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Public Lands and Natural Resources

The analysis of H.R. 8454 reveals no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Tom McClintock's top donor industries and the bill's subject matter, which focuses on the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over federal land in California. The top donor industries, primarily health professionals and retirees, do not have a clear connection to land management or federal land policies. The total contributions from these industries amount to $315 million, but they do not appear to influence the legislative intent of this bill. Additionally, the lobbying activity related to this bill does not indicate any significant financial interests that could create a conflict for the sponsor, as the amounts involved are relatively modest compared to his donor contributions. Therefore, the risk of conflict is assessed as low, as there are no apparent financial incentives that could sway the sponsor's legislative decisions regarding this bill.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
SAILDRONE INC. SAILDRONE INC. $410,042
SAILDRONE INC. SAILDRONE INC. $377,725
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. $158,589
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION $150,000
SBIR CONSORTIUM JOHN WILLIAMS $30,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND BOUNDARY STONE PARTNERS $30,000
SEEING MACHINES GRIFFIN STRATEGIES, LLC $30,000
SAFE KIDS WORLDWIDE GRIFFIN STRATEGIES, LLC $30,000
CREATIVE ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY, LLC $30,000
MIDDLE EAST FORUM MIDDLE EAST FORUM $20,000
ATA ACTION RS GROUP CONSULTING LLC $6,000
END SEPSIS CURRENTSTRATEGIC LLC undisclosed
TECHNEST SOLUTIONS S.L.A. DBA FORTRIS ON BEHALF OF NEXUSONE CONSULTING CURRENTSTRATEGIC LLC undisclosed
SBCC EQUIPMENT DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY, LLC undisclosed
BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SUMMIT HEALTH CARE CONSULTING undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Tom McClintock, 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