PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2015
No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2015
This bill prohibits a state from receiving for a fiscal year any drug control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, or any amount from any other federal law enforcement assistance program, unless the state does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or it has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) a person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the fact that a drug offense was committed and the person's commission of the offense are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or those acting on an officer's behalf, and (2) an officer may participate in an antidrug task force only if that officer's honesty and integrity are evaluated and found to be at an appropriately high level.
States receiving federal funds under this bill are directed to collect data on the racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges are made.
People & committees
Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
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 12, 2025. 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.46 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.46 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.46 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.46 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.