[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PEACE OF MIND: STRENGTHENING VICTIM
PROTECTIONS UNDER KAYLEIGH'S LAW
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-611 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia TED LIEU, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey J. LUIS CORREA, California
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
KEVIN KILEY, California SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri Vacancy
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin LUCY McBATH, Georgia, Ranking
TROY NEHLS, Texas Member
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
KEVIN KILEY, California DAN GOLDMAN, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KEVIN KILEY, California Vacancy
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona...... 1
The Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of
Georgia........................................................ 2
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 4
WITNESSES
The Hon. Suzette Valladares, Senate Judiciary Committee,
California
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 8
Rachel Wright, National Policy Director, Right On Crime
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
Lisae C. Jordan, Executive Director & Counsel, Maryland Coalition
Against Sexual Assault (MCASA)
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
Kayleigh Kozak, Survivor Advocate
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Testimony............................................. 33
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance, for the record........................ 55
Material submitted the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from
the State of Arizona, for the record
An article entitled, ``Kayleigh's Law helps more than a
thousand Arizona crime victims,'' Nov. 14, 2023, 12 News
An article entitled, ``Officials Who Claim to Support Victim
Rights Go On Offensive To Silence Outspoken Victim
Advocate,'' Apr. 15, 2023, Arizona Daily Independent
A press release entitled, ``Valladares introduces `Kayleigh's
Law' bill to strengthen protections for crime victims,''
Feb. 27, 2025, The Signal
An article entitled, ``Judge denies Liberty District's motion
to dismiss decades-old sexual abuse negligence case,''
May 14, 2025, inBuckeye
An article entitled, ``Prosecutors want Idaho killer barred
from contacting victims' families for nearly a century,''
Jul. 22, 2025, Fox News
An article entitled, ``Arizona Senator Celebrates Legal
Triumph As Court Upholds Strict Sex-Offender Law,'' Nov.
21, 2025, AX Free News
APPENDIX
Material submitted the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from
the State of Arizona, for the record
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the
Arizona Sheriff's Association, Apr. 27, 2026
A press release entitled, ``Senate Democrats Reject Crime
Victim Protection Law, Continue to Prioritize Criminals
Over Victims,'' Apr. 23, 2026, California State Senator
Suzette Martinez Valladares
PEACE OF MIND: STRENGTHENING VICTIM
PROTECTIONS UNDER KAYLEIGH'S LAW
----------
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Biggs, Kiley, Lee, Knott, McBath,
and Raskin.
Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to recess at any time. We
want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Strengthening
Victim Protections for Victims Under Kayleigh's Law.''
I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee, to
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I'll now recognize myself for an
opening statement. I appreciate all of you being here today.
Thank you. Today, the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee continues its important work to prioritize victims of
violent crime and protect the most vulnerable members of our
community.
Unfortunately, many of our State and Federal laws are not
adequately protecting victims when their perpetrators are
released. Even when a criminal is sentenced to lifetime
probation, opportunities still exist for an offender's parole
to be terminated, which prevents offenders from being held
fully accountable to both their victims and society. This was
all brought into focus by one brave survivor, advocate, and
Arizona native, Kayleigh Kozak. After learning her abuser was
attempting to terminate his probation, Kayleigh sought a
protective order from the man who had hurt her as a child.
However, she was shocked to learn the court required
evidence of a recent encounter between Kayleigh and this man to
consider a protective order, effectively denying her request to
keep herself safe. Rather than accept that, this experience
called her to advocacy.
Kayleigh turned her experience into action. She worked with
Republicans in the Arizona legislature to pass the first
Kayleigh's Law, giving survivors the ability to petition a
judge for a lifetime prohibition against offenders convicted of
violent crimes, including sex trafficking and child sexual
abuse.
Arizona was the first to act, and I am pleased that
Kayleigh is here today to share her story and her work to
expand Kayleigh's Law protections across the country. Thanks to
Kayleigh and others at the State level, many States such as
Wisconsin and Tennessee now offer the same protection for
victims.
Other State legislatures have similar bills. Unfortunately,
in other States like California, the legislation faces an
uphill battle. Everyone should be able to come together to
support victim protection. One opponent of a lifetime
protection order called the legislation unnecessary. This
Subcommittee finds it unnecessary that victims have to tell
their story over and over again to protect themselves from
those who harm them at the very real risk that protection order
lapse. That is shameful.
The victims like Kayleigh Kozak should not have to return
to court repeatedly to face their offender to extend the order
or be forced to wait until their offender tries to contact them
to petition the court for lifetime protection.
Fortunately, my friend and colleague, Representative
Hamadeh of Arizona introduced Kayleigh's Law at the Federal
level, of which I am a cosponsor. H.R. 8481 will both ensure
criminals are held accountable at the Federal level, while also
serving as a model for States as they look to best serve
victims of violent crime. This is victim-centered. This is
public-safety focused. Kayleigh's Law allows the criminal
justice system to work for victims and not against them.
I hope all Members of this Subcommittee can learn from our
witnesses today, learn about how the law works in practice, but
most importantly, learn the real-world impact of what it means
to pass and implement propublic safety, victim-centered
legislation. Because healing is not linear, and because safety
should not have an expiration date. I appreciate being able to
take this time for my statement. I am going to yield and now
recognize the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Ms. McBath,
from Georgia for her opening statement.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair Jordan. Thank you to our
witnesses that are here this morning. We really appreciate you
taking the time to come and speak with us. Under a Democratic
Congress and Democratic President, we made significant
investments in public safety and crime reduction, igniting a
historic decrease in crime that is continuing today. Far too
many Americans still face domestic violence, sexual violence,
and abuse every day.
In fact, according to a recent FBI report, violent crime
within domestic relationships has been increasing in recent
years. In the United States, more than a third of women and
more than a quarter of men experience rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. The
effects of these crimes can be profound.
Survivors of these crimes have very unique needs. Some
survivors may find safety and peace of mind in pursuing a
protective order that keeps their attacker away. Others may
need medical care for the physical recovery, or trauma-informed
counseling, to regain their resilience.
Some survivors may want to work with law enforcement to
hold an abuser accountable and to ensure that no one else
endures the harm that they have experienced. Still others may
work to prevent violence against themselves and others by
pursuing extreme risk protection order to disarm those who have
shown that they pose an imminent risk of committing deadly acts
of violence. This is just a small sample of the needs of
survivors and the ways in which we can help them and prevent
more crimes and more victims.
To protect and support survivors, and to actually prevent
these crimes from occurring in the first place, a comprehensive
approach is vital. At times, that is exactly what Congress has
provided through critical legislation, like the Violence
Against Women Act, the Victims of Crime Act, and the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act. These lifesaving bills
and others like them fall short of their potential without
adequate funding.
Unfortunately, President Trump has repeatedly gutted
programs that help victims, promote justice, and prevent crime.
Last year, the Trump Administration abruptly terminated $500
million in grant funding that reduced crime and improved our
public safety. The cuts included more than 50 grants in support
of victims' services, such as training to help nurses provide
forensic examinations to survivors of sexual violence.
President Trump's recently released proposed budget for
Fiscal Year 2027 would further neglect the needs of victims. It
proposes to cut tens of millions of dollars in grants from the
Office of Violence Against Women, including cuts to housing and
legal assistance that help survivors find safety. These cuts
are even more damaging given that the Crime Victims Fund, which
serves over six million victims every year, is nearly depleted.
That means six million victims of violent crime might be
deprived of lifesaving support if we fail to prioritize the
needs of victims and survivors and fight to restore the
programs that we know work. We cannot let this happen.
I ask my Republican colleagues to join me in committing to
funding these services. Because what good is a protective order
is when a survivor can't secure adequate housing to escape
their abuser or their trafficker, or the legal assistance to
protect their rights or get custody of their children.
Victims and survivors must be given the support that they
need to heal and to find stability in their lives again. They
must be listened to, no matter what the wealth, status, or
connections of the people who harmed them. Above all, they must
be given the ability to choose how they chart their path
forward toward recovery, justice, and safety.
I thank our witnesses for being here to elevate the needs
of our victims and our survivors, and help us promote and
strengthen safeguards for all Americans. I yield.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. I will now recognize
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Biggs. Welcome to all our
witnesses. Sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and
other forms of sexual abuse happen in every community and
affect all people, regardless of gender or age.
According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, an
average of 24 people per minute become victims of rape,
physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That is
more than 12 million women and men every year. Nationwide, more
than one in five women have been raped or subjected to
attempted rape. Sixty percent of rapes are committed by someone
known to the victim, a number that increases to 93 percent for
victims of minor age.
The lives of victims are radically altered. Not only do
they suffer immediate, physical, and emotional trauma, they
also often experience a wide-range of chronic, physical, and
mental health problems as a result. They pay a heavy price in
financial terms from related medical and therapeutic treatment,
lost work, and legal expenses. The weight of these burdens is
even greater for survivors with fewer resources and networks to
draw on. Every survivor deserves to be safe, protected, and
supported.
I am heartened to see that in recent years, States have
taken action to improve protections for survivors. Often,
thanks to the advocacy of survivors themselves--people like
Kayleigh Kozak, who we get to hear from today. Because of Ms.
Kozak dogged advocacy, survivors of sex crimes and other
violent crimes may now petition the court in her home State of
Arizona for a permanent order of protection against their
perpetrators that is separate and apart from any action
connected to a criminal prosecution.
Ms. Kozak's advocacy did not end in Arizona. As a result,
many other States have similar laws, including my own home
State of Maryland, which offers similar protections for victims
and survivors. These laws go a long way in helping victims and
survivors feel safe and to move forward with their lives.
There's a role for the Federal Government to play as well.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government's responsibilities to
help survivors have been deeply undercut by this
administration. It has eliminated hundreds of programs created
and funded to address the needs of victims and survivors.
In April of last year, President Trump declared unending
support to every victim of crime. That same month, Members of
our Committee will recall, the Department of Justice following
the orders of DOGE and Elon Musk, abruptly terminated 373
different grants to State and local programs, totaling around
$500 million, including 59 of them, specifically, supporting
survivors of sexual crimes.
Take, for instance, the National Organization for Victim
Advocacy, or NOVA, the oldest victim assistance organization in
the country, which lost a grant originally valued at $870,000
for its victim advocacy corps. NOVA started the corps as a
pilot in 2022 and helped train and accredit students to be
victim advocates, providing a lifeline to victims of sexual
assault, trafficking, domestic violence, and other crimes in
communities often bypassed by traditional victim services. Out
of the blue, with no justification offered, no hearings, the
Trump Administration simply canceled the entire grant.
The Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal seems to indicate that
such cuts are going to continue. The President's budget
proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the
Office on Violence Against Women, slashing, for example, $14
million to transitional housing grants, and $15 million to
legal assistance grants. Both housing and legal assistance are
crucial for survivors and their children, enabling them to
escape the cycle of violence and to start the long process of
actually rebuilding their lives.
The administration has again proposed that the Office on
Violence Against Women be consolidated with other offices
within the DOJ, despite explicit statutory language requiring
that the office exists as a standalone entity.
Trump has also taken a wrecking ball to the Federal
Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute criminals,
including those that commit sex crimes. The DOJ is hemorrhaging
thousands of lawyers and having a hard time recruiting
replacements. Data from ICE reveal that in 2025, an astounding
14,500 Federal law enforcement officers were diverted from
their regular roles in investigating and prosecuting crimes to
assist simply in immigration enforcement.
In an investigation from The New York Times found that from
February through April of last year, Homeland Security
investigators worked 33 percent fewer hours on child
exploitation cases than they had in prior years. The results of
this overwhelming focus on immigration enforcement as the DOJ
quietly closed the stunning 23,000 criminal investigations in
the first six months of the administration alone.
The Trump Administration seems inclined to ignore victims
of sex crimes, to leave them unprotected, or, in some cases,
even retraumatize them. The DOJ moved convicted trafficker and
groomer, Ghislaine Maxwell, from a higher security prison to a
minimum-security camp in Texas where she has enjoyed five-star
treatment with catered meals, private gym time, and access to a
therapy puppy. Then, in a feeble attempt to comply with the law
that we passed and President Trump signed into law to release
all DOJ files on the Epstein conspiracy, the DOJ redacted the
names of abusers, enablers, accomplices, and coconspirators,
while shockingly failing, in many cases, to redact the names of
the victims, many of whom have yet to identify themselves
publicly.
We have a lot to talk about today. I want to welcome our
witnesses, especially Ms. Kozak. To my friend, Lisae Jordan,
the outstanding leader for the interest of victims of survivors
of sexual assault and violence in the great State of Maryland,
it was a great honor for me to get to work with her for 10
years when I was a State Senator in Annapolis. I hope we'll
take today's testimony to heart. I yield back to you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. Without objection, all the
opening statements will be put in the record. Now, I will
introduce today's witnesses.
Ms. Kozak, Kayleigh Kozak, she is the namesake of
Kayleigh's Law, versions of which have been enacted in a number
of States and provided protections for survivors of sexual and
domestic abuse. She also advocates for other measures aimed at
enhancing protection for victims and promoting justice.
The Honorable Suzette Martinez Valladares. Ms. Valladares
represents District 23 in the California State Senate where she
serves as the Vice Chair of the Health Committee and is a
Member of the Judiciary Committee. She previously served in the
California State Assembly.
Ms. Rachel Wright who is the National Policy Director for
Right on Crime, a nonprofit organization. She previously served
as an Assistant Solicitor General in the Kentucky Office of the
Attorney General and as Counsel to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. Lisae Jordan is the Executive Director of the Maryland
Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a nonprofit organization that
provides services and engages in advocacy pertaining to
survivors of sexual assault.
I appreciate all of you being here testifying today in this
very important topic. Thank you for coming.
We'll begin by swearing you in. If each of you would please
rise and raise your right hand:
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered
in the affirmative. You may be seated. Thank you.
Please know that your written testimony, in its entirety,
will be entered into the record. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
We're going to begin now with Senator Valladares.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUZETTE MARTINEZ VALLADERES
Senator Valladares. Chair, Ranking Member, and the Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I am California State Senator Suzette Valladares, and
what we're seeing in California should matter nationwide
because it's a warning.
Over the last several decades, a wave of criminal justice
reforms passed by the Democrat super Majority has fundamentally
shifted the balance in our system, not toward safety, not
toward accountability, but a way from survivors, and in many
cases, toward the very people who harm them. It's why I've been
working with Kayleigh Kozak to advance Kayleigh's Law.
The principle is simple: If someone is dangerous enough to
commit a serious violent crime, a survivor should not have to
keep going back to court just to stay safe. In California
today, that is exactly what we require. Survivors of sexual
assault and violent crime are forced to renew protective orders
every 4-7 years.
We are asking survivors to relive trauma, navigate a legal
system, and prove over and over again that they still deserve
protection. Meanwhile, the offender just has to wait.
Kayleigh's Law fixes that. It allows courts, at sentencing, to
issue lifetime protective orders for the most dangerous
offenders. Because the truth is, the trauma doesn't expire, the
threat doesn't expire, so the protection shouldn't either. That
need is urgent.
Every minute in this country someone is assaulted. Every
nine minutes, that victim is a child. In California, there are
over 227,000 active restraining orders at any given time. We
build a system with gaps, and the consequences are real.
A mother killed in front of her two-year-old one day after
a restraining order expired. Survivors who did everything
right, reported, testified, attained protection orders, only to
be failed by a system that let those protections lapse. It's
not simply a policy failure; it's a moral failure. This didn't
happen by accident.
In California, we passed law after law reducing penalties,
expanding early release, limiting tools for law enforcement,
and creating more barriers for survivors. These policies are
framed as compassionate, but survivors feel abandoned.
Now, layer on top of that a system through even the
protections we do provide, comes with an expiration date. What
message are we sending? Push the limits? Wait it out? That's
not justice, it's risk. We've already seen how dangerous the
gap can be. In a recent high-profile case, Natalia Bryant had
to return to court to extend her restraining order after
repeated violations. At one point, the individual believed the
order had expired and used that moment to reach out again.
Most survivors don't have the resources she had. When
protections lapse, they're left exposed. These risks are not
hypothetical. In California this year, a sexually violent
predator serving multiple life sentences, totaling over 300
years for crimes against more than a dozen children, including
a three-year-old, was granted early release.
In another case, a five-year-old girl was so brutally
assaulted that she could not walk. Deputies have to carry her
to the emergency room. Her attacker was also granted early
release.
As a mom, this is every parent's worst nightmare. It's pure
evil. Survivors of violent crimes like this should not have to
return to court again and again because protections can lapse;
to be forced to relive that trauma.
This is why Kayleigh's Law is so vitally important. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Valladares follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Wright, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL WRIGHT
Ms. Wright. Chair Biggs, Ranking Member McBath, and the
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much
for the invitation to testify before you today on enhancing
safeguards for victims of violent and sex-based crimes. My name
is Rachel Wright. I am the National Policy Director of Right on
Crime, a campaign on criminal justice from the Texas Public
Policy Foundation. We focus on conservative, data-driven
solutions resulting in less crime, fewer victims, and safer
communities.
Prior to joining Right on Crime, I served as both the trial
and appellate prosecutor, representing the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, my home State, and also got to work for Senator Chuck
Grassley on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
As a prosecutor and a policy expert on crime, criminal
justice, and victims' rights, I have seen firsthand the impact
that a criminal charge and conviction can have on both parties
involved. For many victims, especially those of violent and
sexual crimes, the physical and emotional pain is long-lasting
and uniquely damaging.
The criminal justice system is only as strong as its
ability to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that those
harmed by the crime are not retraumatized by the very process
intended to deliver it justice. A common tool used to protect
these vulnerable populations is to limit or prohibit contact
between the offender and the victim.
There are a few ways this was already done in the Federal
criminal law. One is while pending trial. There, a Federal
judge may require a defendant to avoid contact with the alleged
victim or potential witnesses pending trial. In making this
decision, the judge will typically consider the nature of the
crime, the defendant's criminal history, and public safety
considerations.
Also, after a criminal sentence has been served, and the
defendant is on supervised release, a judge may order a
defendant to stay away from certain places or people. However,
these protections are often temporary, and no-contact
conditions only last as long as the term of supervised release
itself, which is typically 3-5 years.
For both pretrial and supervised release, no-contact
conditions between the defendant and the victim are highly
discretionary. This means for the same crime, the outcomes for
victims can differ based on which judge makes the decision.
The proposal before this Committee, H.R. 8481, Kayleigh's
Law Act of 2026, looks at some of these issues head-on. At its
core, the bill seeks to prevent revictimization, stop future
crimes, and ensure consistency across Federal judicial
circuits. Fashioned after Kayleigh's Law passed in Arizona;
this bill will impose a lifetime injunction between defendants
and victims for specific covered offenses.
This policy has certain benefits, which are quite apparent.
First, it would reduce recidivism. Lifetime injunctions can
keep an offender from contacting a victim he or she sexually or
violently attacked. This bill could stop the revolving door of
the repeat offender in its tracks, which is particularly
important for violent crimes and sexual crimes. When paired
with proven rehabilitation and reintegration policies, lifetime
injunctions can be a critical piece of improving public safety.
Second, a Federal Kayleigh's Law would ensure consistency
among Federal courts. The clarity for when an injunction would
be imposed would mean that a judge in Arizona would rule the
same way as a judge in Georgia, or even Texas to California.
Insofar as criminal sentences imposed on defendants should
be consistent and uniform across Federal courts, so should the
impact on victims.
Third, this bill will complement ongoing State efforts.
Kayleigh's Law, while spearheaded in Arizona, is also being
considered in other States, too, and to be sure this Federal
bill before the Committee would be markedly different than
these State proposals.
Current State laws are often in place. For example, State
courts often hand down no-contact orders through family law
courts with domestic violence orders, temporarily restraining
orders, and emergency protection orders. Family law is unique
to the States only, and there is no Federal analogue. That's
why this Federal bill proposes making a no-contact condition
part of the criminal sentence itself. By embedding these
protections into the criminal sentence, this bill closes a
critical gap, ensuring no victim's safety depends on
circumstances out of her control, but is it protected as a
matter of Federal law?
True justice should not be measured just by the length of a
prison sentence, but by the restoration of the survivor. By
providing permanent peace of mind, victims will be empowered to
move forward in their lives without fear. Right on Crime
applauds this Committee's longstanding dedication to ensuring
better outcomes for victims, reforming offenders when safe, and
reducing crime. We look forward to working with the authors of
this bill to ensure the language is meticulously crafted and
responsive to this necessary issue.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. Thank
you, Congressman Hamadeh for your leadership on this
legislation. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Jordan for your
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LISAE C. JORDAN
Ms. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and the
Members of this Committee, thank you for the invitation to be
here today. I am Lisae Jordan. I am Executive Director and
Counsel with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault
(MCASA). Thank you to Kayleigh Kozak, the brave survivor at the
table with me today.
MCASA is Maryland's State sexual assault coalition. We have
sister coalitions in States and Territories across the country.
Like our sister coalitions, we include the States' rape crisis
centers, survivors, professionals, and others dedicated to
ending sexual violence.
MCASA is home to the Sexual Assault Legal Institute (SALI),
which provides direct legal services to survivors of sexual
violence across the State of Maryland.
As you consider this important legislation, MCASA urges you
to center the needs of survivors and appreciate the complexity
of survivors' experience. Every survivor is different. I am
going to add to Kayleigh's story and ask you to consider the
case of a 14-year-old girl who's vulnerable and needy, targeted
by an abuser calling her beautiful and helping her feel
special. The offender sexually abuses her, recruits her into
human trafficking, using all the slow and careful grooming that
sex offenders employ, gains her trust, cuts her off from the
support of those who love her, draws her in, and then sexually
exploits her.
Before this young woman ever reports, she needs to know
that what is happening is not her fault, and that it's illegal.
She needs to have information, she needs counseling, she needs
protection. To have justice, she needs trained prosecutors who
will take her story seriously and prosecute swiftly. She needs
her own advocate or attorney to help ensure that her rights and
her safety are protected. The permanent protective order
proposed is one of those protections that should be available.
Be clear, more is needed for this young woman to access
justice.
In Maryland, as Mr. Raskin mentioned, we do have a
permanent protective order available to survivors, but it's
only in very specific types of cases. I do not recommend
Maryland's law as a model. What is effective about it is this:
It's part of the civil protective order system. That makes it
easier for our officers to arrest someone who is violating it.
By contrast, the criminal stay-away has all the deficits
that Ms. Wright explained, but it's also very difficult to
enforce on the ground. Enforcement through contempt of court is
not an effective on-the-ground means of enforcement.
MCASA's greater concern is that more needs to be done to
address the complexities of sexual assault and the needs of
survivors. We should help sexual survivors because they deserve
our support as crime victims, as a moral matter, but also
because they need to be treated as heroes when they do report.
If people don't report, sex offenders remain free.
Thank you for everything this Committee has done to help
support survivors of sexual assault. I want to highlight legal
services supported by Federal laws. They are critically
important to supporting survivors. Under H.R. 8481, a victim's
rights attorney could help negotiate all these different
aspects of obtaining safety. A sex trafficking survivor could
ask for help protecting privacy. A survivor abused by her
teacher could ask for accommodation in school. Protective
parents could help get a divorce from a sex-offending parent.
Having effective counsel and legal services is key to making
the laws that you enact effective for survivors.
Our programs also need your help. The persistent delays in
grant administration, and the instability at the Federal level,
are threatening services. Planning is difficult. Reductions in
the Federal workforce means we are seeing demand from people in
Maryland who would have thought private services in the past--
they're unable to donate or support us.
Programs like SALI are unable to apply for competitive
grants because applications have not been released. Other
programs have applied for funding, but then not heard, being
left in limbo, and perhaps having to lay off staff. Cuts to
VOCA programs are devastating across the country. The safety
net that America has built to help victims of crime is at risk
of breaking. We are asking for your help to stop this.
If H.R. 8481 was enacted, services supported with VOCA and
VAWA, the programs you have created, they would help those
survivors. Survivors need the services; programs need the grant
funding you have created. Permanent protection for survivors is
important, but they are part of a larger tapestry of responding
to sexual assault. Thank you so much again for your time today.
We look forward to working together.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jordan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I know we're voting, but we're going
to go ahead and hear Ms. Kozak, and then we'll take the recess
to vote. Ms. Kozak, you are recognized for your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KAYLEIGH KOZAK
Ms. Kozak. Good morning, Chair Biggs, Ranking Member, and
the Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of this bill. Thank you to Congressman
Hamadeh for introducing it.
My name is Kayleigh Kozak. I am a survivor of childhood
sexual abuse, and I am the namesake behind Kayleigh's Law.
When I was a little girl, telling the truth cost me
everything. At 12 years old, a trusted teacher, who was also my
club soccer coach, chose to sexually abuse me over a two-year
period.
In 2006, that man was originally charged with eight counts
of child sexual abuse, classified as a dangerous crime against
a child under Arizona law. Offenses that carried a potential
sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
He pled down to two counts, served his nine months in jail,
and received two terms of lifetime probation in lieu of prison
time per his request. A sweetheart plea deal for him that has
become a living hell for me.
In January 2020, my world came to a halt when I learned
that he had petitioned to have his so-called lifetime probation
terminated. If it ended, every single safeguard that I had
would disappear. Three weeks later, I stood in court, broken
and confused, begging a judge not to grant his motion. This
experience exposed a critical flaw in our justice system. A
victim's protection is too often tied to and entirely depends
on the perpetrator's post-conviction conditions, such as
probation or sex offender registry requirements.
This is what ignited Kayleigh's Law. The abuse itself is
horrific, but no one can prepare you for the hell that follows
even decades later.
Just two months ago in February 2026, I found myself back
in court again for the same reason as 2020. He had again
petitioned to have his lifetime probation terminated. Only this
time, I witnessed my abuser be served with a lifetime no-
contact injunction under Kayleigh's Law in Arizona. I now have
permanent lifelong protection.
The harm caused by sexual assault is not temporary, it is
lifelong. The protections for those who have been sexually
violated should be lifelong, too. However, in most States are
Federal--even when a heinous crime is committed, and an
individual is convicted, obtaining a protective order requires
continued proof, additional court hearings, which ultimately
revictimizes and retraumatizes victims. Still the order remains
temporary and limiting.
There is little to no uniformity across States or federally
pertaining to sex crime definitions, sex offender registry, and
probation requirements, or protective orders.
If the justice system is going to continue to grant
leniency to individuals convicted of sexual offenses, fail to
fully enforce SORNA standards, and remove convicted offenders
from probation or sex offender registry, which on conviction,
are typically the conditions that prevent an offender from
having contact with their victim, then the very least it should
do is guarantee victims permanent protection from the person
who is convicted of sexually violating them. Victims everywhere
deserve this protection. Pursuing this law nationally has
always been the goal.
Kayleigh's Law has already passed in multiple States with
strong bipartisan support. In Arizona alone, in its first year,
more than 1,000 victims obtained a permanent order of
protection. Arizona has set the gold standard. It's time for
the Federal Government and every State to follow suit.
This is a national crisis. Federal sex crimes have surged
more than 62 percent since 2020, and more than 87 percent of
these ends in plea deals with reduced charges and sentencing.
Harsh penalties for these crimes are on the books. Yet,
those severe consequences become meaningless when the justice
system allows plea deals with drastically reduced sentences for
sex offenders, and in the end, still leave victims with no
protection.
Sexual predators do not make mistakes; they make very
conscious choices. I have zero sympathy for pedophiles and sex
offenders who selfishly choose to sexually violate another
innocent human being. The hardships that they face as a result
of their choices that they made should never supersede a
victim's right to indefinite, lifelong protection. The priority
should always be protecting victims of these crimes, not
offenders who commit them.
In sixth grade at a place where I should have been safe, my
elementary school, my teacher pulled me into the equipment room
closet, he locked the door, and he molested me until he was
sexually satisfied. Then, he shoved me out of the side door and
sent me back to class as if nothing had happened. In a matter
of minutes, my life changed forever by someone who was in a
position of trust that was supposed to protect me. That was
just the beginning of the sexual abuse and where my hell on
Earth began; the hell that I am stuck in.
I could not protect myself then, but I can fight to protect
myself, other innocent children, and every victim now. I ask
that you fight to protect them, too.
Please lead the effort and pass this bill. No survivor
should have to face their convicted abuser in court repeatedly.
I will never stop fighting for victims and survivors because
you still matter. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kozak follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I regret to do this, but we are going
to take a recess so we can go vote. They've called the votes. I
have no idea how long that will last, and so, I would ask the
witnesses to kind of--you may actually have time to wander
around a little bit. Stay close so we can find you. When we do
get back, we can reconvene. Thank you so very much. We're in
recess.
[Recess. 12:06 p.m.]
Ms. Lee. [Presiding.] At this time, we'll reconvene the
meeting of the Subcommittee. Welcome back, witnesses. We will
now commence questioning by Members of Congress. We will go in
five-minute increments, alternating back and forth from each
side of the aisle. I will now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Thank you all for being here today for the purpose of this
hearing to discuss strengthening protections for victims of
violent and sexual crimes. Thank you to each of our witnesses
for your testimony and your insight. I want to especially thank
Ms. Kayleigh Kozak. Your courage in coming here to share your
story and transforming trauma into advocacy for other survivors
is extraordinary. I want to personally thank you for your
bravery and for your leadership.
Before coming to Congress, I served as both a Federal
prosecutor and a judge, and I saw firsthand the devastating and
lasting impact these crimes have on victims and on their
families. Cases involving sexual abuse, exploitation, and
violence are not something victims can simply move on from when
a sentence is handed down. The trauma, fear, and emotional toll
often last a lifetime, and our justice system should recognize
that reality. Too often victims are forced to repeatedly return
to court, relive painful experiences, and continue proving they
deserve protection from the very individuals who harmed them.
Victims should not have to carry the burden of navigating
gaps in the system to simply feel safe. My hope for today's
hearing is that we better understand where these gaps still
exist, what protections are truly making a difference for
survivors, and what Congress can do to build a more victim-
centered justice system that provides safety, accountability,
and peace of mind for survivors across the country.
Ms. Wright, I would like to begin with you. Florida,
unfortunately, sees a high volume of crimes involving
exploitation and trafficking. We also have a highly transient
population. One concern I have is whether protective orders
truly follow offenders in meaningful and enforceable ways when
someone relocates. From your perspective, are there gaps today
in how long-term protective orders are entered into national
databases, recognized across jurisdictions, or communicated to
local law enforcement agencies?
Ms. Wright. Thank you for the question. In short, the
answer is yes. There are gaps. If an offender is moving to a
different jurisdiction, under State law, those orders may only
pertain to just that State conviction. A Federal bill, like the
one proposed, 8481, like Kayleigh's Law, the Federal version of
this, would close that hole. It would fill in that gap because
it's having a Federal jurisdiction, which means no matter where
the offender goes, no matter where the victim goes, that
protective order is going to apply to the offender still, and
that victim will still be protected.
Also, it's focusing on the criminal sentencing aspect as
opposed to family law which is unique to the States. Also,
that's a gap that the Federal law would have to do differently,
because State by State, the family law also differs.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Ms. Kozak, from your perspective, how
important is it that our laws recognize the long-term reality
of trauma and provide victims with lasting certainty and
protection, not just during prosecution, but years afterwards
as survivors are moving forward with their lives?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you so much for that question. It is
incredibly important that it's recognized that the effects from
sexual violence, especially for children, any victim of any age
do last a lifetime. Just because defendants' and offenders'
situation may change--whether it be their registry requirements
or their sex offender registry requirements, that does not
lessen the severity of what happened to a victim. It will go
with them for the rest of their life.
Ms. Lee. One of the most striking parts of your story is
that the court required evidence of a recent encounter with
your abuser before considering additional protections. From a
survivor's perspective, how retraumatizing is it to essentially
have to wait for another frightening interaction before the
system will act?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question, too. When we are
going through the judicial process, we can be proactive or
reactive. This law allows for a proactive order of protection
to be in place that lasts a lifetime.
When I got the phone call in 2020 notifying me that I had
to go back to court to fight for my abuser to stay on
probation--and learn that it was all or nothing, and that I
wouldn't have protection if he got off, I couldn't wrap my head
around that reality. That is the reality that so many victims
are in. The crime itself should be sufficient enough to give a
very natural life protection. They have already shown that they
have no respect for boundaries, and that they will go to great
lengths to sexually violate someone. That order of protection
should stay in place.
Ms. Lee. You have now worked with legislatures across the
country since Arizona passed Kayleigh's Law. Have you heard
from survivors who felt more willing to come forward or
cooperate with prosecutors or seek justice because they knew
the prospect of stronger long-term protection was available?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. I've heard from
thousands of survivors across the Nation who are hopeful that
this type of protective order can be in place for them and for
victims. Specifically in Arizona, there's been over 3,000
victims now that have gotten this type of protection order put
in place. The comfort that this gives them and knowing that
they can actually move on with their life and not have it
interrupted because a perpetrator has decided that they want
things to change, has changed the trajectory of their lives
immensely. It allows them to go on healing. It takes control
away from the abuser who has continued to file things and drive
change in their life. The victim now has protection, and they
can move on.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
Representative from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for five minutes.
Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair. Ms. Wright, do
Federal courts currently issue protective orders or restraining
orders of any kind to victims of crime that are not connected
to either pretrial release or criminal sentence?
Ms. Wright. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
McBath. The most comparable analogue right now to a restraining
order in the Federal system that is not a condition of pretrial
release or supervised release is going to be sex offender
registration. So, no.
Ms. McBath. OK. Thank you. Statutes that allow for
permanent orders of protection have been adopted in several
States, including Arizona, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Most States with a law like
Kayleigh's Law provide some way for victims or the courts to
review, modify, or terminate orders. It's often up to the
victim. Is that right, Ms. Kozak?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you. For clarification, yes, the victim
can petition to have the order terminated or ended early, if
they wish.
Ms. McBath. OK. The proposed Federal version of Kayleigh's
Law--it's actually different. It would prevent the victim from
having the order terminated or suspended unless the abuser's
conviction was the subject of a pardon or a commutation.
Ms. Jordan, should we limit victim autonomy in this bill in
this way?
Ms. Jordan. Thank you for that question. We should not
limit victim autonomy in that way. One of the critical things
that happens to survivors of any crime, but particularly of
sexual assault, is that they have had control taken away from
them by that crime. Part of our goal in giving a survivor
justice is to empower them.
There are many different stories. There are many different
paths that survivors take. Some wish to speak with the
offender. Most know their offender. Sometimes they want to have
an order modified to allow for some sort of contact. It is not
our place to judge the reasons that survivors may have for
wanting to modify or tailor a permanent order. We should give
them the right to do that. That is why it is critical that any
legislation that this body passes includes the ability for a
survivor to decide to modify something.
Ms. McBath. Then, should an action by the President
determine what a victim is allowed to do under the proposed
statute.
Ms. Jordan. I am sorry, I didn't hear your question.
Ms. McBath. Should an action by the President determine
what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute?
Ms. Jordan. No, I would suggest that really we should allow
the victim to have the autonomy to make that decision, not an
act by the President.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. Ms. Kozak, who knows more about the
needs and desires of a victim than a victim?
Ms. Kozak. A victim.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Wright.
Ms. Wright. A victim.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. A victim.
Ms. McBath. Senator Valladares?
Senator Valladares. A victim.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. We know that sexual and domestic
abusers oftentimes stalk their victims, which can leave victims
to seek restraining or protective orders against their abusers.
Although stalking is a covered offense in the Arizona version
of Kayleigh's Law, stalking is not a covered offense in the
Federal version of the bill.
Ms. Kozak, why did you find it necessary to include
stalking as a covered offense in the Arizona version of your
bill? Should stalking be covered in the Federal version of your
bill?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. Stalking is a very
serious crime and a very real thing that we see throughout the
Nation. Stalking was not originally included in the Arizona
bill. It started as mostly heinous sex crimes, and there were
amendments a couple years later. With this bill, we really
focus on sex crimes to narrow. With the conversation of future
amendments to add stalking, stalking is a very serious crime,
and I absolutely believe that it should be included as one of
the statutes that would make it be available to pursue a
permanent order of protection under Federal law.
Ms. McBath. OK. Ms. Kozak, you decided to pursue the
creation of permanent injunctions that would exist and could be
in force separate and apart from any criminal sentence,
correct.
Ms. Kozak. Can you repeat that question?
Ms. McBath. OK. You decided to pursue the creation of
permanent injunctions that would exist and could be enforced
separately and apart from any criminal sentence. Am I right?
Ms. Kozak. This would only be applicable to criminal
sentences.
Ms. McBath. OK. I just want you to know, I commend your
effort and your resolve. I am really very, very grateful to
you. It appears that the Federal version of your bill would
require a sentencing court to include a permanent injunction in
any sentence imposed. Is that right.
Ms. Kozak. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McBath. That injunction would remain in effect for the
life of the defendant; correct?
Ms. Kozak. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Wright, you note in--oh, sorry. I am out of
time. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Kiley, for five minutes.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Valladares,
thank you for being with us today. I understand you introduced
a bill in the State legislature that would have allowed victims
of certain sex crimes to obtain a permanent restraining order
against the perpetrator. Is that right?
Senator Valladares. Yes.
Mr. Kiley. What happened to this bill?
Senator Valladares. Last year when we introduced Kayleigh's
Law, it had a broader framework that would allow for certain
violent crimes and sexual crimes. It would give a judge
discretion to issue a permanent injunction. The bill was
immediate killed in public safety and--
Mr. Kiley. It was killed?
Senator Valladares. It was killed in public safety.
Mr. Kiley. Why?
Senator Valladares. I don't understand. When as we've heard
here today, the trauma and retraumatization of victims is real.
Having to return to court in California every three to seven
years to seek extra protections is unacceptable.
Mr. Kiley. That's amazing. That's what they wanted--your
colleagues in the California State legislature wanted--they
wanted to force victims to have to come keep getting a
restraining order every 3-7 years?
Senator Valladares. Unfortunately, the criminal justice
reforms in California, and law after law that have been passed
and signed by our Governor have emboldened criminals and taken
every opportunity to create more barriers for survivors, which
we saw in the public safety vote last year.
Mr. Kiley. Now, that's just unfathomable to me. It seems
like if there's just one thing they should garner unanimous
bipartisan support, it's saying that victims of these heinous
crimes should be able to feel safe from their perpetrators, and
certainly shouldn't have to reconfront them and re-experience
the trauma on a regular basis; right?
Senator Valladares. Absolutely.
Mr. Kiley. This is especially important because in
California, as you know very well, a lot of these folks get
released from prison a lot earlier than they should. We had
just a couple pretty recent cases in California where you had a
serial child molester named David Funston who assaulted--
kidnapped, molested multiple young children as young as 3 years
old; would lure them to his car with candy; was sentenced to
three life sentences. The judge called him the monster that
parents fear most. He was granted parole; granted early release
by the parole board. You are familiar with this case?
Senator Valladares. Yes, unfortunately, that's not the only
case. Just this year I can recall three different instances
where predators who violently raped and assaulted children--
children as young as three years old--were sentenced to
multiple life sentences, never really finished those sentences
because the State of California and the parole board granted
them early release. It just goes to show how important
Kayleigh's Law is because there is no guarantee in California
that a life sentence will be served. The victims that expect
that justice when sentence is handed down are essentially
slapped in the face when these violent criminals are released
back into our communities.
Mr. Kiley. That's such an important point. This law is more
important in California than basically anywhere. There is a
Southern case, you mentioned several others, this Gregory
Vogelsang was sentenced to 355 years in prison for victimizing
five children in Citrus Heights, was recommended for release in
California because of this elderly parole law, which I believe
applies to anyone over 50; right?
Senator Valladares. Yes, my husband is not happy. He is a
little bit over 50. Fifty is not elderly. When you see some of
the parole hearings, this is what is graphic and horrific. A
lot of these criminals still admit in parole hearings today or
late last year that they're still attracted to children, yet
the parole board is releasing them.
Mr. Kiley. I remember that in this case or one of these
cases. It was the Funston case, I think. That was actually in
the record, and they still recommended release. Again, 360-some
years, you're sentenced to three life sentences. They're being
released from prison early under this law.
Then, because the legislature has refused to pass your bill
victims who had a restraining order in cases like this,
suddenly they hear that the person who victimized them is out
of prison. Whereas they might have thought, three life
sentences, I might not have to worry about this. They're out of
prison. Then, they have to keep going to court to get a
restraining order. That seems pretty crazy to me.
I understand you've reintroduced your bill. Maybe there's a
path toward getting the victim some relief at least?
Senator Valladares. Yes, this year we reintroduced
Kayleigh's Law. It is very narrowed. Unfortunately, there was
no appetite with my colleagues across the aisle to issue a
lifetime injunction. We negotiated 25 years, and 25 years for
convictions of sexually assaulting children, so this is very
narrow. It's also very important to recognize that in my
version of the bill in California, this gives a judge
discretion. It requires the court to look at the seriousness of
the matter, and to make this decision based on the facts of the
case and the likelihood of the individual reoffending.
Mr. Kiley. Well, it's a good first step. I thank you for
your efforts. I am calling on everyone in Sacramento, including
the Governor, to really be on the side of victims when it comes
to this issue. I yield back.
Ms. Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Knott, for five minutes.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the witnesses here,
thank you so much for being here. I want to start with you, Ms.
Kozak. If you can just refresh the memory of people watching,
when did you suffer your abuse?
Ms. Kozak. I was sexually abused my sixth and seventh grade
year, when I was just 12 and 13 years old by my--
Mr. Knott. Before you were a teenager?
Ms. Kozak. Yes.
Mr. Knott. Excuse this question, but how old are you now?
Ms. Kozak. Thirty-four.
Mr. Knott. Thirty-four. In any way, shape, or form, has
that trauma that you went through as a young lady, has it gone
away, has it been cared for, or has it been an ongoing presence
in your life?
Ms. Kozak. It's been ongoing. I did my best to pick up and
move on with my life. In 2020, it changed when my abuser
decided once again he wanted things to change. It's been all
about what he wants.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Ms. Kozak. What he decides through the court.
Mr. Knott. This just again for clarity and context, he was
convicted, correct?
Ms. Kozak. Yes, he was convicted.
Mr. Knott. In your experience, in your familiarity with
this case, are you a lone example of his abuse?
Ms. Kozak. My case, specifically, or as a victim?
Mr. Knott. In terms of your familiarity with what went on
at that school when you were a student there, was there other
instances of abuse that you're familiar with?
Ms. Kozak. I am the only known documented victim. That does
not mean that I am the only victim.
Mr. Knott. Sure. In terms of this particular perpetrator,
he was convicted, he was given a very light sentence. In any
way, shape, or form, do you believe that he has been reformed
from his previous crimes?
Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. I do not believe
that sex offenders can be rehabilitated.
Mr. Knott. Why.
Ms. Kozak. Well, because is there enough therapy that I can
give anybody in this room to be sexually attracted to children?
It's sexual preference. They may learn how to control their
urges, but they cannot be rehabilitated into not being sexually
attracted to children.
Mr. Knott. In regards to this particular individual who
committed crimes against you, has he been reformed?
Ms. Kozak. No.
Mr. Knott. How do you know that?
Ms. Kozak. Because I am the victim. I receive all the
documents. I see his test. I see the summaries. I see the
results of the things that he does and his polygraphs and his
psychosexuals. So, no.
Mr. Knott. Have there been other instances of either
admitted or documented inappropriate sexual attraction or
action that he has taken?
Mr. Knott. Yes, he was removed from his home in 2015 for
continuous violations. He was almost put back in prison,
revoked. Instead, they removed him from his home. The reasons
were because he was continuously lying, and he was being
sexually aroused by his own children.
Mr. Knott. Unbelievable. As a lawmaker, I have grave
concerns that someone like that is candidly still alive. That
the use of the death penalty for someone who does that to a
child and continues to do this, we need to have serious
discussions about that. At a minimum, they should be in jail
for life. Again, this is someone who is not rumored, he has
been convicted. He has documented instances of returning to
this cesspool. The State is making you defend the protective
order that you should be able to hold for the rest of your
life. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Kozak. Yes.
Mr. Knott. In regard to the cost financially to you, how
much have you--just ballpark estimate--how much have you had to
spend to keep that evil man away from you?
Ms. Kozak. An immense amount of money.
Mr. Knott. Are we talking about $10,000? $100,000? Over $1
million?
Ms. Kozak. Probably the latter.
Mr. Knott. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. In regard to your
life, ma'am, how have you been able to separate out what you
went through to where you want to go?
Ms. Kozak. I never thought I would have to continue
fighting the man who was convicted for sexually abusing me as a
child, but if this is what I'm going through, then how many
others? I owe it to every victim to stand and fight for them,
because no one should have to endure this.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Ms. Kozak. When I was told a lifetime, I thought he would
be on a lifetime sentence. I was not told the truth. When I
found out that he was not on the sex offender registry, the
public sex offender registry, due to a risk assessment, when he
was convicted of committing a dangerous crime against a child,
I could not believe it. I have really found my voice and fought
for justice.
Mr. Knott. How does empowering these predators, what does
that do to victims' likelihood of coming forward?
Ms. Kozak. Why would they?
Mr. Knott. Right.
Ms. Kozak. It's horrific.
Mr. Knott. If you had to do it over again, would you have
come forward?
Ms. Kozak. If I knew then what I know now, no.
Mr. Knott. What a failure. Well, thank you for coming
forward today. We are in your debt, and our toleration of this
type of person is a grave concern of mine. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields. I have
several UCs. First, is this: ``Kayleigh's Law helps more than
1,000 Arizona crime victims.''
Second, ``Officials who claim to support victim rights go
on offensive to silence outspoken victim advocate.''
Mr. Biggs. Valladares--do you say Valladares?
Senator Valladares. Valladares or Valladares, whichever.
Mr. Biggs. Valladares, OK. Third, ``Valladares introduces
Kayleigh's Law bill to strengthen protections for crime
victims.''
Fourth, ``Judge denies Liberty District's motion to dismiss
decades-old sexual abuse negligence case.''
Fifth, ``Prosecutors want Idaho killer barred from
contacting victim's families for nearly a century.''
Sixth, ``Arizona Senator celebrates legal triumph as court
upholds strict sex offender law.''
Mr. Biggs. Without objection. I now will recognize Ms.
McBath for five minutes.
Ms. McBath. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To kind of pick
up where we left off, Ms. Wright, you note in your testimony
that the Federal proposal would tie the no-contact order to the
criminal sentence, correct?
Ms. Wright. Correct.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Kozak, is that not exactly what she wanted
to avoid in Arizona when you fought for your bill's passage?
Ms. Kozak. I'm so sorry. Can you please repeat the
original?
Ms. McBath. Sure.
Ms. Kozak. Thank you so much.
Ms. McBath. Sure. In your testimony that the Federal--you
wrote in your testimony that--I'm sorry, in Ms. Wright's
testimony, she wrote that, ``the Federal proposal would tie the
no-contact order to the criminal sentence.'' She says,
``correct.''
OK. My question to you is, is that not exactly what you
wanted to avoid in Arizona when you were actually fighting for
your bill's passage?
Ms. Kozak. In Arizona when we were fighting for this, what
makes Kayleigh's Law the gold standard is that it would be
implemented at the time of sentencing. Eliminating any future
court hearings or having to justify that you may be in danger.
The goal is to have it served at the time of sentencing, then
everyone knows that it's intact.
In Arizona, it is retroactive, and so, there are thousands
of victims who have petitioned and received the no-contact--the
lifetime injunction is what it's called in Arizona--
postconviction.
Ms. McBath. OK. Thank you. Then, we are here today because
we know that protective orders are a tool that could help some
victims and survivors obtain peace of mind. Victims and
survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and abuse, and
other violent felonies require comprehensive support because
they have a wide range of needs that span safety, health,
legal, financial--as you have expressed--and long-term
recovery.
Ms. Jordan, beyond protective orders, what other care and
services and support are necessary to help survivors and
victims of sexual and domestic violence?
Ms. Jordan. Thank you for that question. It is hugely
important, because survivors all have different needs, and we
need to meet them where they are. Some need housing, others
need legal services. The bill before you today is exceptionally
complicated. Enforcing something with a contempt of court, you
would need a lawyer to help with that.
Also, consider that if you were, for instance, the mom of a
child who was sexually abused by your husband, by a stepfather,
you wouldn't just need a criminal prosecution of that offender;
you would also need a divorce; you would also need a custody
order; you would also need clinical attention; you would need
therapy; you would need support; and you would need your rape
crisis centers that are available throughout the country.
Listening to some of the testimony here today, I'm reminded
that one of the important things that Congress can do is to
place a condition on funding. You could say that we need to
have Kayleigh's Law at the local level where most sex crimes
prosecutions occur, and those States, they would respond to
that sort of mandate. It's not going to make a difference
unless the money starts getting into the field.
Right now, again, we are facing huge barriers: No
applications being released, awards not being announced, and
some awards being rescinded. That tool of attaching funding to
a condition like creating Kayleigh's Law at the local level; it
is a huge tool that Congress has, but only if the money is
flowing and only if those grants are working.
Ms. McBath. Ms. Jordan--this is last question that I have--
an abusive partner's access to a firearm greatly increases the
danger faced by victims of domestic violence, making it five
times more likely that a woman will be killed and also creating
a grave risk to her children. Are extreme risk protection
orders, would you consider them a tool in addition to
traditional protective orders that should be available to
everyone, any woman, anyone facing domestic abuse no matter
where they live?
Ms. Jordan. Absolutely. That is a critical tool. It is a
critical tool for survivors of intimate partner violence. Guns,
remember, increase lethality in all crimes, including sexual
violence, and including robberies. ERPOs are a fundamental tool
to help get the guns out of people who may use them against the
people who are here in America. Thank you for your leadership
on that issue. It is something that should be considered side
by side with this law.
Ms. McBath. Thank you very much. I'm out of time.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Senator Valladares, you testified earlier about
California ultimately moving toward a 25-year framework rather
than lifetime protections. From a legislative negotiation
standpoint, was that compromise driven more by constitutional
concerns, enforcement concerns, or political opposition to the
concept of lifetime victim protections themselves?
Senator Valladares. Yes. I'm happy that our bill is still
moving through the legislative process, not in a protective
order--lifeline protective order form. To quote the Chair of
the Public Safety Committee, ``we have a fundamental difference
of opinion on lifetime orders.''
Ms. Lee. It sounds like the opponents of lifetime
protections were primarily framing their objections through the
lens of offender rehabilitation. Tell me how you perceive
balancing rehabilitation arguments against the ongoing public
safety and psychological needs of victims who may carry trauma
for life?
Senator Valladares. Well, I think that the truth is for
victims and for survivors, their trauma does not expire. It
does not end. From my perspective, Kayleigh's Law gets us back
to where we should have never left, which is protecting and
prioritizing the rights of victims and the trauma of victims.
That's the balance. California has yet to get there yet, but
we're continuing to work on it.
Ms. Lee. Ms. Wright, as Congress looks at whether laws like
Kayleigh's Law are working, should we be measuring success not
just by recidivism or convictions statistics, but also by
whether victims actually feel safer, are more willing to come
forward and cooperate with law enforcement, experience fewer
repeat contacts from offenders, and are able to move on with
their lives instead of repeatedly returning to court?
Ms. Wright. That is an excellent question, and it's both,
Congresswoman. That's because on one hand we need to analyze
the data and information that State agencies are providing to
States, and then also if this law--or this bill were become
law, how DOJ is reporting those kind of statistics for
Congress.
However, to take a step back from the sterility of
lawmaking and sometimes being in a courtroom, the criminal
justice system is not based just on data and numbers; it's
based on people and stories. It would be important for Congress
to be reminded when we're looking at this, yes, maybe the
recidivism data would show that these are--this would be a
positive policy. Maybe it wouldn't. To say that this one
specific bill would be the silver bullet for crime numbers
going down would be impossible.
For instance, when the FBI released its crime data earlier
this year, we all saw that crime numbers are decreasing. That
is a hollow reprieve for people who in big cities are still
feeling unsafe.
It is imperative that the crime data is kind of stagnant,
but we have to remember that a victim feeling that they have
someone in their corner, that they are part of the
conversation, and that someone is looking out for their
interest, that in and of itself is the law working too.
Ms. Lee. Along those lines, is it your view that we should
also take into consideration things like victim stability
outcomes, such as whether survivors are better able to maintain
employment, housing, or schooling?
Ms. Wright. That's an important consideration definitely,
because survivors are impacted by this and they are seeking
reprieve from their trauma. It's not just a conversation for
just the defendant on how that person is being rehabilitated
and reintegrated into society. The criminal justice system is a
trying process that is not quickly done, criminal litigation
and then the sentencing and then the post-incarceration
conversations, and then as Ms. Kozak was describing, having to
be heralded back into court decades after the crime itself.
Yes, that's an excellent point.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Knott.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Valladares, I want to talk to you briefly about
kind of picking up where you were with Mr. Kiley. In terms of,
you stated there was no appetite with your colleagues across
the aisle to give a lifetime injunction or a lifetime ban from
predators to have access to the victims. Again, just to
highlight the situation here, we're not talking about mere
accusers. These are people, like Ms. Kozak, whose perpetrator
was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt for heinous crimes.
What's the reason behind, I would say, this artificial
compassion?
Senator Valladares. It's important to clarify that in the
California version of Kayleigh's Law it is tailored to crimes
or convictions of sexual assault on minors.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Senator Valladares. This is the only crime in the bill, and
as I mentioned earlier, my colleagues have no appetite to offer
permanent injunction for those victims. If you think about some
of the cases we heard earlier where a victim is brutally raped
at 3-5 years old, under the current law, 4-7 years later, they
could still be a child and having to face their predator once
again just to maintain safety. I simply cannot relate to anyone
who doesn't agree or have compassion for someone being--
Mr. Knott. A three-year-old. A three-year-old. How that's
excused with anything less than a life sentence and up to a
death penalty, I can't sympathize with that. I can't understand
that. It's part of a broader trend, as you well know. In
California, as you're well aware, there was a bill that was
blocked that would have made it heightened--there would be
heightened penalties for efforts to purchase sex from 16-17-
year-olds.
In the State of Washington, there was a bill to reduce
penalties for sex offenders who do not register on the public
list as required by law. In Illinois, there was an effort to
remove buffers that convicted sex offenders must abide by as it
relates to daycare, as it relates to playgrounds, as it relates
to schools. Also, in Illinois, there was an effort to lower
penalties for people who did not register on the sex offender
list, and there was an effort to make it a misdemeanor as
opposed to a felony.
Then, here in the U.S. Senate, there was an effort to block
a bill that would have strengthened penalties for possessing
and producing child pornography. Why is it that there are these
efforts to reduce the disincentive of strong penalties for sex
predators as it relates to children?
Senator Valladares. Unfortunately, in the California
legislature, I feel like we have a procriminal sentiment and
body that likes to pass these bills, contrary to the belief of
the California people, who overwhelmingly have asked
legislators to hold criminals accountable in a variety of ways.
One thing I'll also point out is that that bill you talked
about earlier that would omit 16-17-year-olds started as a bill
that would increase penalties for buying sex with any minor,
and that was rejected from the public safety committee.
Mr. Knott. Unbelievable.
Senator Valladares. Public outcry required them to take it
up again.
Mr. Knott. Purchasing sex from a minor, that's astounding.
That doesn't even begin to touch what Members of the Left want
to put before children in school as young as kindergarten. It's
just sexually explicit material. Even in my home State of North
Carolina, they are going to the bat to defend their right to
put this type of material in front of children.
Ms. Wright, I have a question for you. In regard to the
criticism or the question about this particular law, do you
believe that there's any issues with States' rights, federalism
issues and so forth? Why or why not?
Ms. Wright. No, I don't believe that this bill infringes on
any State rights for a few reasons:
First, there is language in the bill toward the end
basically separating out this shall not impact any State laws
on this issue, like the Kayleigh's Laws that are being
implemented across the country.
Second, the way that the bill is written, it does not try
to create a new family law system in the Federal jurisdiction.
It is staying squarely within the sentencing parameters of 18
U.S.C.
Mr. Knott. Yes.
Ms. Wright. In fact, the contempt of court penalty
attributed to a defendant violating the no-contact condition of
his sentencing is 18 U.S.C. I don't believe that there's any
federalism concerns here.
Mr. Knott. OK. Last, Ms. Jordan, in your experience, is
there room for Federal programs to be involved with victim
protection, or should it be more of a grant system? What's the
optimum solution as you see it in your experience?
Ms. Jordan. Oh, absolutely. We should have Federal
protection. However, you would be remiss if you didn't take
advantage of the tool that you have here in Congress that
affects State crimes, because the reality is very few sex
crimes are prosecuted at the Federal level.
Mr. Knott. Right.
Ms. Jordan. It is almost exclusively a matter of a State
jurisdiction. Absolutely, give those Federal crime victims
these rights, but don't neglect our State crime victims, and
use the tools that you have.
Mr. Knott. Wonderful. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize myself for my first round of questions. I
apologize. I got caught on the floor and couldn't get off until
just now, again, I've read all your testimony. I want you to
know, I've read all your testimony, and so I'm going to cover
just a few aspects of this and try to address some of the
issues that have arisen that have been mentioned here.
If you turn to the language of the bill itself and you
looked at line six of page 2, it says,
In the case of any defendant convicted of a covered defense,
the court shall, on motion of the government or victim, include
in any sentence imposed.
An issue has been raised as to whether that means that the
judge is going to actually condition that, and so when the
sentence is completed, do you have a conflict.
That we might want to consider putting in language
something like this:
The court shall, on motion of the government or victim, issue
at the time of sentence on that defendant an order prohibiting
contact with the victim.
It would be like a separate lifetime order, and that's what we
really want. We don't want necessarily to get confused about
that gets taken up. Then, the other is that--and then you'd
have to correct on line 11-13, that line too.
Anyway, the next point would be, on the contempt of court
issue, because it does stay, as Ms. Wright says, that keeps it
in 18 U.S.C.
I'm going to ask, Ms. Jordan, can you tell me what that is
in your mind, what that process--I know what I think the
process would look like. I want to hear what you think the
process would look like.
Ms. Jordan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question. I
think the difficulty, and my concern about this is, if you have
a separate order, a protective order that either is part of the
family law or part of, for instance, we have a peace order as
part of courts and judicial proceedings, the law officer on the
street who encounters an offender outside the home of a crime
victim has the immediate ability to arrest that person.
That is not the case for contempt of court. Contempt of
court would require that the officer file a petition, that it
would go to court, that the judge review it. It's much more
similar to a violation of probation. My suggestion would be
that this body look at something that fits into the existing
framework of law enforcement who can quickly and immediately
respond when a victim is being threatened by an offender.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you for that, and I agree. There's some
other nuances that we might consider, but that's beyond the
scope of this hearing. We definitely want that person who's
violating the order of protection to be immediately removed and
detained and--in other words, arrested. We want them arrested
and taken out.
Mr. Knott. Will the Chair yield?
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Knott. I have a logistics question in that same vein
for Ms. Wright. It says, in general,
In the case of any defendant convicted of a covered defense,
the court shall, on motion of the government or a victim,
include in any sentence imposed on that defendant an order
prohibiting contact with a victim.
Do you think we need to splice that out to make sure that the
order lasts longer than the sentence imposed?
Ms. Wright. Yes, because--
Mr. Knott. How would you recommend--because logistically--
Mr. Biggs. Did you not just listen to my excellent,
eruditious language that I had drafted?
Mr. Knott. As your juror, I need more clarification.
Mr. Biggs. OK.
Mr. Knott. How would you recommend we amend that, if we do
so or choose to do so, to make it crystal clear?
Ms. Wright. Well, Chair Biggs had an excellent suggestion,
if I may.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Ms. Wright. No, I think just some clarity in the language.
For instance, truly, like Chair Biggs mentioned, striking the
language ``include in any sentence,'' and instead say, ``issue
at the time of sentence.'' Then, also, I'm not a legislative
drafter, but that saying that the covered offense does not
preclude the term of--the covered offense sentence does not
preclude the order being longer than that.
Mr. Knott. Yes.
Ms. Wright. I just think clarity in writing really--
Mr. Knott. Because you do need to--we need to separate the
order from the sentence imposed.
Ms. Wright. Yes. Which, the way I read this, it is; but I
could see how an OK defense attorney would disagree.
Mr. Knott. OK. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks. I like the secondary sentence there,
clause there, because then you have the belt-and-suspenders
approach to it, right?
Mr. Knott. Right.
Mr. Biggs. Let's see here. Just to remind people, in
Arizona, if you violate the order of protection, it's a class
one misdemeanor, which means you can be sentenced up to six
months in jail, three years' probation. It's unsupervised
probation, which is a problem, but--and then a fine of, I want
to say, it's $2,500-$3,500. Is that right, Ms. Kozak?
Ms. Kozak. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. OK. We might want to look at that because of its
vis-a-vis civil contempt. You're really looking at a reason to
have an arrest and removal and turning it into a crime might do
that, so we ought to look at that too.
Then, I want to remind everybody what we're talking about
here in this. I went down and I listed every one of these
offenses that are covered--that are considered covered offenses
under the law, and they're all in Title 18, but I will just go
through them: Sex trafficking, aggravated sex abuse, sex abuse,
sex abuse of a minor--and then I can't read the rest of my
writing--oh, no, ward or person in custody, so any of that;
abusive sex contact in prison; an offense resulting in death
while committing any of those offenses that I just iterated;
sexual exploitation of minors; selling or buying children; CSAM
or implementing CSAM in interstate commerce; other civil
forfeitures related to these; civil remedies for child
exploitation; and CSAM importing to the United States or
transporting across State lines for illegal sex or
prostitution, or of minor children, or of internet material
under the age 16 soliciting sex or child porn, moving that
across.
We've tried to cover Representative Hamadeh tried to cover
as much of the code as he possibly can. It's very good. We
might want just make a few of those amendments so we can nail
that down.
Then, I want to bring up just a couple things. I want to
give you the crime victims fund--victims of crimes fund, I'm
going to put this into the record, but just to give you an
idea. In 2017, because of a court settlement, it was over $13
billion, and then in 2018, it was $9 billion, and these are all
Trump years. In Trump in 2019, $6.4 billion, then $4.4 billion.
Then, under President Biden it went to $3.1 billion, $2.6--
excuse me, $1.5 billion, $1 billion, and $2 billion. Then, in
last two years, under this President, more than $3.5 billion
per year. You see that it just kind of flows all over, and it
doesn't matter.
The other issue that was raised in an opening statement
that was given was that--regarding a number of cases that are
dismissed or declined for prosecution in D.C. Under the Biden
Administration, they declined more than 50 percent--56 percent
of all cases were declined for prosecution in D.C. I just raise
that because I don't want this to be a partisan issue. I think
this is something that we should all agree on, and this is
something that we all need to take steps on and move forward
on.
Your testimony here today was very important, and I
appreciate all of you being here, and I thank you. Thanks for
excusing me for a little bit during this hearing, and God bless
all of you for having the courage to come on this very
important issue.
Specifically, yes, we want to thank Kayleigh for coming
forward as a victim, to have the courage to come here, and not
just be here but all over the country trying to fix something
that is really disgusting. I share Mr. Knott's frustration.
We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=119240.
[all]