S. 1003Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawScience, Technology, Communications

Lulu’s Law

Sponsored byKatie Boyd BrittR-ALIntroduced Mar 12, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 26, 2026) No: 119-100.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 26, 2026

This act requires the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order explicitly permitting the transmission of wireless emergency alerts to mobile phones in the event of a shark attack.

(Under current regulations, authorized government authorities are permitted to send wireless emergency alerts regarding public safety emergencies, including severe weather, missing children, and other threats to life or property.)

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On decisive vote

    House · May 20, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    4016

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

9 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
19
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Nay23d ago
Has this been introduced in a previous Congress? Feels familiar, and if it died before, I'd like to know why.
4
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea25d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
13
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea22d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
10
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea26d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
-1
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea24d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
12
rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay24d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
9
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea18d ago
This is the kind of unglamorous plumbing that never makes the news and matters more than the stuff that does.
9
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay22d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
4
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Yea21d ago
Genuine question for people on both sides: what does success look like five years out? If we can't answer that, what are we voting on?
Your position on S. 100356% Yea · 18 VoteWire users