S. 1003 (119th)Bill Overview

Lulu’s Law

Science, Technology, Communications|Animal protection and human-animal relationshipsEmergency communications systems
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Mar 12, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageIntroduced

Held at the desk.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Requires the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order, within 180 days of enactment, designating a "shark attack" as an event for which a Wireless Emergency Alert (Alert Message) may be transmitted. The bill cites the Alert Message definition in 47 C.F.R. §10.10(a).

Why people may split

Tolerance for potential alert fatigue versus prioritizing safety

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that clearly identifies the agency action required and a deadline but provides minimal procedural, definitional, fiscal, or oversight detail.

Requires the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order, within 180 days of enactment, designating a "shark attack" as an event for which a Wireless Emergency Alert (Alert Message) may be transmitted.

The bill cites the Alert Message definition in 47 C.F.R. §10.10(a).

Passage55/100

Narrow, low-cost, low-controversy measure has reasonable chance, but legislative calendar and prioritization create meaningful uncertainty.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that clearly identifies the agency action required and a deadline but provides minimal procedural, definitional, fiscal, or oversight detail.

Contention20/100

Tolerance for potential alert fatigue versus prioritizing safety

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Federal agenciesLocal governments
Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesEnables rapid, federally authorized alerts to warn coastal populations of shark attack incidents.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce response time for emergency services and improve public safety near attack locations.
  • Federal agenciesCreates a uniform federal standard for including shark attacks in alertable emergencies.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersCould increase alert frequency, contributing to public alert fatigue and decreased responsiveness.
  • Local governmentsMay impose operational costs on carriers and local authorities to manage additional alerting protocols.
  • Local governmentsMandating the FCC action may reduce local discretion over when to issue public alerts.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Tolerance for potential alert fatigue versus prioritizing safety
Progressive85%

Likely supportive as a public-safety measure that can protect beachgoers and coastal communities.

Would want safeguards ensuring equitable, accessible alerts and careful criteria to avoid misuse or stigmatization.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Pragmatic support likely; sees narrow scope and modest administrative impact.

Wants clear operational standards and minimal unintended consequences before full endorsement.

Leans supportive
Conservative70%

Cautious but generally amenable as a narrow public-safety measure.

Concerns center on federal overreach, potential mission creep, and preserving local control of beach warnings.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Still ahead

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood55/100

Narrow, low-cost, low-controversy measure has reasonable chance, but legislative calendar and prioritization create meaningful uncertainty.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether FCC already considers such events covered under existing rules
  • Potential objections from telecom providers about alert criteria or burden
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

HOUSE · May 20, 2026
Fast-track passage✓ PassedBipartisanNear-unanimous
2/3 majority required

The House fast-tracked this bill — skipping normal debate — and it passed with a two-thirds majority. It now moves to the Senate.

What is a fast-track passage?

Suspending the rules allows the House to bypass normal debate procedures and pass a bill immediately with a two-thirds vote.

Yes 99% No 1%
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Tolerance for potential alert fatigue versus prioritizing safety

Narrow, low-cost, low-controversy measure has reasonable chance, but legislative calendar and prioritization create meaningful uncertainty.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that clearly identifies the agency action required and a deadline but provides minimal procedural, definitional, fiscal…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis