H.R. 8550

H.R. 8550: To allow States to require payment of State fees related to boating as a condition for issuance of a vessel number and to collect such fees in conjunction with other fees related to vessel numbering.

Introduced Jennifer Kiggans (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8550 is a bill that aims to give states the authority to require boat owners to pay state-specific fees related to boating when they apply for a vessel number. This bill also allows states to collect these fees at the same time as other fees associated with vessel numbering, potentially streamlining the process for boat owners and state agencies.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8550 have highlighted the bill's potential to streamline the process of vessel registration by allowing states to consolidate fee collections. This could reduce administrative burdens for both boat owners and state agencies, making the process more efficient. Additionally, the bill could help ensure that states receive necessary funds to maintain waterways and boating facilities.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8550 argue that the bill could lead to increased costs for boat owners, as states may choose to impose additional fees. There is also concern that the bill could create discrepancies in boating costs across different states, potentially complicating interstate boating activities. Some media outlets have expressed worry that these changes might disproportionately affect recreational boaters or those with limited financial resources.

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

After a thorough analysis of the bill H.R. 8550 and the campaign finance data of its sponsor, Jennifer Kiggans, no direct conflicts of interest were identified. The bill pertains to state fees related to boating and vessel numbering, and none of Kiggans' top donor industries appear to be directly related to this subject matter. Therefore, there is no evidence of any financial influence on the bill from the sponsor's donors. However, it is worth noting that there has been significant lobbying activity in the bill's policy area, with various entities spending a total of $491,800. The largest spender was Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners Inc., who spent $210,000. Despite this, none of these entities seem to have a direct stake in the bill's subject matter.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

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

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS $1,160,000
COPENHAGEN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS INC. COPENHAGEN INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS INC. $210,000
SOLENO THERAPEUTICS, INC. SOLENO THERAPEUTICS, INC. $80,000
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER $80,000
THE AMHERST GROUP, LLC THE MAJORITY GROUP, LLC $60,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATORS $31,407
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA WEST & WEST, LLC $24,300
STEELSHIPS, LLC CONSCIENCE POINT CONSULTING, INC. $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL $18,000
VIPO US CORUS FEDERAL STRATEGIES $10,000
DRONEUP JLF CONSULTING CO $10,000
BLACK KNIGHT MEDICAL, LLC JLF CONSULTING CO $7,500
NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION undisclosed
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS undisclosed
CAPITOL COUNSEL, LLC ON BEHALF OF BAYER CORPORATION MICHAEL R. PAWLOWSKI undisclosed

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

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Jennifer Kiggans, 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