H.R. 8683

H.R. 8683: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to codify the Optional Practical Training program.

Introduced Valerie Foushee (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8683 aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to officially establish and codify the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. This program allows international students in the U.S. on F-1 visas to work in their field of study for a limited period after graduation, providing them with practical experience in the workforce.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8683 argue that codifying the OPT program is essential for attracting and retaining talented international students, enhancing the U.S. workforce, and promoting innovation. Many in the education and business sectors have praised the bill, emphasizing its potential to fill skill gaps in various industries and contribute to economic growth.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8683 express concerns that the OPT program may lead to job displacement for American workers and argue that it could complicate immigration issues. Some media outlets have highlighted fears that the bill could increase competition for jobs in a challenging economic environment, leading to calls for stricter immigration controls.

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

The analysis of H.R. 8683, which aims to codify the Optional Practical Training program, reveals no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Valerie Foushee's top donor industries and the bill's subject matter. The top donor industries do not appear to have a vested interest in immigration policy or the specifics of the Optional Practical Training program. Additionally, while there is lobbying activity in related policy areas, such as natural resources and education, these do not directly correlate with the bill's focus on immigration and workforce training for international students. Therefore, the risk of conflicts of interest is low, as the financial contributions do not suggest a motive to influence the legislation in favor of the donors' interests.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
TENCENT AMERICA LLC JOHN MCENTEE $225,000
AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION AMERICAN COUNSELING ASSOCIATION $180,000
PARKER MEGGITT PARKER MEGGITT $100,000
GUIDESTAR ELDERCARE LOPER CONSULTING LLC $40,000
GERSHOW RECYCLING CORPORATION BROWN & WEINRAUB ADVISORS, LLC $30,000
PACE UNIVERSITY BROWN & WEINRAUB ADVISORS, LLC $30,000
NATURA RESOURCES BLUEWATER STRATEGIES $20,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY BLUEWATER STRATEGIES $20,000
TOSHIBA CORPORATION BLUEWATER STRATEGIES $18,000
AUTISM SCIENCE FOUNDATION IKON PUBLIC AFFAIRS $18,000
MUSEUM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION IKON PUBLIC AFFAIRS $18,000
NATIONAL RETIREE LEGISLATIVE NETWORK ALYSON PARKER $15,000
TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN BROWN & WEINRAUB ADVISORS, LLC $10,000
CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI TWO RIVERS LLC $6,000
JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN CENTER FOR RECONCILIATION CARTER LAWS & ASSOCIATES undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Valerie Foushee, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $80,000,000
Individuals: $80,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $25,000,000
Individuals: $25,000,000 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