PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 15, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 14, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
COPS Improvements Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand the authority of the Attorney General to make grants for public safety and community policing programs (COPS ON THE BEAT or COPS program). Revises grant purposes to provide for: (1) the hiring or training of law enforcement officers for intelligence, anti-terror, and homeland security duties; (2) the hiring of school resource officers; (3) school-based partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and schools to combat crime, gangs, drug activities, and other problems facing elementary and secondary schools; (4) innovative programs to reduce and prevent illegal drug (including methamphetamine) manufacturing, distribution, and use; (5) criminal gang enforcement task forces; and (6) enhanced community policing and crime prevention grants that meet emerging law enforcement needs.
Allows COPS program grants to be used to hire former members of the Armed Forces to serve as career law enforcement officers for community-oriented policing, particularly in communities adversely affected by a recent military base closing.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to: (1) assign community prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic areas and address counterterrorism problems, specific violent crime problems, and localized violent and other crime problems; and (2) develop new technologies to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in crime prevention.
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 renew COP program grants if grant recipients can demonstrate significant progress in achieving the objectives of the initial grant application.
Requires the Attorney General to select one or more institutions of higher education, including historically Black colleges and universities, to conduct a scientific study of the effectiveness of the programs, projects, and activities funded by the COPS program. Requires such institutions to report on on their studies to the Attorney General not later than four years after the enactment of this Act. Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress on such studies.
Increases and extends through FY2013 the authorization of appropriations for the COPS program. Increases from 3 to 5% the amount of funds available for technical assistance. Specifies amounts to be made available for hiring officers and prosecutors, and for technology grants.
(Sec. 3) Requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to report to Congress on the COPS program, including information on: (1) the effect of the program on the rate of violent crime, drug offenses, and other crimes; (2) the degree to which state and local governments awarded a COPS grant contribute funds for law enforcement programs and activities; and (3) any waste, fraud, or abuse in the program. Requires the Inspector General to audit and review a random sampling of state and local law enforcement agencies in preparing such report.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
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): 381 - 34 (Roll no. 348). (text: CR H4985-4986)
House roll call 348 · 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): 381 - 34 (Roll no. 348).(text: CR H4985-4986)
House roll call 348 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5016)
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. 1700.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4985-4995)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 90.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-150.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-150.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
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.1700 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.1700 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.1700 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.1700 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.