PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 23, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 21, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
COPS Improvements Act of 2009 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the authority of the Attorney General to make competitive grants under the public safety and community policing grant program (COPS grant program) to states, local and Indian tribal governments, other public and private entities, multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia, and individuals to: (1) train officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties; (2) hire school resource officers and establish local partnerships to combat crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems in elementary and secondary schools; (3) establish and implement innovative programs to reduce and prevent illegal drug activities, including the manufacturing, distribution, and use of methamphetamine; (4) hire and rehire civilian forensic analysts and laboratory personnel; (5) establish criminal gang enforcement task forces; and (6) meet emerging law enforcement needs.
Authorizes the use of COPS grants to hire honorably discharged members of the Armed Forces to serve as career law enforcement officers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants for: (1) assigning prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic areas and to address counter-terrorism problems and violent crime in local communities; and (2) developing new technologies to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in crime prevention and training.
Grants the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services exclusive authority to perform functions and activities under the COPS grant program.
Authorizes the Attorney General to extend grant periods and to renew grants if the grant recipient can demonstrate significant progress in achieving the objectives of the initial grant application.
Directs the Attorney General to provide for a scientific study of the effectiveness of the programs, projects, and activities under the grant program in reducing crime.
Increases and extends the authorization of appropriations for the COPS grant program for FY2009-FY2014.
(Sec. 3) Requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to report to Congress on the effect of the COPS grant program on the rate of violent crime, drug offenses, and other crimes, the degree to which state and local government grant recipients contribute funds for law enforcement programs and activities, and any waste, fraud, or abuse within the program. Requires the Inspector General, in making such report, to audit and review a random sampling of state and local law enforcement agencies.
People & committees
Rep. Weiner, Anthony D. [D-NY-9] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 342 - 78 (Roll no. 206). (text: CR 4/22/2009 H4656-4658)
House roll call 206 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 342 - 78 (Roll no. 206).(text: CR 4/22/2009 H4656-4658)
House roll call 206 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4718)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1139.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4656-4665)
Mr. Weiner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 35.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-78.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 111-78.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 17 - 7.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1139 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.1139 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.1139 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.1139 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.