I 
114TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 59 
To provide for a reduction in the amount that may be awarded to a unit 
of local government under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) 
for a unit of local government that funds an amount that is greater 
than 18 percent of its operating budget using revenue generated from 
collecting fines and other fees related to violations of traffic laws, and 
for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JANUARY 6, 2015 
Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To provide for a reduction in the amount that may be 
awarded to a unit of local government under subpart 
1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) 
for a unit of local government that funds an amount 
that is greater than 18 percent of its operating budget 
using revenue generated from collecting fines and other 
fees related to violations of traffic laws, and for other 
purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘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’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) The growing trend of local units of govern-
ment using traffic fines and traffic court fees and 
costs as revenue generators promotes unfair, exces-
sive targeting of citizens by law enforcement agents, 
infringes on civil liberties, and promotes reliance on 
unpredictable revenue sources. 
(2) The growing trend of local units of govern-
ment using traffic fines and traffic court fees and 
costs as revenue generators has the potential to 
breed public cynicism and distrust of local law en-
forcement agencies, and to lessen public confidence 
that the laws are being enforced impartially and the 
criminal justice system is administered equally. 
SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN GRANT FUNDING FOR UNITS OF 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 
(a) COLLECTION
OF FINES
FOR VIOLATIONS
OF 
TRAFFIC LAWS.—Except as provided in subsection (b) or 
section 4, a unit of local government which, during the 
previous 3 fiscal years, funded an amount that, on aver-
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
age, was greater than 18 percent of its operating budget 
using revenue generated from collecting fines and other 
fees related to violations of traffic laws, shall, in the case 
of a unit of local government receiving grant funds under 
subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-
trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
seq.), receive only 25 percent of the grant award that 
would have otherwise been awarded to that unit of local 
government under such subpart. 
(b) DISPROPORTIONATE RACIAL COMPOSITION
OF 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.—In the case of a unit of 
local government described in subsection (a) for which, 
during the previous fiscal year, the percentage of individ-
uals who identify as a race who were employees of the 
law enforcement agency for that unit of local government, 
and the percentage of individuals who identify as that race 
who live in the jurisdiction which that law enforcement 
agency serves, differs by greater than 30 percent, the unit 
of local government shall receive only 5 percent of the 
grant award that would have otherwise been awarded to 
that unit of local government under subpart 1 of part E 
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.). 
(c) OBLIGATION OF STATES.—A State that receives 
a grant award under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), which does not reduce a subgrant 
award made under such grant to a unit of local govern-
ment in its jurisdiction in accordance with this section, 
shall, in the succeeding fiscal year, receive only 50 percent 
of the grant award that would have otherwise been award-
ed to that State under such subpart. 
(d) REALLOCATION.—Any funds withheld from a 
State or unit of local government from a direct grant 
award by the Attorney General shall be reallocated in ac-
cordance with subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omni-
bus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.). 
SEC. 4. EXEMPTIONS. 
The provisions of section 3 shall not apply in the case 
of any unit of local government— 
(1) that serves a population of less than 15,000 
people and so certifies to the Attorney General; or 
(2) to which the Attorney General has granted 
a waiver under section 5. 
SEC. 5. WAIVERS. 
The Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, 
grant a waiver under this section to any unit of local gov-
ernment for good cause shown, and shall consider the fol-
lowing factors: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(1) Whether, resulting from allegations of ex-
cessive uses of force, false arrests, improper searches 
and seizures, failures to discipline officers suffi-
ciently, or failure to supervise officers, the unit of 
local government is subject to a consent decree or 
Memorandum of Understanding, or the subject of an 
investigation by the Special Litigation Section of the 
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. 
(2) Whether the unit of local government has 
taken affirmative action to ensure that adequate 
practices and procedures are in place to increase 
public trust and confidence in the impartial and eq-
uitable administration of justice, including— 
(A) whether incidents of officer involved 
shootings and uses of excessive force are inves-
tigated by a Special Prosecutor appointed by 
the Governor, State Attorney General, or Pre-
siding Judge of the local court of jurisdiction; 
(B) whether incidents of officer involved 
shootings and uses of excessive force are adju-
dicated in a public proceeding rather than the 
grand jury process. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(3) Whether the minority community is equi-
tably represented in the municipality’s legislative 
body and executive departments. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:04 Jan 10, 2015
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H59.IH
H59
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS