PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jul 18, 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.1076 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.1076 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.1076 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.1076 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Weather Alert Response and Notification Act, or WARN Act, would require the Comptroller General to study how effectively emergency alerts give communities timely, relevant information during weather emergencies. The study would examine local, state, territory, and federal systems, including how alerts reach people and whether their messages are useful. A report to Congress would be due within 18 months after enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Weather Alert Response and Notification Act or the WARN Act.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on the effectiveness of local, State, territory, and Federal emergency alerting systems in disseminating timely and relevant information during weather-related emergencies
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the study conducted under subsection (a).
The study would evaluate how well different communication channels, including social media, deliver emergency alerts during extreme weather. It would cover alerts about travel bans and widespread power outages.
evaluate the efficacy of various alert mediums, including platforms such as social media, to disseminate emergency alerts, including travel bans and mass power outages, during extreme weather events;
The study would assess what guidance and training exist for writing alerts that are clear, relevant, and tell people what they can do.
assess the extent that guidance and training exists for developing alert content, such as ensuring alerts are clear, relevant, and provide the public with actionable information;
The Comptroller General would determine whether public alerts, including outdoor sirens, could be improved. This assessment would use input from a selected sample of emergency managers, local officials, and community groups.
determine whether improvements could be made to public alerting, including outdoor siren systems, based on input from a selected sample of emergency managers, local officials, and community groups.
Within 18 months after enactment, the Comptroller General would have to deliver the study report to three congressional committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure, House Homeland Security, and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the study conducted under subsection (a).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 18, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 6, 2025, and referrals that day to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and its Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-18T00:01:52Z. 2025-02-06: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not cover accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI