A Democratic bill with 6 Republican cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Florida Coastal Protection Act," seeks to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It aims to prohibit the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas in specific offshore areas near Florida. Specifically, it targets areas in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic Planning Area south of a certain latitude, and the Straits of Florida Planning Area. The prohibition applies to any new leases or authorizations issued by the Secretary. However, the law would not affect rights held under leases issued before this act becomes law.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill directly halts the expansion of fossil fuel production in specified coastal regions.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill protects coastal ecosystems by preventing industrial development in offshore areas.
- Scored +5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
By prohibiting new oil and gas extraction, the bill helps reduce future carbon emissions.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Energy companies and related businesses face restrictions under this act.
- Scored -2
Is this likely to lower the price at the pump?
Reducing domestic oil and gas production could contribute to higher energy prices.
- Scored -2
Is this likely to create jobs?
Prohibiting new oil and gas activity may limit potential job growth in the energy sector.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Prohibition of oil and natural gas activities: By preventing the Secretary from issuing new leases or authorizations for exploration, development, or production in certain areas, the bill restricts industrial activity in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, parts of the South Atlantic Planning Area, and the Straits of Florida Planning Area (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Impact on existing lease rights: While the bill prohibits new activity, it explicitly states that nothing in the new subsection affects any rights held under leases that were issued before the date of enactment (Section 2, subsection j, paragraph 2).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill directly halts the expansion of fossil fuel production in specified coastal regions. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill protects coastal ecosystems by preventing industrial development in offshore areas. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By prohibiting new oil and gas extraction, the bill helps reduce future carbon emissions. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Prohibiting extraction can be seen as a form of protecting public marine resources. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Reducing domestic oil and gas production could contribute to higher energy prices.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Prohibiting new oil and gas activity may limit potential job growth in the energy sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Restricting energy production may have a slight negative impact on regional economic growth.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses federal authority to restrict activity in offshore areas.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Environmental protections provide a better ecological future for younger generations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Long-term climate mitigation benefits younger demographic cohorts. Would business owners be better off under this? — Energy companies and related businesses face restrictions under this act. Would union members be better off under this? — Energy sector unions may lose potential new job opportunities.
- 6/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/6/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/17/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/14/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/7/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Gus BilirakisRepublican · Florida
Vern BuchananRepublican · Florida
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormickDemocrat · Florida
Lois FrankelDemocrat · Florida
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Carlos GimenezRepublican · Florida
Jared MoskowitzDemocrat · Florida
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
John RutherfordRepublican · Florida
Maria SalazarRepublican · Florida
Darren SotoDemocrat · Florida
Debbie Wasserman SchultzDemocrat · Florida
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida