Peace of Mind: Strengthening Victim Protections Under Kayleigh’s Law

At any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on strengthening pr- protections for victims and Kayleigh's law. I now recognize the d- the gentlelady from Florida, Miss Lee, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, and

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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 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, Kaylee Kozek. After lear- learning her abuser was attempting to terminate his probation, Kaylee sought a protective order from the man who hurt her as a child. However, she was shocked to learn the court required evidence of a recent encounter between Cayley 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. Cayley turned her experience into action. She worked with Republicans in the Arizona legislature to pass the first Cayley'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 this 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 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 a protection order lapse. That is shameful. Victims like Kaylee 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 in order to petition the court for lifetime protection. Fortunately, my friend and colleague, Representative Hamadeh of Arizona introduced Cayley's Law at the federal level of which I am a cosponsor. H R eighty four E A one will both insure criminals are held accountable at the federal level while al- while also serving as model for states as they look to best serve victims of violent crime. This is victim-centered, this is public safety focused. Cayley's Law allows the criminal justices to work f- to work for victims and not against them. I hope all members of this subcommittee can learn from our witnesses learn about how the law works in practice, but most importantly, learn the real-world impact of what it means to pass and implement pro-public safety victim-centered legislation. Because healing is not linear, because safety should not have an expiration date, and I appreciate being able to uh uh take this time for my statement, I'm gonna yield and now recognize the the uh ranking member of this subcommittee, Ms. McBath from Georgia, for her opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Jordan. And thank you, 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. But far too many Americans are 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. And 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 their 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. And still others may work to prevent violence against themselves and others by pursuing an extreme risk protection order to disarm those who have shown that they pose an imminent risk of And 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. But 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 five hundred million and grant funding that reduced crime and improved our public safety. The cuts included more than fifty 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 twenty twenty-seven would further neglect the needs of victims. It proposes to cut tens of millions of dollars and grants from the Office of Violence Against Women, including cuts to housing and legal assistance that help survivors find safety. And 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 life-saving support. If we fail to prioritize the needs of victims and survivors and fight to restore the programs, then 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 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 towards 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 in our yield.

General Ye- Lady Yields back. I'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mister Raskin, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Biggs. Welcome. sexual violence, intimate partner violence and other forms of sexual abuse happen in every community. And they affect all people, regardless of gender or age. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, an average of twenty-four people per minute become victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner. That's more than twelve million women and men every year. Nationwide, more than one in five women have been raped or subjected to attempted rape, and sixty percent of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, a number that increases to ninety-three 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 upon. Every survivor deserves to be safe, protected and supported. I'm 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 Kaylee Kozak, who we get to hear from today. Because of Ms. Kozak's dog and 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. MSCO's ax- advocacy did not end in Arizona, and 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. But that same month, members of our committee will recall the Department of Justice, following the orders of Doge and Elon Musk, abruptly terminated three hundred and seventy-three different grants to state and local programs totaling around five hundred million dollars, including fifty-nine 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 eight hundred and seventy thousand dollars for its victim advocacy corps. NOVA started the corps as a pilot in twenty twenty two and helped train and accredit students to be victim advocates providing a lifeline to victims 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 twenty twenty-seven budget proposal seems to indicate that such cuts are gonna continue. The president's budget proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the Office on Violence Against Women, slashing, for example, fourteen million dollars to transit housing grants and fifteen 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 exist as a stand-alone entity. Trump has also taken a backing ball to the federal government's capacity to investigate and prosecute criminals, including those who commit sex crimes. DOJ is hemorrhaging thousands of lawyers and having a hard time recruiting replacements. Data from ICE reveal that in twenty twenty five an astounding fourteen thousand five hundred federal law enforcement officers were diverted from their regular roles in investigating and prosecuting crimes to assist simply in immigration enforcement. And an investigation from the New York Times found that from February through April of last year, Homeland Security investigators worked thirty-three percent fewer hours on child exploitation cases than they had in prior years. The result of this overwhelming focus on immigration enforcement is that DOJ quietly closed a stunning twenty-three thousand 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, uh, or in some cases even re-traumatize them. The DOJ moved convicted trafficker and groomer Ghislaine Maxwell from a higher security prison to a minimum security camp in Texas, where she's 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 and neighbors, accomplices, and co-conspirators, while shocking failing in many cases to redact the names of the victims, many of whom had yet to identify themselves publicly. So we have a lot to talk about today. I want to welcome our witnesses, especially Miss Kozak and my friend Lisa Jordan, the outstanding leader for the interests of victims and survivors of sexual assault and violence in the great state of Maryland and it was an uh great honor for me to get to work with her for ten years when I was a state senator uh in Indianapolis. I hope we'll take today's testimony to heart and I yield back to you, Mister Chairman.

Gentlemen yields. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. And now I will introduce today's witnesses. Ms. Kozak, Kaylee Kozak. She i- is the namesake of Kaylee's Law, uh versions of which have been enacted in a number of states and provide protections for survivors of succe- uh sexual and domestic abuse. She also advocates for other measures aimed at enhancing protections for victims and promoting justice. The Honorable Suzette Martinez. Ms. Vallideres represents district twenty-three in the California Ms. Vallideres State Senate where she serves as the vice chair of the health committee, and as a member of the judiciary committee. She previously served in the California State Assembly. And Ms. Rachel Wright is the who is the National Policy Director for Right on Crime a non-profit 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. Lisa 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. Appreciate all of you being here uh testifying uh today on 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 beliefs will help you God. Uh, let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative and you may be seated. Thank you. Uh, please know that your written testimony in its entirety will be recorded in or excuse me entered into the record. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. And we're going to begin now with Senator uh Val Valadares.

Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm California State Senator Suzette Valadares, 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 supermajority has fundamentally shifted the balance in our system. not towards safety, not towards accountability, but away from survivors, and in many cases, towards the very people who harm them. And it's why I've been working with Kaylee Kozak to advance Kaylee'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. But in California today, that is exactly what we require. Survivors of sexual assault and violent crime are forced to renew protective orders every four to seven 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. Cayley'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. And 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 two hundred and twenty-seven thousand active restraining orders at any given time. We've built 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, uh, 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, and this didn't happen by accident. In California we have 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 where even the protection We do provide come with an expiration date. So 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 has. So 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 three hundred 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 had to carry her to the emergency room. Her attacker was also granted.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate your testimony. Ms. Wright, you are recognized for five minutes.

Chairman Biggs, Chairman Biggs, Ranking Member McPath, Ranking Member McPath, and distinguished members of the and distinguished members of the committee 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'm the National Policy Director of Right on Crime, a campaign on criminal justice uh from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. We focus on conservative, data-driven solutions resolving resulting in less crime, fewer victims, and safer communities. Prior to joining Right on Crime, I served as uh both a trial and appellate prosecutor representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky. my home state, and also got to work for Senator Chuck Grassley on the US Senate Judiciary Committee. So 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. But 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 re-traumatized 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 is 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. And 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 three to five years. And for both pretrial and supervised release, no contact conditions between the defendant and the 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 eight four eight one, Cayley's Law Act of twenty twenty six, looks at some of these issues head-on. At its core, the bill seeks to prevent re-victimization, stop future crimes, and ensure consistency across federal judicial circuits. Fashioned after Cayley's Law passed in Arizona, this bill would impose a lifetime injunction between defendants and victims for specific covered offenses. This has a poli- 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 as- 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. And when paired with proven rehabilitation and reintegration policies, lifetime injunctions can be critical piece of improving public safety. Second, a federal Cayley'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. And lastly, this bill will complement ongoing state Kaley'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. And 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, temporary restraining orders, and emergency protection orders. But family law is unique to the states only and there is no federal analog. That's why this federal bill proposes making the no contact condition part of the criminal sentence itself. And 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 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

Thank thank you.

Thank you.

Now I'll recognize Miss Jordan for your five minutes. Now I'll recognize Miss Jordan for your five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member, members of this committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I'm Lisa Jordan. I'm Executive Director in Council with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. 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, and like our s- sister coalitions, we include the state's rape crisis centers, survivors, professionals and others dedicated to ending sexual violence. MCASA is the home to SALI, the sexual assault legal institute, 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. And I'm going to add to Kaylee's story and ask you to consider the case of a fourteen year old girl who's vulnerable 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 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. And the permanent protective order proposed is one of those protections that should be available but be clear, more is needed for this young woman to access justice. In Maryland, as as, uh, 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, but 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 of the deficits that Ms. Wright uh explained, but it's also very difficult to enforce on the ground. An enforcement through contempt of court is not an effective on the ground means of enforcement. And CASA'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 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 HR eighty-four eighty-one, a victim's rights attorney could help negotiate all of these different aspects of obtaining safety. But a sex trafficking survivor could ask for help protecting privacy. A survivor abused by her teacher could ask for accommodations in school. protective parents could help get a divorce from a sex-offending parent. Having effective counsel in 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 uh level level are threatening services. Planning is difficult, reductions in the federal workforce means we're seeing demand from people in Maryland who would have sought 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 HR eighty-four eighty-one was enacted, services supported with VOCA and VAWA, the programs you've 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.

Thank you. Thank you. And chair, I I know we're voting, but we're gonna go ahead and hear Miss Kozak and then we'll we'll take the recess to vote. Miss Kozak, you're recognized for your five minutes.

Good morning, Chairman Biggs, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill, and thank you to Congressman Hamiday 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 twelve years old, a trusted teacher, who was also my club soccer coach, chose to sexually abuse me over a two year period. In two thousand six, 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 twenty-five years to life in prison. He pled down to two counts, served as 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, In January two thousand twenty, 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 life- 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, entirely depends on the perpetrator's post-conviction conditions, such as probation probation or sex off under registry requirements. This is what ignited Cayley'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 of two thousand twenty six, I found myself back in court again for the same reason as two thousand twenty. 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 Cayley's law in Arizona. And I now have permanent lifelong protection. The harm caused by sexual assault is not temporary. It is lifelong, and the protections for those who've been sexually violated should be lifelong, too. However, in most states or federally federally, even when a heinous crime is committed and an individual is convicted, obtaining a protective order requires continued proof, additional court hearings, and which ultimately re-victimize and re-traumatize victims, and still There is little to no uniformity across States and federally pertaining to sex crimes 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 sex sexual offenses fail to fully fully enforce soreness standards and remove convicted offenders from probation or sex offender registry which upon convi- 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. And pursuing this law nationally has always been the goal. Kaylee's law has already passed in multiple states with strong bipartisan support. In Arizona alone in its first year, more than a thousand 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. This is a national crisis. Federal sex crimes have surged more than sixty-two percent since two thousand twenty and more than eighty-seven percent of these end 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 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 He 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. And 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't fight to protect myself, other innocent

Thank you. I regret to do this,

Thank you.

but we are going to take a recess so we can go vote. They've called the votes.

Thank you.

Uh, I have no idea how long that will last. And so I'd ask the the witnesses to kind of If y- if y- you may ha- may actually have time to kinda wander around a little bit, but stay close so we can find you. So when we do get back, we can reconvene. Thank you so very much. We're in recess.

At this time we'll return to the meeting of the subject meeting. Welcome back. witnesses, uh we will now commence questioning by members of Congress. Uh we will go in five minute increments, alternating uh back and forth from each side of the aisle. I will now recognize myself for five minutes. Thank you all for being here today uh for the purposes 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. and I want to especially thank Miss 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 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.

Awesome.

Ms. Wright, I'd like to begin with you. Uh, Florida unfortunately sees a high volume of crimes involving exploitation and trafficking, and we also

Thank you for the question. And in short, the answer is yes, there are gaps. If an offender is moving to a different under state law those orders may only pertain to just that state conviction. And so a federal bill like the one proposed eight four eight one, Kalia'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. And so also it's focusing on the criminal sentencing aspect as opposed to

Thank you. And Ms. Kozak, from your perspective, how important is it that our laws recognize the long-term reality of trauma, and provide victims lasting certainty and protection, not just during prosecution, but years afterwards as survivors are moving forward with their lives?

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 in a lifetime. And just because an uh defendant's um an offender's situation may change, whether it be their registry requirements or their sex offender requirement 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.

Mm. 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 re-traumatizing is it to essentially have to wait for another frightening interaction before the system will act?

Thank you for that question, too. When we are going through the judicial process, we can be proactive or reactive. And this law, law allows for a proactive order of protection to be in place that lasts a lifetime. When I got the phone call in two thousand twenty notifying me that I had to go back to court to fight for my abuser to stay on probation um I and and learned 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. But that is the reality that so many victims are in. And the crime itself should be sufficient enough to give a victim

You've now worked with legislatures across the country since Arizona passed Cayley'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 strong

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 three thousand victims now that have gotten this type of protection order put in place. And they the comfort that this gives them in knowing that they can actually move on with their life and not have to have it interrupted because a perpetrator has decided that they

Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member, uh, the representative from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for five minutes.

Thank you so much, cheer woman. Um, Miss Wright, do federal courts currently issue productive orders or restraining orders of any kind to victims of crime that are not connected to either pretrial release or criminal sentence?

Thank you for the question, Ranking Member McBath. The most comparable analog right now to a restraining order in the federal system that's not a condition of pretrial release or supervised release, is going to be sex offender registration, so no.

Okay, thank you. So, statutes that allow for permanent orders of protection have been adopted in several states, including Arizona, uh, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Um, most states with a law like Cayley'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?

Thank you. Y- for clarification, yes. The victim can

OK. But the proposed federal version of Cayley's law is, 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. Miss Jordan, should we limit victim autonomy in this bill in this way?

Thank you for that, We should not limit victim autonomy in that way. One of the critical things that happens to survivors of of any crime, but particularly of sexual assault, is that they have had control taken away from them by that crime. And so part of our 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 effect Some most know their offender, and sometimes they wanna 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, and that is why it is critical that any legislation that this body passes includes the ability for a survivor to decide to decide

So then should an action by the president determine what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.

Should an action by the president determine what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute?

Uh, no, I would suggest that really we should allow the victim to they have the autonomy to make that decision not an act by the president.

Thank you. Miss Kozak, who knows more about the needs and desires of a victim than a victim?

How you doing?

Ms. Wright.

A victim.

Ms. Jordan.

A victim.

Senator Valdez.

A victim.

Thank you. We know that sexual and domestic abusers oftentimes stalk their victims, which can lead victims to seek restraining or protective orders against their abusers. Although stalking is a covered offense in the Arizona version of Cayley's law, stalking is not a covered offense in the

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 was amendments a couple of years later. With this bill,

Mm.

we really focused on.

Okay. Miss Kozak, Miss Kozak, you decided to pursue the creation of permanent injunctions that would you decided to pursue the creation of permanent injunctions that would exist and could be enforced separate and apart from any criminal sentence. exist and could be enforced separate and apart from any criminal sentence. Correct? Correct?

Can you repeat that question?

Okay. You decided to pursue the creation of permanent injunctions that would exist and could be enforced separate and apart from any criminal sentence. Am I right?

This would only be applicable to criminal sentences.

Okay. So I but I just want you to know I commend your efforts and your resolve. It's I'm 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?

Yes, ma'am.

And that injunction would remain in effect for the life of the defendant, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Wright, you note in oh, I'm sorry,

Oh.

I am out of time. Thank you.

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Kiley, for five minutes.

Okay.

Thank you Madam Chair, uh Senator Vallideres uh thank you for uh being with us today. Uh I understand you introduced a bill in the state legislature that would have allowed uh victims of uh certain sex crimes to uh obtain a permanent restraining order against the perpetrator is that right?

Yes.

And what happened to this bill?

So last year when we introduced Cayley's law um it w had a broader framework that would

W- it was killed?

It was killed in public safety.

Uh why?

You know, I c- I I don't understand when, as we've heard here today, um the trauma and re-traumatization of victims is real. And having to return to court in California every three to seven years to seek um extra protection.

That's amazing.

And

They that's what they wanted, your colleagues in the California state legislature wanted. They wanted to force victims to have to come and keep getting a restraining order every three to seven years?

Ev- 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.

Yeah, that's just unfathomable to me. It seems like if there's one thing that

Absolutely.

And this is especially important, I think, because in California, as as you know very well, uh a lot of these folks get released from prison a lot earlier than they should. Uh we had just a couple pretty recent cases uh in California uh where you had a serial child molester named David Funston uh who was assaulted, kidnapped, molested multiple young children as as young as three 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 and he was granted parole granted early release by the parole board. You're familiar with this case?

Yes, and unfortunately that's not the only case. This just this year I can recall three different instances. where um predators who violently um 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. Which just goes to show how important Cayley's law is because there is no guarantee