PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-887.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Aug 1, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2013 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to: (1) extend through FY2018 the authorization of appropriations for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program; (2) transfer to the Treasury, no later than January 15, 2016, all previously appropriated funds for such program that are not expended by September 30, 2015; (3) prohibit a state, local government, or Indian tribe from using any funding under another grant program to pay or defer the cost of the matching fund requirement for the grant program; (4) require a grantee to comply with any established requirements for the use of such grants, have a written policy requiring uniformed patrol officers to wear an armor vest or body armor, and use funds for purchasing vests or body armor that meet performance standards established by the Bureau of Justice Assistance; and (5) allow preferential consideration in grant awards to jurisdictions that provide armor vests to law enforcement officers that are uniquely fitted for such officers, including individual female officers.
Expresses the sense of Congress that amounts made available to carry out the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program should be made available through the end of the fiscal year following the one for which the amounts are appropriated and should not be made available until expended by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
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.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-887.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 162.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3374)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3373-3374)
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.933 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.933 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.933 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.933 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.