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 · Sep 30, 2009
Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act of 2009 - Directs the Attorney General to maintain at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) a national database for each criminal arsonist or bomber (an individual convicted of an arson or bombing offense), to be known as the National Criminal Arsonist and Criminal Bomber Registry. Limits the use of such Registry and disclosures therefrom to law enforcement purposes.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that updated information about a criminal arsonist or bomber is immediately available to all relevant jurisdictions (i.e., states, the District of Columbia, territories and possessions, and federally recognized Indian tribes); (2) provide notification to a jurisdiction in which the criminal arsonist or bomber is an employee, a student, or a resident; (3) establish and maintain a national arsonist and bomber Internet site which includes relevant information for each criminal arsonist or bomber; (4) establish guidelines for correction of erroneous information in the Registry or Internet site; and (5) develop and support software to enable jurisdictions to participate in the Registry and Internet site. Prohibits access by the public to information on the Internet site.
Sets forth the information required to be included in the Registry by the arsonist or bomber and by jurisdictions, including identifying information, physical descriptions, photographs, and fingerprints. Allows expungement of information from the Registry for juveniles after five years. Requires notification to criminal arsonists and bombers of registration requirements and the duty to register.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires jurisdictions to participate in the Registry before the later of three years after the enactment of this Act or one year after software provided by the Attorney General is made available to such jurisdictions. Reduces criminal justice assistance grants for jurisdictions that fail to comply with the requirements of this Act. Allows federally recognized Indian tribes to elect to participate in the Registry.
Grants the federal government and jurisdictions immunity from liability for good faith conduct under this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to establish and implement a Criminal Arsonist and Bomber Management Assistance program to award grants to jurisdictions to offset the costs of implementing this Act. Allows increased grant payments to jurisdictions that exceed deadlines for compliance with this Act.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014.
People & committees
Rep. Bono Mack, Mary [R-CA-45] · R–CA
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 voice vote. (text: CR H10094-10097)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10094-10097)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1727.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10094-10099)
Mr. Schiff moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.1727 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.1727 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.1727 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.1727 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.