PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 26, 2003
Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide that a public safety officer who dies as the direct and proximate result of a heart attack or stroke suffered while on duty or not later than 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation shall be presumed to have died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty, for purposes of survivor benefits.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-182.
Became Public Law No: 108-182.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S16052-16053; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S16052)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S16052-16053; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S16052)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 11/21/2003 H12299-12300)
Mr. DeLay asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR 5/15/2003 S6568)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR 5/15/2003 S6568)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 5/15/2003 S6567-6568)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 5/15/2003 S6567-6568)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2856)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2855-2856)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.459 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.459 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.459 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.459 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.