PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 12, 2005
Funding Our Risks With Appropriate Resource Disbursement Act of 2005 or the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to set forth provisions governing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant funding for first responders pursuant to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Citizen Corps Program.
Makes eligible for a covered grant any state, region, or directly eligible tribe. Sets forth grant application procedures and requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a Homeland Security Grants Board.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to establish: (1) clearly defined essential capabilities for state and local government preparedness for terrorism (sets forth factors to address in establishing such capabilities and lists critical infrastructure sectors and types of threats to specifically consider); and (2) a Task Force on Essential Capabilities.
Directs the Secretary to promulgate national voluntary consensus standards for grant-funded first responder equipment and training.
Lists authorized and prohibited uses of covered grants. Requires each covered grant recipient to submit quarterly and annual reports on homeland security spending.
Establishes penalties for states that fail to pass through to local governments, first responders, and other local groups funds or resources as required by this Act within 45 days of receipt.
Expresses the sense of Congress regarding interoperable communications and Citizen Corps councils.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) ensure coordination of federal efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other major disasters and emergencies among DHS divisions; and (2) study the feasibility of implementing a nationwide emergency telephonic alert notification system.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5099-5100)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. 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 S.1013 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 S.1013 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 S.1013 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 S.1013 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.