PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 27, 2003
First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003 - Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to States, local governments, and Indian tribes to support public safety officers in protecting homeland security and responding to acts of terrorism. Allows such grants to be used to fund overtime expenses, equipment, training, and facilities for such officers. Requires the Secretary to reserve one percent of grant funds for Indian tribes, and five percent for rural States. Provides for the allocation of remaining grant funds, with special consideration for proximity to: (1) areas with potential chemical security risks; (2) international borders; (3) nuclear power plants; (4) port security; and (5) disaster medical assistance teams.Provides maximum grantee amounts of: (1) five percent of total grant funds for a qualifying State, local government, or Indian tribe; and (2) 20 percent of such total for a State together with any grantees within the State.Prohibits grant funds from exceeding 90 percent of a program's cost, but authorizes the Secretary to waive the matching funds requirement in the case of grantee fiscal hardship.
People & committees
Sen. Daschle, Thomas A. [D-SD] · D–SD
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 the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.466 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.466 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.466 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.466 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.