PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · May 20, 2026
Florida Safe Seas Act of 2025
This bill prohibits shark feeding in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) seaward of Florida for any purpose other than to harvest sharks, subject to limited exceptions. (Florida state waters generally extend 3 miles from the shore in the Atlantic Ocean and 9 miles from the shore in the Gulf of America. The EEZ is seaward of and adjacent to state waters and generally extends to 200 miles from the U.S. coastline.)
Specifically, the bill makes it unlawful to introduce, or attempt to introduce, food or any other substance into these waters to attract sharks for any purpose other than to harvest sharks. Exceptions allow shark feeding (1) for research programs funded by federal appropriations, or (2) to the extent that the feeding presents no public health hazard or safety risk (as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or under state law).
People & committees
Rep. Webster, Daniel [R-FL-11] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3751)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3751)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3831.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3751)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 572.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-658.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-658.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3831 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3831 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3831 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3831 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.