April 9, 2026 · JUDICIARY · 5,767 words · 10 speakers · 103 segments
Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone. The House Judiciary Committee will come to order. Will the secretary please call the roll? Chairman Briggs.
Here.
Representatives Abney. Designation. Carol. Donahue. Designation. Hanbage. Designation online. Owenstein. Here. Howard. Designation online. Kenyatta. Designation. Kincaid. Designation online. Mays. Designation. P.L.E. Designation. Rab. Designation. Sanchez. Designation online. Schusterman. Designation online. Chairman Kaufman. Here. Representatives Bonner. Designation. Borowitz. Ham. designation kale designation kerwin designation clunk kuzma designation krupa designation online leadbetter here pew rigby designation mr chairman a quorum is present uh chairman sorry yes um yeah if i may uh this is uh representative bonner i just want to note than I am online.
Representative Bonner, Representative Krupa, we see you online. Thank you. Having horn, we will proceed with today's agenda. I was told I did not gavel. And my council says broadcast needs me to gavel to turn everything on. So hopefully they caught the beginning of the meeting. For the information of the members, the committee will be going over three bills that are on the post agenda, House Bill 1550, House Bill 2279, and House Bill 443. Specifically on House Bill 443, for those of you not aware, on March 26, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided in Commonwealth v. Lee in a unanimous court held that a mandatory life sentence for second-degree murder without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution, which prohibits cruel punishments. The court made it clear that individuals convicted of second-degree murder must receive meaningful consideration of release based upon their culpability and the circumstances surrounding their crime. The court stayed their decision for 120 days to provide the General Assembly with time to remedy these unconstitutional sentences. I think House Bill 443 is a very good start to this process, and it was prepared to advance it through committee today. But after we posted the bill for a committee vote, we have heard from many members on both sides and outside stakeholders who want to be more involved in this process. We are waiting for some groups to let us know exactly how they would like us to address the Lee decision. For example, we have identified 1,114 individuals that will be affected by this decision, and 509 of them are from Philadelphia County alone. We think it's important to work with these groups, including the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, who will be involved in this process. We have asked for him and others to provide language, and we are awaiting their drafts to consider. I think that we can have a collaborative process to get to a better bill that balances the need to comply with the Lee decision, but also is fair and compassionate, respects victims' rights, and above all, maintains community safety. These people, it's emotional, these people have been serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse position than what I believe the Supreme Court would order for them after the 100-day run. I am confident that as long as we all work together, we will come up with a bill that we can all be proud of. Thank you for that moment. I am going to first call up House Bill 2102 by Representative Leavitt-Better. Thank you for joining us at the big table. I'm going to recognize the representative and his guest, Sarah Nye, on the bill. Robert, if you want to get started, you are in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and committee members, House Bill 2102, or otherwise known as Aiden's Law, seeks to establish a purple alert system across the Commonwealth. The purple alert system has been advocated for for quite some time across Pennsylvania by advocates like my friend Sarah Nye, who joins me here this afternoon. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will defer to Sarah and then come back to review the bill. Thank you.
Ms. Nye, you are in order.
Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue that is very important to me. My name is Sarah Nye, a 22 self-advocate from Jefferson County. We are all familiar with the sound of an envelope. on our phones or on our billboard when we organize a child is in danger. This system works because this alert turns every person into a pair of eyes to help or enforcement finding that child. Earlier today, I delivered a talking point to your offices. On page 3, it listed heartbreaking news stories which has exposed a gap in our current alert system. Currently, when a person with IDD or autism goes missing, there is no standard statewide system to instantly recognize in public eyes and ears. This was number the student with a syndrome in Pittsburgh who was lost in a freezing cold for 24 hours in the assistance of a federal adverse system. The community was aware she was missing and in danger and they walked right past her. event started to interfere individuals with disabilities or at risk when they go missing due to their unique needs and the chance that they could not communicate effectively. The PA Awesome census estimates over 185,000 individuals with awesome RN hours. Nearly 50% of individuals with awesome tend to wonder, but those who wonder, every second is a matter of life or death. Research shows that if a person with an actual disability or ultrasound is missing for more than 72 hours, the death rate can climb as high as 88%. Let's remember, not in and hard those that spark this fear because every 15 minute critical. I feel this alert can assist in looking at vendors faster. Florida has had the purple alert since the light of 2022, and they have seen a 98% death rate in looking at vendors. I want that death rate for PA. Adopting a Purple Alert NPA is a common sense step toward a civil state. Let's close this gap. I am here to request that this committee support and install the Purple Alert HB 2102. This ends the 7th NA for families.
Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not much more needs to be said after that advocacy,
but in an effort to offer clarity once again to my colleagues and to the chamber, House Bill 2102 strengthens our existing Amber Alert System law by establishing the Pennsylvania Purple Alert System as outlined by Ms. Nye. The Purple Alert System, Mr. Chairman, is designed to assist in the rapid recovery of missing individuals who face a heightened risk of harm or injury. It does so by ensuring prompt widespread notification to the public, law enforcement, and other relevant agencies, mobilizing critical resources when time matters most. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, will serve a broad and vulnerable population, including individuals with diagnosed intellectual, developmental, cognitive, or neurological conditions who may be especially at risk as Ms Nye outlined when they go missing This initiative is again named after Aiden Ha a six constituent of mine who is a non autistic young man who was found dead in the Susquehanna River in October of last year following a very extensive multi-agency search effort. This issue is not unique to the 109th District. In nearby Wilkes-Barre, Linaya Clark, a 15-year-old girl who suffered from a hearing impairment, went missing in January and was found deceased a month later. The Purple Alert system, Mr. Chairman, could have also helped in this case. As a father, my heart aches for Aiden and Ms. Clark's family. Losing a child at any age is a parent's worst nightmare. As a brother of a police officer, I have seen firsthand the dedication and sacrifice that first responders have to our communities. This is not a partisan bill. This is a common sense bill, and it's time that we close this gap in passing the bill today for families that represent our values across Pennsylvania. I urge a yes vote on this, and I appreciate your latitude, Mr. Chairman, in having Ms. Nye join us today.
Great. Thank you very much, Representative, and thank you, Sarah, for your advocacy. More to thank you than to your guy here, but thank you both for joining us today. It's an important bill. Counsel, anything to add on the bill?
That was an excellent description of the bill by Representative Ledbetter and Sarah. The bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments. Thank you.
Council, the question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2102? Are there any comments on the bill? Seeing none, I am a strong supporter of the bill. Representative Ledbetter has definitely been a good advocate on this. The only thing I would just like to mention is there seems to be more and more desire to add to an alert system. Possibly at some point we should kind of look at how to best capture all of the necessary folks that would benefit from this technology. And that's all.
I'm a yes. I'm not going to try to screw up what you're doing. But that is just my suggestions.
Are there any negative votes on House Bill 2102? Seeing none, if the Secretary could please record a unanimous passage of House Bill 2102, and it will be reported as committed. Thank you so much, both of you. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 72 by Representative Borowski. Representative Borowski has joined us online. If you are able and like to make some comments on the bill, you will be in order. Representative Browski, you've been portrait profiled or whatever. You know, you're on the big screen, so you're in order. Go ahead.
Oh, no, not the big screen.
Thank you very much, Chair Briggs and Chair Kaufman. I appreciate your indulgence allowing me to testify virtually today. House Bill 72 is important to me because nobody who has survived violence should have to choose between their safety and their housing stability. Pennsylvania is only one of a handful of states that does not protect survivors who need to move to make their homes safer in the wake of violence. This bill would address that gap. I'm grateful to the Crime Survivors Speak, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect, and the Alliance for Safety and Justice, who have been working on this bill for years. I only just took this up. This is one of the first bills I took up when I joined the legislature in 2022. So I appreciate all those stakeholders who have been working very hard. House Bill 72 would keep survivors safe while protecting their stability and allow violent crime victims to end a lease when they need to move as a result of a crime. The survivor would have to provide notice with documentation of the victimization to the landlord. The bill also makes sure that victims can change their locks on short notice if they don't need to move but are under threat. And the bill would make sure victims who stay don't face unfair rent increases or evictions because of the violence they endured or because they made emergency calls for help. I really want to thank the Pennsylvania Bar Association for the conversations that we've had over the last year to get this bill to a place that where everyone can feel good about it. And I also want to thank the landlords and the renters associations, the groups that advocate for the stakeholders, the renter state, the owners, the renter owners. They've worked hard with us since this bill was introduced and introduced again this session. The amendment that we have today reflects these conversations with all these groups and includes limiting tenant and household member eligibility. So it would limit the list of eligible victimization experiences. It requires additional written landlord authorization for household members to qualify. It limits situations when a tenant may relocate due to the homicide of a family member to when the murder happened in a geographic proximity to where the tenant lives. So we have kind of taken the parameters of the original bill and shrunken that a little bit so that it is more specific to the proximity of where the current victim would live. It increases the documentation requirements for tenants to be able to terminate a lease. So it limits the allowable forms and requires the tenant to provide written notice and requires that the notice be provided from a list of approved formats. So we've kind of put a little more parameters around what the victim would have to provide in order to justify being able to terminate the lease. We have decreased the landlord responsibility for lock change, and we have limited the prohibited conduct and liability for landlords. So narrowed the list of prohibited landlord content based on tenants' prior victimization and reduced the confidentiality responsibilities for the landlord. So we feel that through all the discussions and this bill, the several iterations, last session and this session, we've really come to a good compromise amongst all the stakeholders. And I am grateful to the staff from the Judiciary Committee for their work on this, as well as all the stakeholders who came to the table to make this a workable bill and really try to provide some protection for victims. So thank you very much, Chair.
Great. Thank you, Representative. A lot of hard work put in such an important bill, and I will make sure to text Tim Clodges, who was involved for a long time, who's retired. Counsel, anything to add on the bill, House Bill 72?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The representative did a fantastic job in outlining both the specifics of the bill and of the amendment, not to mention all of the hard work that has gone into getting us to this point. The amendment by Chairman Briggs is 2835, and it does change the effective date of the bill to 180 days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Council. The question is, will the committee adopt the amendment 2835? Is that the correct number? Okay, thank you. Are there any comments on the amendment? Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Secretary, please call the roll.
All Democrats will be yes, just to keep it moving. Chairman Kaufman?
Yes.
Representatives Bonner?
Yes.
Borowitz? Ham?
Yes.
Kale?
Yes.
Kerwin?
Yes.
Klunk? Krupa?
Yes.
Kuzma?
Yes.
Ledbetter? Pugh?
Yes.
Rigby?
Yes.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment passes a vote of 25 to 1.
Thank you. The amendment passes, and the question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Are there any comments on the bill as amended that's in front of us?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kaufman, you are in order on the bill.
Thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. While the amendment I supported certainly is an improvement to the bill, the language is still drafted in a way that creates unintended consequences and opportunities for misuse. I'm concerned with the bill's repeated reliance on the vague and undefined concept of mental injury. A person qualifies as a victim not only when they suffer physical harm, but also when they suffer mental injury as a result of witnessing a crime. Unlike bodily injury or serious bodily injury, which are clearly defined in Pennsylvania law, mental injury has no clear statutory meaning in this context. What exactly would constitute a mental injury? Would anxiety qualify? Would stress or emotional discomfort? If so, there isn't even a requirement that such anxiety or stress be diagnosed severe or last beyond the period immediately following the crime. Nor would it have to be objectively reasonable under this legislation. Just as troublesome, the bill allows tenants to terminate leases if they simply witness a crime in another state. Eligible crimes under this bill include any offense listed under the term crime in the Crime Victims Act, including aggravated assault by vehicle. So if a tenant witnesses an aggravated assault by a vehicle in California and suffers mental injury, that tenant could terminate their lease in Pennsylvania under this bill. Even though there was never any risk to the tenant's safety in Pennsylvania or even in California for that matter. There is no requirement that the crime occur in Pennsylvania, that the crime occur near the tenant's residence, or that the tenant pose an ongoing threat. A crime under the Crime Victims Act also includes violations of the Controlled Substance Act, even minor offenses like possession of drug paraphernalia. How exactly can a tenant be a victim of such a crime? Could a tenant claim mental injury because drug paraphernalia was discovered near the leased premises, or if a neighbor was charged with the delivery of a controlled substance? Lastly a tenant may terminate their lease if their family member was murdered in the same county in which the tenant resides The murder of a family member is certainly tragic and heartbreaking However this bill would allow the murder victim siblings parents children, partner, and grandparents terminate their lease agreements, even if the killer has been apprehended and there is no threat to the victim's family. While I agree we should protect victims who genuinely need to relocate for safety reasons, I'm unable to support this bill today as a result of many of these concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Any other comments on the bill as amended? Seeing none, if Secretary could please call the roll.
Chairman Briggs? Yes. Representatives Abney? Designation, yes. Carol? Donahue? Designation, yes. Hambridge? Designation, yes. Hohenstein? Howard? Designation, yes. Kenyatta? Designation, yes. Kincaid. Designation, yes. Mays. Designation, yes. P.L.E. Designation, yes. R.A.B. Designation, yes. Sanchez. Designation, yes. Schusterman. Designation, yes. Chairman Kaufman.
No.
Representatives Bonner.
No.
Borowitz.
No.
Ham.
No.
Kale.
No.
Kerwin.
No.
Klunk. Krupa.
No.
Kuzma.
No.
Ledbetter. Pugh. Rigby? No. Mr. Chairman, this bill passes as amended, a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you, Secretary. House Bill 72 passes and will be reported as amended. Congratulations, Representative Borowski, and thank you for joining us. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 1104 by Representative Kruger. The chair recognizes Representative Kruger for brief remarks on the bill. This is a familiar bill to the committee. Representative Kruger, you are in order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are correct. This is a bill that we passed with bipartisan support last session, and I hope we have the same outcome again today. I do want to thank you and Chairman Kaufman and the members of the House Judiciary Committee for running House Bill 1104. The purpose of this bill is simple, to put reasonable fees on requests for electronic medical records. Over a decade ago, there was a negotiation in Pennsylvania that led to a set cost for requests for paper copies of medical records. Electronic medical records were not covered under this language, but over the last decade, electronic medical records have become much more common, and individuals are now often being charged much, much more for electronic medical requests than they would be charged for paper copies. I have seen invoices for close to $10,000 for electronic medical records. That sounds like price gouging to me. This bill simply caps the cost of electronic medical records to create a more affordable cost for patients seeking their records. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Representative. Counsel, anything to add on the bill?
Mr. Chairman, the bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments.
Thank you, Counsel. So the question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 1104? Are there any comments on the bill? Okay.
He stole my thunder.
Any negative votes, there will be. Secretary, Representative Kruger, thank you for working on this bill diligently. I know last session you spent a lot of time meeting with folks to try to come up with a different approach. It received a lot of bipartisan support on the floor. So I wish you luck in the future. Secretary, please call the roll.
All the Democrats will be yes. And all Republicans will be no.
That's disappointing.
Thank you.
This bill passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you, Secretary. House Bill 1104 passes and will be reported as committed. Thank you for joining us, Representative Kruger. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 1247 by our colleague on the committee, Representative Hanbage. The chair will recognize Representative Hanbage for brief remarks on her bill. Representative, if you're able, you are in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize. There's something going on with my camera, and I've tried reinstalling the drivers, and it's not working. So I'm pleased to be before you to discuss House Bill 1247. 1247. I'm grateful for the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today. House Bill 1247 addresses a serious and well-documented flaw in our criminal justice system, the use of deceptive interrogation tactics that can lead to false confessions. Many people understandably struggle to believe that someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, but we know that it happens, and it happens far too often with devastating consequences. Across the country, more than 360 wrongful convictions were later overturned by DNA evidence involving false confessions. The risk of false confessions are even more pronounced for individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism. These individuals are often more vulnerable to suggestion, confusion, and coercion, making them significantly more likely to provide false or unreliable statements under pressure. House Bill 1247 takes a common-sense targeted approach. It prohibits law enforcement from knowingly using deception during custodial interrogation of individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism. It also creates a presumption that any confession obtained through such tactics is inadmissible, while still allowing courts to consider the totality of the circumstances. This bill is not about limiting law enforcement's ability to do their job. In fact, many in the field have already moved away from deceptive tactics because they are unreliable. Proven non-deceptive interrogation methods are more effective at eliciting truthful information and strengthening cases that hold up in court. There is also a fiscal and operational impact to consider. According to the Department of Corrections, there are currently 62 individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and 144 individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities. in state in our custody. The cost to incarcerate these individuals is significant, amounting to millions annually. The department's creation of a neurodevelopmental residential treatment union underscores that we recognize that these individuals have unique needs. That recognition should extend to every stage of the justice system, including interrogation. At its core, this bill is about fairness, accuracy, and accountability. False confessions do not only harm innocent individuals, they allow real perpetrators to remain free, undermining public safety. As legislators, we have the responsibility to ensure that our justice system produces reliable outcomes, especially when dealing with those most vulnerable to coercion. I respectfully request a yes vote on this bill.
Thank you, Representative. And we could hear you without being able to see you. And it was very clear. Thank you for joining us. Council, anything to add on the bill, House Bill 1247?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments. Thank you.
Thank you, Council. The question is, will the committee report the bill? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman, you are in order on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, this bill assumes that law enforcement will know whether the person they are interrogating has autism or an intellectual disability. In reality, that is often not the case. Autism exists on a broad spectrum, and many individuals don't display obvious or outward signs. Officers in the field are not clinicians, and they often make quick decisions in dynamic and uncertain circumstances. Under this bill, however, if an officer unknowingly interrogates someone with autism and uses a technique that later qualifies as deception, the confession would be presumed inadmissible, even though the officer had no way of knowing the individual's condition. For that reason, I'll be opposing House Bill 1247.
Thank you, Chairman. Any other comments on House Bill 1247? Representative Clunk. I'm sorry. Representative, Chairwoman Clunk, you are in order on House Bill 1247.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A question about intellectual disability or autism and seeing the definition here for intellectual disability. What about Tourette's syndrome? Is that included in intellectual disability? I'm not seeing it included here. And I just ask because I know individuals who have been diagnosed with Tourette's sometimes have a tick and they say things repeatedly. they could potentially say something that could, you know, make them, you know, jeopardizing their potential innocence because of their diagnosis. Has that been contemplated at all in intellectual disability? Because when I look at the medical definition of Tourette's, it's not considered an intellectual disability. So just purely curious. Has that been contemplated?
Thank you for that question. I think counsel will be able to address your question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The definition of individual with an intellectual disability or autism within the bill points to Section 5992 of Title 42, which defines the conditions in a manner in which one could have many different diagnoses qualify, because it points to different life skills. So if you look at that, Tourette's, depending on the severity of the case, might qualify an individual for the diagnosis under the bill. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any other comments or, Representative Hambridge, any closing comments that you'd like to share?
No, just gratitude that the committee is taking up the bill.
Great. Thank you so much. Secretary please call the roll all the Democrats will be yes.
Chairman Kaufman No Representatives Bonner No Borowitz Ham No Kale No Kerwin No Clunk Krupa No Kuzma No Ledbetter Pugh Rigby No No Mr Chairman this bill passes a vote of 16 to 10
Thank you, Secretary. House Bill 1247 passes and will be reported as committed. Congratulations, Representative Hanbridge. Next on the agenda, I will be calling up House Bill 2106 by Representative Salisbury. I believe a conflict is occurring in the district that Representative Salisbury is unable to join us. Counsel, please provide a summary of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2106 by Representative Salisbury amends the notice provisions for petitions and hearings in guardianship of a person or in a state of an incapacitated person cases under Title 20. If notice cannot be given to any of the persons currently enumerated in the statute, notice of the petition and hearing shall be given in such manner as the court directs to people residing with the alleged incapacitated person, living relatives of the alleged incapacitated person or any person or entity that has demonstrated a genuine interest in promoting the best interests of the alleged incapacitated person. This bill takes effect in 60 days and there are no amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Council, for a good explanation on House Bill 2106. Are there any comments on the bill before we go to a vote? Are there any negative votes on 2106? Seeing none, if the Secretary could please record a unanimous passage of House Bill 2106. Officially, House Bill 2106 passes and will be reported as committed. Thank you, members. Next, the Chair is calling up House Bill 2277. Council, please provide a summary of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2277 by Chairman Briggs amends the standby guardian provisions in Title 23, which currently allow parents to designate in advance a standby guardian in the case of their absence due to incapacitation or death. This bill expands this language to expressly provide parents with the ability to designate in advance a standby guardian in the event of an unplanned long-term or indefinite absence, whether planned or unplanned, to prevent uncertainty and ensure stability of care for their children. This bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Terrific. Thank you, counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2277? Are there any comments on the bill? Chairman Kaufman, you are in order on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the intent of House Bill 2277 in helping families maintain stability when a parent faces a long-term absence. However, as currently drafted, the bill creates a legislative mystery that our courts will be forced to solve on a case-by-case basis. The bill introduces long-term or indefinite absence as a new legal trigger for standby guardianship, but it fails to tell what that actually means. Currently, Chapter 56 is precise. We know what death is. We know incapacity requires a physician's signature. But under this bill, how long is long term? Is it 30 days, six months? Without a statutory statutory floor, long term is whatever a specific judge in a specific county decides it is on this day. What about intent? The bill doesn't distinguish between a parent who is involuntarily absent, such as through military service or medical emergency, and a parent who has simply abandoned their responsibilities. And finally, the documentation. The bill allows any documentation to trigger a guardian's authority, and this lack of a formal standard is a wide open door for confusion or worse for bad actors to exploit. We all want to protect children during family transitions. However, without clear definitions, I can't support this legislation today.
Thank you, Chairman. Any other comments on the bill, House Bill 2277? I just want to thank Representative Hohenstein. He and I worked on this bill a couple years ago, two, three, four years ago, and just over the last few months realized it's probably a good time to to bring it up with so much uncertainty in our society. I will take your comments into consideration after today. If there's a way we can tighten this up, I'd be happy to try to work on it. But at this point, I'm asking all the members to vote in favor. See no further debate. Secretary, please call the roll.
All Democrats will be yes. And all Republicans will be no at this point.
House Bill 2277 passes and will be reported as committed. Thank you to the 14 who voted for my bill. Lastly, the chair will be calling up House Bill 2356 by our colleague on the committee, Representative Carroll. I will be recognizing Representative Carroll for brief remarks on his bill and then go to council. Representative, when you are situated, you will be in order.
Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning to my colleagues and members of the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present House Bill 2356. And as a prime sponsor, I'm proud to introduce legislation rooted in a simple belief that older Pennsylvanians deserve dignity, stability, and a fair opportunity to thrive in their later years. House Bill 2356 makes a meaningful and compassionate change to Pennsylvania's expungement law. Under current law, individuals must wait until the age of 70 to seek expungement for their records, even if they have remained arrest-free for at least 10 years after completing their sentence. This bill would lower their age to 65 while maintaining the same eligibility requirements. This change requires, I'm sorry, this change recognizes the reality seniors face. Many older adults are living on fixed incomes while dealing with rising costs of housing, health care, and daily necessities. For those with a past record, even ones from decades ago, these challenges are often even greater. That record can block access to part-time work, affordable housing, and opportunities to remain active and engaged in their communities. House Bill 2356 is about easing those burdens at a critical stage of life. By allowing eligible individuals to clear their records at age 65, we are giving older Pennsylvanians a better chance to secure employment, access safe, stable, and affordable housing, maintain independence, and avoid unnecessary financial hardship. Also, to live with dignity and peace of mind in their later years. This legislation directly supports efforts to reduce senior poverty. It ensures that individuals who have been living responsibly and remain law-abiding citizens for many years are not held back by barriers and no longer reflect who they are today. Importantly, House Bill 2356 maintains strong safeguards. Individuals must still demonstrate at least for 10 years of being arrested for behavior after completing their sentencing, ensuring that this opportunity is reserved for those who have shown clear long-term responsibility. At its core, this bill is about respecting our seniors, it's about recognizing their contributions, supporting their independence, and ensuring that they have every opportunity to live secure, fulfilling lives. I respectfully ask for your support in advancing House Bill 2356, and I look forward to working with the committees, and I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Representative Carroll, for a good explanation, good work on this bill. Counsel, anything to add?
Mr. Chairman, the bill takes effect in 60 days, and there are no amendments.
Easy enough. Thank you, Counsel. The question is, will the committee report the bill, House Bill 2356? Are there any comments on the bill? Seeing none, I want to thank you for a good pragmatic approach to a difficult issue. I know you wrestled with a lot of ages, and I think this is a good step in the right direction. I encourage all the members to vote yes. Secretary, please call the roll.
All the Democrats will be voting yes. Chairman Kaufman. And all Republicans will be no. Thank you. This bill passes a vote of 14 to 12.
Thank you. Congratulations, Representative. House Bill 2356 passes and will be reported as committed. Just before we adjourn, the committee will be holding an informational meeting this Monday, April 13th at 10 a.m. in this room to hear more about the successful Pennsylvania Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program that is administered by PCCD. If you could make it, that would be great. It is definitely going to be of interest. Also, before you leave the room, if you could sign in with the Secretary, the attendance sheet, that would be helpful as well. Thank you, members. This meeting stands adjourned.
Thank you.
Thank you.