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
Building Bridges and Transforming Resentment and Unfairness to Support and Trust for Municipal Law Enforcement Act of 2015 or the Build TRUST Act of 2015
Reduces the amount that would otherwise be awarded to a unit of local government under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program: (1) by 75% for any such unit that, during the previous three fiscal years, funded an amount that on average was greater than 18% of its operating budget using revenue generated from collecting fines and other fees related to violations of traffic laws; and (2) by 95% for any such unit for which, during the previous fiscal year, the percentage of individuals who identify as a race who were employees of the law enforcement agency for that unit and the percentage of individuals who identify as that race who live in the jurisdiction such agency serves differs by greater than 30%.
Reduces by 50% the amount that would otherwise be awarded under such Program to state that did not reduce a subgrant award to a unit of local government in accordance with this Act in the preceding fiscal year.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Attorney General to reallocate funds withheld from a state or unit of local government pursuant to this Act in accordance with the Program.
Exempts any local governmental unit which certifies that it serves a population of less than 15,000 or to which the Attorney General has granted a waiver for good cause shown based on specified factors, including that: (1) such unit has taken affirmative action to ensure that adequate practices and procedures are in place to increase public trust and confidence in the impartial and equitable administration of justice, and (2) the minority community is equitably represented in the unit's legislative body and executive departments.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.59 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.59 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.59 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.59 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.