“Peace of Mind: Strengthening Victim Protections Under Kayleigh’s Law”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
And still others may work to prevent violence against themselves and others by pursuing extreme risk protection orders to disarm those who have shown that they pose an imminent risk of committing deadly acts of violence. 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 life-saving 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 has roughly terminated $500,000,000 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. He 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.
And these cuts are even more damaging given that the crime victims fund, which serves over 6,000,000 victims every year, is nearly depleted. That means 6,000,000 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 that we know work. We cannot let this happen. I asked 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 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. I yield.
Speaker 1
General, lady yields back. I'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
Speaker 4
witnesses. 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 24 people per minute become victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That's more than 12 million women and men every year. Nationwide, more than one in five women have been raped or subjected to attempted rape, and 60 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, but 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 Miss Kozak's 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. Miss Kozak's 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, 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 373 different grants to state and local programs totaling around $500,000,000, 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 gonna continue. The president's budget proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the office on violence against women, slashing, for example, $14,000,000 to transitional housing grants and $15,000,000 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 standalone entity. Trump has also taken a wrecking 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 2025 an astounding 14,005 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, homeland security investigators worked 33% fewer hours on child exploitation cases than they had in prior years.
The result of this overwhelming focus on immigration enforcement is the DOJ quietly closed 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'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, enablers, accomplices, and coconspirators while shockingly 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 wanna welcome our witnesses, especially Miss Kozak and my friend Lisa Jordan, the outstanding leader for the interests of victims or survivors of sexual assault and violence in the great state of Maryland, and it was a great honor for me to get to work with her for ten years when I was a state senator in Annapolis. I hope we'll take today's testimony to heart, and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. And now I will introduce today's witnesses. Miss Kozak, Kaylee Kozak, she is the namesake of Kaylee's law, versions of which have been enacted in a number of states and provide protections for survivors of sexual and domestic abuse. She also advocates for other measures aimed at enhancing protections for victims and promoting justice.
The honorable Suzette Martinez Valledares. Miss Valledares represents District 23 in the California 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 Miss Rachel Wright 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.
Miss 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, testifying 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 you help, God? Let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative, and you may be seated. Thank you. Please know that your written testimony in its entirety will be recorded or, excuse me, entered into the record. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes, and we're gonna begin now with Senator Valladares.
Speaker 5
Chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm California state senator Suzette Veladera, 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 4 to 7 years. We are asking survivors to relive trauma, navigate a legal system, and prove over again that they still deserve protection.
Meanwhile, the offender just has to wait. Kaylee'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 227,000 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 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've 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 protections we do provide come with an expiration date. So what message are we sending? Push the limits? Wait it out?
That's not just as 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.
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 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 had 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 crime like this should not have to return to court again and again because protections can lapse, or be forced to relive that trauma. This is why Cayley's law is so vitally important.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator. Appreciate your testimony. Miss Wright, you were recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 6
Chairman Biggs, ranking member McBath, and 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'm the national policy director of Ride 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 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 retraumatized by the very process intended to deliver 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 3 to 5 years.
And 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, Kaylee'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 Cayley's law passed in Arizona, this bill would 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 has 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 a 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 or California. Insofar as criminal sentences imposed on defendants should be consistent and uniform across federal courts, so should be the impact on victims. And lastly, this bill will complement ongoing state efforts. Kaley's law, while spearheaded in Arizona, is also being considered in other states.
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 analogue. 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 fear. Right on crime applauds this community's long-standing dedication to ensuring better outcomes for victims, reforming offenders when safe, and reducing crime. And 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 Hamadey, for your leadership on this legislation, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 7
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 and counsel with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Thank you to Kaylee 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 sister coalitions, we include the state's rape crisis centers, survivors, professionals, and others dedicated to ending sexual violence. MCASA is the home to Sally, 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' experiences.
Every survivor is different. And I'm going to add to Kaylee'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 the 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, mister 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 stayaway has all of the deficits that Miss Wright explained, but it's also very difficult to enforce on the ground. And 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 the 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 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 wanna highlight legal services supported by federal laws.
They are critically important to supporting survivors. Under HR 8481, 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 in protecting privacy. A survivor abused by her teacher could ask for accommodations at 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 mean 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 Sally are unable to apply for competitive grants because the 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 8481 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 response to sexual assault.
Thank you so much again for your time today. We look forward to working together.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And, chair, I know we're voting, but we're gonna go ahead and hear Miss Kozak, and then we'll take the recess to vote. Miss Kozak, you're recognized for your five minutes.
Speaker 8
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 Hamade for introducing it. My name is Kaylee Kozak. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I am the namesake behind Kaylee'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 a two count, served just 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 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 and entirely depends on the perpetrator's post conviction conditions such as probation or sex offender registry requirements.
This is what ignited Kaylee'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 Kaylee'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, even when a heinous crime is committed and an individual is convicted, obtaining a protective order requires continued proof, additional court hearings, which ultimately revictimize and retraumatize victims. And still, the order remains temporary and limited. There's little to no uniformity across states and federally pertaining to sex crimes definitions, sex offender registries, 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 soreness standards, and remove convicted offenders from probation or sex offender registry, which upon 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. Cailey'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% since 2020, and more than 87% 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 then 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 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. And that was just the beginning of the sexual abuse and where my hell on earth began, hell that I am stuck in. I cannot protect myself then, but I can fight to protect myself, other innocent children, and every victim now.
And I ask that you fight to protect them too. Please leave the effort, and pass this bill. No survivor should have to face their convicted abuser in court repeatedly, and I will never stop fighting for victims and survivors, because you still matter. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I regret to do this, but we are going to take a recess so we can go to vote. They've called the votes. I have no idea how long that will last. And so I'd ask the witnesses to kinda if you may actually have time to kinda wander around, a little bit, stay close so we can find you.
When we do get back, we can reconvene. Thank you so much. We're in recess.
Speaker 9
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 5 minutes. Thank you all for being here today 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 Kaylee 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 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. Miss Wright, I'd like to begin with you.
Florida unfortunately sees a high volume of crimes involving exploitation and trafficking, and 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?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question. And 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 that state conviction. And so a federal bill like the one proposed 8481, Achalia's law, the federal version of this, would close that hole.
It would fill in that gap because it has 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 family law, which is unique to the States. And, also, that's a gap that the federal law would have to do differently because state by state, the family law also differs.
Speaker 9
Thank you. And, Miss 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?
Speaker 8
Thank you so much for that question. It is incredibly important that it's recognized that the effects of sexual violence, especially for children, any victim of any age, do last a lifetime. And just because a defendant's, an offender's 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 the victim. It will go with them for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 9
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?
Speaker 8
Thank you for that question, too. When we are going through the judicial process, we can be proactive or reactive, and 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 the reality. But that is the reality that so many victims are in.
And the crime itself should be sufficient to give a victim natural life protection. They've already shown that they have no respect for boundaries, and that they will go to great lengths to sexually violate someone. So that order of protection should stay in place. You've now worked with legislatures across the country since Arizona passed Kaylee'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?
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. And they the comfort that this gives them, and knowing that they can actually move on with their life and not have to 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, and it takes the control away from the abuser who has continued to file things and drive change in their life.
And then the victim now has protection, and they can move on.
Speaker 9
Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member, the representative from Georgia, Miss McBath, for five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you so much, chairwoman. Miss 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?
Speaker 6
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.
Speaker 3
Okay. Thank you. So 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 Kaylee'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, Miss Cozette?
Speaker 8
Thank you. For a clarification, yes. The victim can petition to have the order terminated or ended early if they wish.
Speaker 3
Okay. But the proposed federal version of Cayley's law is 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?
Speaker 7
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. And so 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. 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 say to decide to modify something.
Speaker 3
Then should an action by the president determine what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute?
Speaker 3
Should an action by the president determine what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute? No.
Speaker 7
I would suggest that, really, we should allow the victim to have the autonomy to make that decision, not an act by the president.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Miss Kozak, who knows more about the needs and desires of a victim than a victim?
Speaker 3
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 Kaylee's law, stalking is not a covered offense in the federal version of the bill. Miss Kozak, why did you find it necessary to include stalking as a covered offense in the Arizona version of your bill? And should stalking be covered in the federal version of your bill?
Speaker 8
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 focused on sex crimes too narrow, and with the conversation of future amendments to add stocking.
Stocking is a very serious crime, and I absolutely believe that it should be included as one of the statutes that would make it available to pursue a permanent order of protection under federal law.
Speaker 3
Okay. Miss Kozak, you decided to pursue the creation of permanent injunctions that would exist and could be enforced separately and apart from any criminal sentence. Correct? Can you repeat that question? Okay.
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?
Speaker 3
So I just want you to know I commend your efforts and your resolve. I'm really 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. Miss Wright, you note in, oh, I'm sorry. I am out of time.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Kylie, for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Okay. Thank you, madam chair. Senator Baaderis, 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?
Yes. And what happened to this bill?
Speaker 5
So last year when we introduced Cayley's law, it had a broader framework that would allow for certain violent crimes and sexual crimes, for a judge would give a judge discretion to issue a permanent injunction. The bill was immediately killed in the public safety.
Speaker 5
It was killed in public safety. Why? You know, I don't understand when, as we've heard here today, the trauma and re-traumatization of victims is real. And having to return to court in California every three to seven years to seek extra protections is unacceptable.
Speaker 10
That's amazing. 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 3 to 7 years?
Speaker 5
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.
Speaker 10
Yeah. That's just unfathomable to me. It seems like if there's one thing that 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?
Speaker 10
And this is especially important, I think, 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 was assault, kidnapped, molested multiple young children 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?
Speaker 5
Yes. And, unfortunately, that's not the only case. This 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, which just goes to show how important Kaylee's law is, because there is no guarantee in California that a life sentence will be served. And are the victims that expect that justice when a sentence is handed down are essentially slapped in the face when these violent criminals are released back into our communities.
Speaker 10
That's such an important point. This law is more important in California than, you know, than basically anywhere. I mean, there was this other case. You mentioned several others. This Gregory Volgensang 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?
Speaker 5
Yes. And my husband is not happy. He's a little bit over 50. 50 is not elderly. And 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.
Speaker 10
I remember that in this case, I think, or one of these cases, it was the Funston case, I think. He that was actually in the record, and then they still recommended release. And, again, 360 some years he's sentenced three life sentences. So they're being released from prison early under this law. And then because the legislature has refused to pass your bill, you know, victims who had a restraining order in cases like this, suddenly they hear that they're 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, and then they have to keep going to court to get a restraining order. I mean, that seems pretty crazy to me. I understand you've reintroduced your bill, so maybe there's a path towards getting victims some relief at least.
Speaker 5
So, yes, this year we've reintroduced Kelly's Law. It is very narrow. Unfortunately, there was no appetite with my colleagues across the aisle to issue a lifetime injunction. So we negotiated 25 years and 25 years for convictions of sexually assaulting children. So this is very narrow.
There, I think 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.
Speaker 10
Well, it's a good first step. I thank you for your efforts, and, I'm 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.
Speaker 9
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Knot, for five minutes.
Speaker 2
Thank you, madam chairwoman. And, to the witnesses here, thank you so much for being here. I wanna start with you, miss Kozak. If you can just refresh the memory of the people watching, when did you suffer your abuse?
Speaker 8
I was sexually abused my sixth and seventh grade year when I was just 12 and 13 years old by my.
Speaker 2
And excuse this question, but how old are you now? 34. 34. And, in any way, shape, or form, has that trauma that you went through as a young lady gone away? Has it been cared for?
Or has it been an ongoing presence in your life? Excuse me.
Speaker 8
It's been ongoing. I did my best to pick up and move on with my life. And in 2020, it changed when my abuser decided once again he wanted things to change. And, it's been all about what he wants. Right.
And he decides through the courts.
Speaker 2
And in your experience, when you're familiar with this case, where are you a lone example of his abuse?
Speaker 2
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?
Speaker 8
I am the only known documented victim. That does not mean that I am the only victim.
Speaker 2
Sure. And 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?
Speaker 8
Sex offenders can be rehabilitated. Well, because is there enough therapy that I can give to 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.
Speaker 2
And in regards to this particular individual who committed crimes against you, has he been reformed? No. How do you know that?
Speaker 8
Because I'm the victim, and I receive all the documents. And I see his test. I see the summaries. I see the results of the things that he does, and his polygraphs and his psychosexuals, and so no.
Speaker 2
Have there been other instances of either admitted or documented inappropriate sexual attraction or action that he's taken?
Speaker 8
Yes. He was removed from his home in 2015 for continuous violations. He was almost put back in prison, revoked. But instead, they removed him from his home. And the reasons were because he was continuously lying, and he was being sexually abused by his own children.
Speaker 2
Unbelievable. You know, as a lawmaker, I have grave concerns that someone like that is candidly still alive. I think 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, but at a minimum, they should be in jail for life. And, again, this is someone who is not rumored to have been convicted. He has documented instances of returning to this cesspool, and the state is making you defend the protective order that you should be able to hold for the rest of your life.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2
And in regards to the cost financially to you, how much have you just ballparked estimate. How much have you had to spend to keep that evil man away from you?
Speaker 2
Unbelievable. Unbelievable. In regards to your life, ma'am, how have you been able to separate out what you went through from where you want to go?
Speaker 8
I never thought I would have to continue fighting the man who was convicted of 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. Right. And 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 due to a risk assessment, when he was convicted of committing a dangerous crime against a child, I could not believe it. And so I have really found my voice and fought for us.
Speaker 2
How does empowering these predators, what does that do to the victims' likelihood of coming forward?
Speaker 2
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.
Speaker 1
I yield back. Gentlemen, yields. I have several UCs. First one is this, Cayley's law helps more than a thousand heirs of crime victims. Any objection?
Hearing none. Officials who claim to support victim rights go on the offensive to silence outspoken victim advocate. Any objection? None. Validaris.
Did I say? Validaris. Validaris. Okay. Validaris introduces Cayley's law bill to strengthen protections for crime victims.
That objection. Judge denies Liberty District's motion to dismiss decades-old sexual abuse negligence case. Without objection, and prosecutors want Idaho killer barred from contacting victims' families for nearly a century. Without objection, an Arizona senator celebrates a legal triumph as court upholds strict sex offender law. Without objection, and I now will recognize Miss McBath for five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To kinda pick up where we left off, Miss Wright, you note in your testimony that the federal proposal would tie the no-contact order to the criminal sentence. Correct? Correct. Miss Cosette, is that not exactly what you wanted to avoid in Arizona when you fought for your bill's passage?
Speaker 8
I'm so sorry. Can you please repeat the original? Thank you so much. Sure. In your testimony.
Speaker 3
That the federal wrote in your testimony, that I'm sorry. Miss in Miss Wright's testimony. She wrote that the federal proposal would tie the no contact order to the criminal sentence, and she says, correct. Okay. So my question to you is, is that not exactly what you wanted to avoid in Arizona when you're actually fighting for your bill's passage?
Speaker 8
So in Arizona, we were fighting for this. The what makes Kaylee's law the gold standard is that it would be implemented at the time of sentencing. So eliminating any future court hearings or having to justify that you may be in danger. So 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 with the lifetime injunction is what it's called in Arizona post, the post conviction.
Speaker 3
Okay. Thank you. So then we're 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. Miss Jordan, beyond protective orders, what other care and services, and support are necessary to help survivors and victims of sexual and domestic violence?
Speaker 7
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 contempt of court, you would need a lawyer to help with that. But 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. 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 Kaylee's Law at the local level, where most sex crimes prosecutions occur.
And those states, they would respond to that sort of mandate, but it's not gonna make a difference unless the money starts getting into the field. Right now, we are facing huge barriers. No applications being released, awards not being announced, some awards being rescinded. That tool of attaching funding to a condition like creating Cayley'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.
Speaker 3
Miss Jordan, this is the 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 5 times more likely that a woman will be killed and also creating a grave risk to her children. Our 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.
Speaker 7
Absolutely. That is a critical tool. It's a critical tool for survivors of intimate partner violence. And guns, remember, increased lethality in all crimes, including sexual violence, including robberies. Are a fundamental tool to help get the guns out of people who may use them against the people who are here in America.
So thank you for your leadership on that issue. It is something that should be considered side by side with this law.
Speaker 1
General lady yields back. The chair recognizes the general lady from Florida, Miss Lee.
Speaker 9
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?
Speaker 5
Yes. You know, I'm happy that our bill is still moving through the legislative process. I'm not in a protective order, a lifeline protective order form. But to quote the chair of the public safety committee, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on lifetime orders.
Speaker 9
And it sounds like the opponents of lifetime protections were primarily framing their objections through the lens of offender rehabilitation.
Speaker 5
Tell me how you perceive balancing rehabilitation arguments against the ongoing public safety and psychological needs of victims who may carry trauma for life. Well, I think that the truth is for victims and for survivors, their trauma does not expire. It does not end. So from my perspective, Kaylee'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. I think that's the balance.
California's yet to get there, but we're continuing to work on it.
Speaker 9
And, miss Wright, as congress looks at whether laws like Cayley's law are working, should we be measuring success not just by recidivism or conviction 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?
Speaker 6
That's an excellent question. And it's both congresswoman. And 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 to become law, how DOJ is reporting those kinds 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.
And it would be important for Congress to be reminded when we're looking at this, yes, maybe the recidivism data would show that this would be a positive policy. Maybe it wouldn't. But 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. But that is a hollow reprieve for people who in big cities are still feeling unsafe.
So 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.
Speaker 9
of the conversation, and that someone is looking out for their interest, that in of itself is a law working too. And 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?
Speaker 6
I think 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 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. A criminal litigation and then the sentencing and then the post incarceration conversations. And then as Miss Kozak was describing, having to be heralded back into court, decades after the crime itself.
So, yes, I think that's an excellent point.
Speaker 1
General lady yields. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina. Mister Knot.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Valladares, I wanna talk to you briefly about kind of picking up where you were with Mr. Kylie. In terms of you said 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. And, again, just to highlight the situation here, we're not talking about mere accusers. These are people, like Miss Kozak, whose perpetrator was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt for heinous crimes.
What's the reasoning behind, I would say, this artificial compassion?
Speaker 5
So I think it's important to clarify that in the California version of Cayley's law, it is tailored to crimes or convictions of sexual assault on minors.
Speaker 5
So this is the only crime in the bill. And as I mentioned earlier, my colleagues have no appetite to offer a permanent injunction for those victims. And if you think about some of the cases we heard earlier where a victim is brutally raped at three or five years old, under the current law, four to seven 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. Three
Speaker 2
Being con, 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. And it's part of a broader trend as you well know. I mean, 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 or 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, playgrounds, and 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. And then here in the United States Senate, there was an effort to block a bill that would have strengthened penalties for possessing and producing child pornography.
So why is it that there are these efforts to reduce the disincentive of strong penalties for sex predators as it relates to children?
Speaker 5
Unfortunately, in the California legislature, I feel like we have a pro-criminal 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 bill you talked about earlier that would omit 16 and 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 community. Public outcry required.
Speaker 2
that they gonna sex a minor. I that's astounding. And that doesn't even begin to touch what members of the left want to put before children in school as young as kindergarten. I mean, just sexually explicit material. Even in my home state of North Carolina, they are going to bat to defend their right to put this type of material in front of children.
Miss Wright, I have a question for you. In regards 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?
Speaker 6
No. I don't believe that this bill infringes on any state rights for a few reasons. One, there is language in the bill towards the end, basically separating out this shall not impact any state laws on this issue, like the Cayley's laws that are being implemented across the country. Second, the way 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 USC.
Yeah. In fact, the contempt of court penalty attributed to a defendant violating the no contact condition of his sentencing is 18 USC. So I don't believe that there are any federalism concerns here.
Speaker 2
Okay. And lastly, Miss 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?
Speaker 7
Oh, absolutely. We should have federal protections. 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. It is almost exclusively a matter of state jurisdiction.
So, absolutely, give those federal crime victims these rights, but don't neglect our state crime victims and use the tools that you have.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Mister chairman, yield back. Gentlemen, yield back. I now recognize myself for the first round of questions. I apologize.
I got caught on the floor and couldn't get off until just now. So, it's I've again, I've read all your testimony. Want you to know I've read all your testimony. And so I'm gonna cover just a few aspects of this, and try to address some of the issues that I think have arisen, that have been mentioned here. So, if you turn to the language of the bill itself and you look at line six of page two, it says, in the case of any defendant convicted of a covered offense, the court shall, on motion of the government or victim, include in any sentence imposed.
The issue has been raised is whether that means that the judge is gonna actually condition that. And so when the sentence is completed, do you have a conflict? So I think that we might want to consider putting a language something like this. The court shall, on motion of government or victim, issue at the time of sentence on that defendant an order prohibiting contact with the victim. So it'd be like a separate lifetime order, and that's what we really want.
We don't wanna necessarily get confused that that gets taken up. So and then the other, is that, then you'd have to correct on line 11 through 13, that line too. But, anyway, the next point would be on the contempt of court issue because it does stay as Miss Wright says that keeps it in 18 USC. But, I'm gonna ask Miss Jordan, can you tell me what that, what, in your mind, what that, I know what I think the process would look like. I wanna hear what you think the process would look like.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chairman, 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. Mhmm. 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 go to court, that the judge review it. It's much more similar to a violation of probation. And so 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. And I agree. I think there's some other nuances that we might consider, but that's beyond the scope of this hearing. But 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.
So, will the chairman yield?
Speaker 2
Yes. I have a logistics question in that same vein for Miss Wright. If it says, in general, in the case of a 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 the victim. Do you think we need to splice that out to make sure that the order lasts longer than the sentence imposed?
Speaker 1
Did you not just listen to my excellent, erranditious language that I had drafted?
Speaker 2
As your juror, I need more clarification. Okay. How would you recommend we amend that if we do so or choose to do so to make it crystal clear?
Speaker 6
Well, chairman base had an excellent, yeah. Thank you. Suggestion, if I may. No. I think just some clarity in the language, for instance, truly like Chairman Biggs mentioned, striking the language included any sentence and said, say, issue at the time of the sentence.
But then, also, I'm not a legislative drafter, but I think that saying that the cover defense does not preclude the term of the cover defense sentence does not preclude the order being longer than that. Yes. I just think clarity and writing really proves.
Speaker 2
Because you do need to see, we need to separate the order from the sentence imposed.
Speaker 6
Yes. Which I think the way I read this, it is. But I could see how an okay defense attorney would disagree.
Speaker 1
Okay. Alright. Yeah. I yield back. Thanks.
And I think that I like the secondary sentence there, Claus, because then you have a belt and suspenders approach to it. Right. So, let's see here. And 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 wanna say it's 25 to $3,500. Is that right, Miss Cozay? Yes. Okay. So we might wanna look at that because if it's vis a vis civil contempt, you wanna really look at a reason to have an arrest and removal, and that and turning it into a crime might do that.
So we had to look at that too. And then I wanna remind everybody what we're talking about here in this, so I went down and I listed every one of these offenses that are covered, that are considered covered offenses under this law. And they're all in title 18, but I'll just go through sex trafficking, aggravated 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 of minor children or of Internet material 16, age 16 soliciting sex or child porn, moving that across. So this is, we've tried to uncover, you know, represent Hamade has tried to cover as much of the code as he possibly can.
So I think it's very good, and I think we might wanna make just make a few of those amendments so we can nail that down. But then I wanna bring up just a couple things. I wanna give you the crime victims fund, victims of crimes fund. Just I'm gonna put this into the record, but just to give you an idea, in 2017, because of a court settlement, it was over $13,000,000,000. And then '18, it was $9,000,000,000.
And then Trump, and these are all Trump years. Trump in '19, 6,400,000,000, then 4,400,000,000. And then under President Biden, it went to 3,100,000,000, 2.6, excuse me, 1,500,000,000, 1,000,000,000, 2,000,000,000. And then last two years, under this president, more than 3,500,000,000 per year. So you see that it.
Speaker 1
Kinda flows all over, and it doesn't matter. The other issues that was raised in an opening statement that was given was that, regarding number of cases that are dismissed or declined for prosecution in DC. Under the Biden administration, more than 50%, 56% of all cases were declined for prosecution in DC. So I just raised that too 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.
And so your testimony here today was very important, and I appreciate all of you being here, and I thank you. And, thanks for excusing me for a little bit during this hearing. And, you know, god bless all of you for having the courage to come on this very important issue. And, specifically, yeah, we wanna thank Hailey 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, and I share mister Knot's frustration. We are adjourned.
Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.