H.R. 8984

H.R. 8984: To prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from constructing, acquiring, renovating, or operating any new processing site or detention center without providing a mechanism for public comments regarding such activity, entering into a signe

Introduced Joseph Morelle (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8984 is a bill that aims to prevent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from building, acquiring, renovating, or managing any new processing sites or detention centers unless they first establish a way for the public to comment on these activities. This would ensure community input and transparency in the decision-making process regarding immigration facilities.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8984 argue that the bill promotes transparency and accountability in government operations. They believe that allowing public comments will lead to better decision-making and ensure that local communities have a voice in matters that affect them directly, particularly in relation to immigration enforcement and detention practices.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8984 contend that the bill could hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond quickly to immigration issues. They argue that requiring public comment could delay necessary actions and complicate the establishment of facilities needed to manage immigration effectively, potentially leading to overcrowding or inadequate resources for processing individuals.

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. 8984, which aims to regulate the Department of Homeland Security's construction and operation of processing sites or detention centers, reveals no direct industry overlaps with the sponsor Joseph Morelle's top donor industries. The lobbying activity related to this bill includes significant contributions from various entities, such as Consejo Coordinador Empresarial with $140,000 and Fresenius Kabi USA LLC with $1,100,000. However, these contributions do not directly relate to the bill's subject matter, indicating a low risk of conflict of interest. Voters should be aware that while there is substantial lobbying activity, it does not appear to influence the bill's intent or the sponsor's motivations significantly.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
FRESENIUS KABI USA LLC FRESENIUS KABI USA LLC $1,100,000
CONSEJO COORDINADOR EMPRESARIAL IQOM STRATEGIC ADVISORS, LLC $140,000
IVANHOE ATLANTIC (FORMERLY HIGH POWER EXPLORATION INC.) YORKTOWN SOLUTIONS $120,000
SKYRYSE, INC. SKYRYSE, INC. $70,000
AIS HEALTHCARE MCGUIREWOODS CONSULTING (A SUBSIDIARY OF MCGUIREWOODS LLP) $20,000
THE FERGUSON GROUP, LLC FOR CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY,NC EARL STOCKDALE undisclosed
THE FERGUSON GROUP, LLC ON BEHALF OF WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT, CA EARL STOCKDALE undisclosed
THE FERGUSON GROUP, LLC FOR CITY OF OCEANSIDE CA EARL STOCKDALE undisclosed
THE FERGUSON GROUP, LLC ON BEHALF OF WARD & SMITH (FOR BALD HEAD ISLAND) EARL STOCKDALE undisclosed
THE FERGUSON GROUP, LLC ON BEHALF OF WARD & SMITH, PA (FOR HOLDEN BEACH, NC) EARL STOCKDALE undisclosed
CORE POWER (US) INC. INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
ICON TECHNOLOGY, INC. INVARIANT LLC undisclosed
HUBBS-SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE HAMMER ASSOCIATES, LLC undisclosed
THE POLICY SHOP LLC JAVELIN ADVISORS LLC undisclosed
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF HEALTHCARE PURCHASER COALITIONS NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF HEALTHCARE PURCHASER COALITIONS undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Joseph Morelle, 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