PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 293.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Oct 14, 2025
This bill repeals District of Columbia (DC) laws related to sealing and expunging criminal records, sentencing of individuals under age 18, and traffic enforcement measures.
First, the bill repeals expanded eligibility in DC for sealing or expunging records of certain citations, charges, arrests, and criminal convictions. (An expunged record is erased; a sealed record may remain accessible to law enforcement but not the public.) The bill also repeals related enforcement provisions, including civil penalties against background check companies for reporting on sealed or expunged offenses.
Next, the bill reinstates mandatory minimum sentences and life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole or release) for individuals under age 18 at the time an offense was committed. The bill also eliminates requirements for the Metropolitan Police Department to provide records to the DC Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) and for the Department of Corrections to provide the CJCC with access to individuals under age 21 for a report on youth crime. Further, the bill repeals a legal process by which a defendant who was convicted as an adult and who was under the age of 18 at the time the offense was committed may seek a reduced sentence.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, the bill eliminates DC's automated traffic enforcement systems for the detection of moving violations (e.g., speed cameras), including vehicle owners' liability to pay fines for such violations. The bill also repeals a DC law prohibiting right turns at red traffic signals on DC streets.
People & committees
Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 293.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 119-341.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 119-341.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 20.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
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: Jul 22, 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.5242 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.5242 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.5242 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.5242 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.