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

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                  PEACE OF MIND: STRENGTHENING VICTIM5                    PROTECTIONS UNDER KAYLEIGH'S LAW6=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                               BEFORE THE1112                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL13                          GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE1415                                 OF THE1617                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1819                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             SECOND SESSION2425                               __________2627                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 20262829                               __________3031                           Serial No. 119-663233                               __________3435         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3637[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov4041                                __________4243                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4463-611                   WASHINGTON : 202645=======================================================================4647                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4849                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair5051DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking52ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member53TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York54THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California55THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee56CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,57SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia58BEN CLINE, Virginia                  TED LIEU, California59LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington60JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       J. LUIS CORREA, California61TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania62BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JOE NEGUSE, Colorado63HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia64LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina65WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont66RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois67KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California68GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida69BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York70MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas71ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       Vacancy72DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas73BRANDON GILL, Texas74MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington7576                                 ------7778                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL79                        GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE8081                       ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair8283TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               LUCY McBATH, Georgia, Ranking84TROY NEHLS, Texas                        Member85BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida86KEVIN KILEY, California              DAN GOLDMAN, New York87LAUREL LEE, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee88KEVIN KILEY, California              Vacancy89BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina9091               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director92                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director9394                           C O N T E N T S9596                              ----------9798                       Wednesday, April 29, 202699100                           OPENING STATEMENTS101102                                                                   Page103The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and104  Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona......     1105The Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on106  Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of107  Georgia........................................................     2108The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on109  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     4110111                               WITNESSES112113The Hon. Suzette Valladares, Senate Judiciary Committee,114  California115  Oral Testimony.................................................     6116  Prepared Testimony.............................................     8117Rachel Wright, National Policy Director, Right On Crime118  Oral Testimony.................................................    12119  Prepared Testimony.............................................    14120Lisae C. Jordan, Executive Director & Counsel, Maryland Coalition121  Against Sexual Assault (MCASA)122  Oral Testimony.................................................    17123  Prepared Testimony.............................................    19124Kayleigh Kozak, Survivor Advocate125  Oral Testimony.................................................    31126  Prepared Testimony.............................................    33127128          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING129130All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal131  Government Surveillance, for the record........................    55132133Material submitted the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the134  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from135  the State of Arizona, for the record136    An article entitled, ``Kayleigh's Law helps more than a137        thousand Arizona crime victims,'' Nov. 14, 2023, 12 News138    An article entitled, ``Officials Who Claim to Support Victim139        Rights Go On Offensive To Silence Outspoken Victim140        Advocate,'' Apr. 15, 2023, Arizona Daily Independent141    A press release entitled, ``Valladares introduces `Kayleigh's142        Law' bill to strengthen protections for crime victims,''143        Feb. 27, 2025, The Signal144    An article entitled, ``Judge denies Liberty District's motion145        to dismiss decades-old sexual abuse negligence case,''146        May 14, 2025, inBuckeye147    An article entitled, ``Prosecutors want Idaho killer barred148        from contacting victims' families for nearly a century,''149        Jul. 22, 2025, Fox News150    An article entitled, ``Arizona Senator Celebrates Legal151        Triumph As Court Upholds Strict Sex-Offender Law,'' Nov.152        21, 2025, AX Free News153154                                APPENDIX155156Material submitted the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the157  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from158  the State of Arizona, for the record159    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee160        on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the161        Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee162        on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the163        Arizona Sheriff's Association, Apr. 27, 2026164    A press release entitled, ``Senate Democrats Reject Crime165        Victim Protection Law, Continue to Prioritize Criminals166        Over Victims,'' Apr. 23, 2026, California State Senator167        Suzette Martinez Valladares168169                  PEACE OF MIND: STRENGTHENING VICTIM170                    PROTECTIONS UNDER KAYLEIGH'S LAW171172                              ----------173174                       Wednesday, April 29, 2026175176                        House of Representatives177178       Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance179180                       Committee on the Judiciary181182                             Washington, DC183184    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in185Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Andy Biggs186[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.187    Present: Representatives Biggs, Kiley, Lee, Knott, McBath,188and Raskin.189    Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without190objection, the Chair is authorized to recess at any time. We191want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Strengthening192Victim Protections for Victims Under Kayleigh's Law.''193    I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee, to194lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.195    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States196of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one197Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for198all.199    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I'll now recognize myself for an200opening statement. I appreciate all of you being here today.201Thank you. Today, the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary202Committee continues its important work to prioritize victims of203violent crime and protect the most vulnerable members of our204community.205    Unfortunately, many of our State and Federal laws are not206adequately protecting victims when their perpetrators are207released. Even when a criminal is sentenced to lifetime208probation, opportunities still exist for an offender's parole209to be terminated, which prevents offenders from being held210fully accountable to both their victims and society. This was211all brought into focus by one brave survivor, advocate, and212Arizona native, Kayleigh Kozak. After learning her abuser was213attempting to terminate his probation, Kayleigh sought a214protective order from the man who had hurt her as a child.215    However, she was shocked to learn the court required216evidence of a recent encounter between Kayleigh and this man to217consider a protective order, effectively denying her request to218keep herself safe. Rather than accept that, this experience219called her to advocacy.220    Kayleigh turned her experience into action. She worked with221Republicans in the Arizona legislature to pass the first222Kayleigh's Law, giving survivors the ability to petition a223judge for a lifetime prohibition against offenders convicted of224violent crimes, including sex trafficking and child sexual225abuse.226    Arizona was the first to act, and I am pleased that227Kayleigh is here today to share her story and her work to228expand Kayleigh's Law protections across the country. Thanks to229Kayleigh and others at the State level, many States such as230Wisconsin and Tennessee now offer the same protection for231victims.232    Other State legislatures have similar bills. Unfortunately,233in other States like California, the legislation faces an234uphill battle. Everyone should be able to come together to235support victim protection. One opponent of a lifetime236protection order called the legislation unnecessary. This237Subcommittee finds it unnecessary that victims have to tell238their story over and over again to protect themselves from239those who harm them at the very real risk that protection order240lapse. That is shameful.241    The victims like Kayleigh Kozak should not have to return242to court repeatedly to face their offender to extend the order243or be forced to wait until their offender tries to contact them244to petition the court for lifetime protection.245    Fortunately, my friend and colleague, Representative246Hamadeh of Arizona introduced Kayleigh's Law at the Federal247level, of which I am a cosponsor. H.R. 8481 will both ensure248criminals are held accountable at the Federal level, while also249serving as a model for States as they look to best serve250victims of violent crime. This is victim-centered. This is251public-safety focused. Kayleigh's Law allows the criminal252justice system to work for victims and not against them.253    I hope all Members of this Subcommittee can learn from our254witnesses today, learn about how the law works in practice, but255most importantly, learn the real-world impact of what it means256to pass and implement propublic safety, victim-centered257legislation. Because healing is not linear, and because safety258should not have an expiration date. I appreciate being able to259take this time for my statement. I am going to yield and now260recognize the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Ms. McBath,261from Georgia for her opening statement.262    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair Jordan. Thank you to our263witnesses that are here this morning. We really appreciate you264taking the time to come and speak with us. Under a Democratic265Congress and Democratic President, we made significant266investments in public safety and crime reduction, igniting a267historic decrease in crime that is continuing today. Far too268many Americans still face domestic violence, sexual violence,269and abuse every day.270    In fact, according to a recent FBI report, violent crime271within domestic relationships has been increasing in recent272years. In the United States, more than a third of women and273more than a quarter of men experience rape, physical violence,274or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. The275effects of these crimes can be profound.276    Survivors of these crimes have very unique needs. Some277survivors may find safety and peace of mind in pursuing a278protective order that keeps their attacker away. Others may279need medical care for the physical recovery, or trauma-informed280counseling, to regain their resilience.281    Some survivors may want to work with law enforcement to282hold an abuser accountable and to ensure that no one else283endures the harm that they have experienced. Still others may284work to prevent violence against themselves and others by285pursuing extreme risk protection order to disarm those who have286shown that they pose an imminent risk of committing deadly acts287of violence. This is just a small sample of the needs of288survivors and the ways in which we can help them and prevent289more crimes and more victims.290    To protect and support survivors, and to actually prevent291these crimes from occurring in the first place, a comprehensive292approach is vital. At times, that is exactly what Congress has293provided through critical legislation, like the Violence294Against Women Act, the Victims of Crime Act, and the Family295Violence Prevention and Services Act. These lifesaving bills296and others like them fall short of their potential without297adequate funding.298    Unfortunately, President Trump has repeatedly gutted299programs that help victims, promote justice, and prevent crime.300Last year, the Trump Administration abruptly terminated $500301million in grant funding that reduced crime and improved our302public safety. The cuts included more than 50 grants in support303of victims' services, such as training to help nurses provide304forensic examinations to survivors of sexual violence.305    President Trump's recently released proposed budget for306Fiscal Year 2027 would further neglect the needs of victims. It307proposes to cut tens of millions of dollars in grants from the308Office of Violence Against Women, including cuts to housing and309legal assistance that help survivors find safety. These cuts310are even more damaging given that the Crime Victims Fund, which311serves over six million victims every year, is nearly depleted.312That means six million victims of violent crime might be313deprived of lifesaving support if we fail to prioritize the314needs of victims and survivors and fight to restore the315programs that we know work. We cannot let this happen.316    I ask my Republican colleagues to join me in committing to317funding these services. Because what good is a protective order318is when a survivor can't secure adequate housing to escape319their abuser or their trafficker, or the legal assistance to320protect their rights or get custody of their children.321    Victims and survivors must be given the support that they322need to heal and to find stability in their lives again. They323must be listened to, no matter what the wealth, status, or324connections of the people who harmed them. Above all, they must325be given the ability to choose how they chart their path326forward toward recovery, justice, and safety.327    I thank our witnesses for being here to elevate the needs328of our victims and our survivors, and help us promote and329strengthen safeguards for all Americans. I yield.330    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. I will now recognize331the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his332opening statement.333    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Biggs. Welcome to all our334witnesses. Sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and335other forms of sexual abuse happen in every community and336affect all people, regardless of gender or age.337    According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, an338average of 24 people per minute become victims of rape,339physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That is340more than 12 million women and men every year. Nationwide, more341than one in five women have been raped or subjected to342attempted rape. Sixty percent of rapes are committed by someone343known to the victim, a number that increases to 93 percent for344victims of minor age.345    The lives of victims are radically altered. Not only do346they suffer immediate, physical, and emotional trauma, they347also often experience a wide-range of chronic, physical, and348mental health problems as a result. They pay a heavy price in349financial terms from related medical and therapeutic treatment,350lost work, and legal expenses. The weight of these burdens is351even greater for survivors with fewer resources and networks to352draw on. Every survivor deserves to be safe, protected, and353supported.354    I am heartened to see that in recent years, States have355taken action to improve protections for survivors. Often,356thanks to the advocacy of survivors themselves--people like357Kayleigh Kozak, who we get to hear from today. Because of Ms.358Kozak dogged advocacy, survivors of sex crimes and other359violent crimes may now petition the court in her home State of360Arizona for a permanent order of protection against their361perpetrators that is separate and apart from any action362connected to a criminal prosecution.363    Ms. Kozak's advocacy did not end in Arizona. As a result,364many other States have similar laws, including my own home365State of Maryland, which offers similar protections for victims366and survivors. These laws go a long way in helping victims and367survivors feel safe and to move forward with their lives.368    There's a role for the Federal Government to play as well.369Unfortunately, the Federal Government's responsibilities to370help survivors have been deeply undercut by this371administration. It has eliminated hundreds of programs created372and funded to address the needs of victims and survivors.373    In April of last year, President Trump declared unending374support to every victim of crime. That same month, Members of375our Committee will recall, the Department of Justice following376the orders of DOGE and Elon Musk, abruptly terminated 373377different grants to State and local programs, totaling around378$500 million, including 59 of them, specifically, supporting379survivors of sexual crimes.380    Take, for instance, the National Organization for Victim381Advocacy, or NOVA, the oldest victim assistance organization in382the country, which lost a grant originally valued at $870,000383for its victim advocacy corps. NOVA started the corps as a384pilot in 2022 and helped train and accredit students to be385victim advocates, providing a lifeline to victims of sexual386assault, trafficking, domestic violence, and other crimes in387communities often bypassed by traditional victim services. Out388of the blue, with no justification offered, no hearings, the389Trump Administration simply canceled the entire grant.390    The Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal seems to indicate that391such cuts are going to continue. The President's budget392proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the393Office on Violence Against Women, slashing, for example, $14394million to transitional housing grants, and $15 million to395legal assistance grants. Both housing and legal assistance are396crucial for survivors and their children, enabling them to397escape the cycle of violence and to start the long process of398actually rebuilding their lives.399    The administration has again proposed that the Office on400Violence Against Women be consolidated with other offices401within the DOJ, despite explicit statutory language requiring402that the office exists as a standalone entity.403    Trump has also taken a wrecking ball to the Federal404Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute criminals,405including those that commit sex crimes. The DOJ is hemorrhaging406thousands of lawyers and having a hard time recruiting407replacements. Data from ICE reveal that in 2025, an astounding40814,500 Federal law enforcement officers were diverted from409their regular roles in investigating and prosecuting crimes to410assist simply in immigration enforcement.411    In an investigation from The New York Times found that from412February through April of last year, Homeland Security413investigators worked 33 percent fewer hours on child414exploitation cases than they had in prior years. The results of415this overwhelming focus on immigration enforcement as the DOJ416quietly closed the stunning 23,000 criminal investigations in417the first six months of the administration alone.418    The Trump Administration seems inclined to ignore victims419of sex crimes, to leave them unprotected, or, in some cases,420even retraumatize them. The DOJ moved convicted trafficker and421groomer, Ghislaine Maxwell, from a higher security prison to a422minimum-security camp in Texas where she has enjoyed five-star423treatment with catered meals, private gym time, and access to a424therapy puppy. Then, in a feeble attempt to comply with the law425that we passed and President Trump signed into law to release426all DOJ files on the Epstein conspiracy, the DOJ redacted the427names of abusers, enablers, accomplices, and coconspirators,428while shockingly failing, in many cases, to redact the names of429the victims, many of whom have yet to identify themselves430publicly.431    We have a lot to talk about today. I want to welcome our432witnesses, especially Ms. Kozak. To my friend, Lisae Jordan,433the outstanding leader for the interest of victims of survivors434of sexual assault and violence in the great State of Maryland,435it was a great honor for me to get to work with her for 10436years when I was a State Senator in Annapolis. I hope we'll437take today's testimony to heart. I yield back to you, Mr.438Chair.439    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. Without objection, all the440opening statements will be put in the record. Now, I will441introduce today's witnesses.442    Ms. Kozak, Kayleigh Kozak, she is the namesake of443Kayleigh's Law, versions of which have been enacted in a number444of States and provided protections for survivors of sexual and445domestic abuse. She also advocates for other measures aimed at446enhancing protection for victims and promoting justice.447    The Honorable Suzette Martinez Valladares. Ms. Valladares448represents District 23 in the California State Senate where she449serves as the Vice Chair of the Health Committee and is a450Member of the Judiciary Committee. She previously served in the451California State Assembly.452    Ms. Rachel Wright who is the National Policy Director for453Right on Crime, a nonprofit organization. She previously served454as an Assistant Solicitor General in the Kentucky Office of the455Attorney General and as Counsel to the Senate Judiciary456Committee.457    Ms. Lisae Jordan is the Executive Director of the Maryland458Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a nonprofit organization that459provides services and engages in advocacy pertaining to460survivors of sexual assault.461    I appreciate all of you being here testifying today in this462very important topic. Thank you for coming.463    We'll begin by swearing you in. If each of you would please464rise and raise your right hand:465    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the466testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best467of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?468    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered469in the affirmative. You may be seated. Thank you.470    Please know that your written testimony, in its entirety,471will be entered into the record. Accordingly, we ask that you472summarize your testimony in five minutes.473    We're going to begin now with Senator Valladares.474475        STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUZETTE MARTINEZ VALLADERES476477    Senator Valladares. Chair, Ranking Member, and the Members478of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify479today. I am California State Senator Suzette Valladares, and480what we're seeing in California should matter nationwide481because it's a warning.482    Over the last several decades, a wave of criminal justice483reforms passed by the Democrat super Majority has fundamentally484shifted the balance in our system, not toward safety, not485toward accountability, but a way from survivors, and in many486cases, toward the very people who harm them. It's why I've been487working with Kayleigh Kozak to advance Kayleigh's Law.488    The principle is simple: If someone is dangerous enough to489commit a serious violent crime, a survivor should not have to490keep going back to court just to stay safe. In California491today, that is exactly what we require. Survivors of sexual492assault and violent crime are forced to renew protective orders493every 4-7 years.494    We are asking survivors to relive trauma, navigate a legal495system, and prove over and over again that they still deserve496protection. Meanwhile, the offender just has to wait.497Kayleigh's Law fixes that. It allows courts, at sentencing, to498issue lifetime protective orders for the most dangerous499offenders. Because the truth is, the trauma doesn't expire, the500threat doesn't expire, so the protection shouldn't either. That501need is urgent.502    Every minute in this country someone is assaulted. Every503nine minutes, that victim is a child. In California, there are504over 227,000 active restraining orders at any given time. We505build a system with gaps, and the consequences are real.506    A mother killed in front of her two-year-old one day after507a restraining order expired. Survivors who did everything508right, reported, testified, attained protection orders, only to509be failed by a system that let those protections lapse. It's510not simply a policy failure; it's a moral failure. This didn't511happen by accident.512    In California, we passed law after law reducing penalties,513expanding early release, limiting tools for law enforcement,514and creating more barriers for survivors. These policies are515framed as compassionate, but survivors feel abandoned.516    Now, layer on top of that a system through even the517protections we do provide, comes with an expiration date. What518message are we sending? Push the limits? Wait it out? That's519not justice, it's risk. We've already seen how dangerous the520gap can be. In a recent high-profile case, Natalia Bryant had521to return to court to extend her restraining order after522repeated violations. At one point, the individual believed the523order had expired and used that moment to reach out again.524    Most survivors don't have the resources she had. When525protections lapse, they're left exposed. These risks are not526hypothetical. In California this year, a sexually violent527predator serving multiple life sentences, totaling over 300528years for crimes against more than a dozen children, including529a three-year-old, was granted early release.530    In another case, a five-year-old girl was so brutally531assaulted that she could not walk. Deputies have to carry her532to the emergency room. Her attacker was also granted early533release.534    As a mom, this is every parent's worst nightmare. It's pure535evil. Survivors of violent crimes like this should not have to536return to court again and again because protections can lapse;537to be forced to relive that trauma.538    This is why Kayleigh's Law is so vitally important. Thank539you.540    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Valladares follows:]541    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]542543    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your testimony.544Ms. Wright, you are recognized for five minutes.545546                   STATEMENT OF RACHEL WRIGHT547548    Ms. Wright. Chair Biggs, Ranking Member McBath, and the549distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much550for the invitation to testify before you today on enhancing551safeguards for victims of violent and sex-based crimes. My name552is Rachel Wright. I am the National Policy Director of Right on553Crime, a campaign on criminal justice from the Texas Public554Policy Foundation. We focus on conservative, data-driven555solutions resulting in less crime, fewer victims, and safer556communities.557    Prior to joining Right on Crime, I served as both the trial558and appellate prosecutor, representing the Commonwealth of559Kentucky, my home State, and also got to work for Senator Chuck560Grassley on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.561    As a prosecutor and a policy expert on crime, criminal562justice, and victims' rights, I have seen firsthand the impact563that a criminal charge and conviction can have on both parties564involved. For many victims, especially those of violent and565sexual crimes, the physical and emotional pain is long-lasting566and uniquely damaging.567    The criminal justice system is only as strong as its568ability to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that those569harmed by the crime are not retraumatized by the very process570intended to deliver it justice. A common tool used to protect571these vulnerable populations is to limit or prohibit contact572between the offender and the victim.573    There are a few ways this was already done in the Federal574criminal law. One is while pending trial. There, a Federal575judge may require a defendant to avoid contact with the alleged576victim or potential witnesses pending trial. In making this577decision, the judge will typically consider the nature of the578crime, the defendant's criminal history, and public safety579considerations.580    Also, after a criminal sentence has been served, and the581defendant is on supervised release, a judge may order a582defendant to stay away from certain places or people. However,583these protections are often temporary, and no-contact584conditions only last as long as the term of supervised release585itself, which is typically 3-5 years.586    For both pretrial and supervised release, no-contact587conditions between the defendant and the victim are highly588discretionary. This means for the same crime, the outcomes for589victims can differ based on which judge makes the decision.590    The proposal before this Committee, H.R. 8481, Kayleigh's591Law Act of 2026, looks at some of these issues head-on. At its592core, the bill seeks to prevent revictimization, stop future593crimes, and ensure consistency across Federal judicial594circuits. Fashioned after Kayleigh's Law passed in Arizona;595this bill will impose a lifetime injunction between defendants596and victims for specific covered offenses.597    This policy has certain benefits, which are quite apparent.598    First, it would reduce recidivism. Lifetime injunctions can599keep an offender from contacting a victim he or she sexually or600violently attacked. This bill could stop the revolving door of601the repeat offender in its tracks, which is particularly602important for violent crimes and sexual crimes. When paired603with proven rehabilitation and reintegration policies, lifetime604injunctions can be a critical piece of improving public safety.605    Second, a Federal Kayleigh's Law would ensure consistency606among Federal courts. The clarity for when an injunction would607be imposed would mean that a judge in Arizona would rule the608same way as a judge in Georgia, or even Texas to California.609    Insofar as criminal sentences imposed on defendants should610be consistent and uniform across Federal courts, so should the611impact on victims.612    Third, this bill will complement ongoing State efforts.613Kayleigh's Law, while spearheaded in Arizona, is also being614considered in other States, too, and to be sure this Federal615bill before the Committee would be markedly different than616these State proposals.617    Current State laws are often in place. For example, State618courts often hand down no-contact orders through family law619courts with domestic violence orders, temporarily restraining620orders, and emergency protection orders. Family law is unique621to the States only, and there is no Federal analogue. That's622why this Federal bill proposes making a no-contact condition623part of the criminal sentence itself. By embedding these624protections into the criminal sentence, this bill closes a625critical gap, ensuring no victim's safety depends on626circumstances out of her control, but is it protected as a627matter of Federal law?628    True justice should not be measured just by the length of a629prison sentence, but by the restoration of the survivor. By630providing permanent peace of mind, victims will be empowered to631move forward in their lives without fear. Right on Crime632applauds this Committee's longstanding dedication to ensuring633better outcomes for victims, reforming offenders when safe, and634reducing crime. We look forward to working with the authors of635this bill to ensure the language is meticulously crafted and636responsive to this necessary issue.637    Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. Thank638you, Congressman Hamadeh for your leadership on this639legislation. I look forward to your questions.640    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wright follows:]641    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]642643    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Jordan for your644five minutes.645646                  STATEMENT OF LISAE C. JORDAN647648    Ms. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and the649Members of this Committee, thank you for the invitation to be650here today. I am Lisae Jordan. I am Executive Director and651Counsel with the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault652(MCASA). Thank you to Kayleigh Kozak, the brave survivor at the653table with me today.654    MCASA is Maryland's State sexual assault coalition. We have655sister coalitions in States and Territories across the country.656Like our sister coalitions, we include the States' rape crisis657centers, survivors, professionals, and others dedicated to658ending sexual violence.659    MCASA is home to the Sexual Assault Legal Institute (SALI),660which provides direct legal services to survivors of sexual661violence across the State of Maryland.662    As you consider this important legislation, MCASA urges you663to center the needs of survivors and appreciate the complexity664of survivors' experience. Every survivor is different. I am665going to add to Kayleigh's story and ask you to consider the666case of a 14-year-old girl who's vulnerable and needy, targeted667by an abuser calling her beautiful and helping her feel668special. The offender sexually abuses her, recruits her into669human trafficking, using all the slow and careful grooming that670sex offenders employ, gains her trust, cuts her off from the671support of those who love her, draws her in, and then sexually672exploits her.673    Before this young woman ever reports, she needs to know674that what is happening is not her fault, and that it's illegal.675She needs to have information, she needs counseling, she needs676protection. To have justice, she needs trained prosecutors who677will take her story seriously and prosecute swiftly. She needs678her own advocate or attorney to help ensure that her rights and679her safety are protected. The permanent protective order680proposed is one of those protections that should be available.681Be clear, more is needed for this young woman to access682justice.683    In Maryland, as Mr. Raskin mentioned, we do have a684permanent protective order available to survivors, but it's685only in very specific types of cases. I do not recommend686Maryland's law as a model. What is effective about it is this:687It's part of the civil protective order system. That makes it688easier for our officers to arrest someone who is violating it.689    By contrast, the criminal stay-away has all the deficits690that Ms. Wright explained, but it's also very difficult to691enforce on the ground. Enforcement through contempt of court is692not an effective on-the-ground means of enforcement.693    MCASA's greater concern is that more needs to be done to694address the complexities of sexual assault and the needs of695survivors. We should help sexual survivors because they deserve696our support as crime victims, as a moral matter, but also697because they need to be treated as heroes when they do report.698If people don't report, sex offenders remain free.699    Thank you for everything this Committee has done to help700support survivors of sexual assault. I want to highlight legal701services supported by Federal laws. They are critically702important to supporting survivors. Under H.R. 8481, a victim's703rights attorney could help negotiate all these different704aspects of obtaining safety. A sex trafficking survivor could705ask for help protecting privacy. A survivor abused by her706teacher could ask for accommodation in school. Protective707parents could help get a divorce from a sex-offending parent.708Having effective counsel and legal services is key to making709the laws that you enact effective for survivors.710    Our programs also need your help. The persistent delays in711grant administration, and the instability at the Federal level,712are threatening services. Planning is difficult. Reductions in713the Federal workforce means we are seeing demand from people in714Maryland who would have thought private services in the past--715they're unable to donate or support us.716    Programs like SALI are unable to apply for competitive717grants because applications have not been released. Other718programs have applied for funding, but then not heard, being719left in limbo, and perhaps having to lay off staff. Cuts to720VOCA programs are devastating across the country. The safety721net that America has built to help victims of crime is at risk722of breaking. We are asking for your help to stop this.723    If H.R. 8481 was enacted, services supported with VOCA and724VAWA, the programs you have created, they would help those725survivors. Survivors need the services; programs need the grant726funding you have created. Permanent protection for survivors is727important, but they are part of a larger tapestry of responding728to sexual assault. Thank you so much again for your time today.729We look forward to working together.730    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jordan follows:]731    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]732733    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I know we're voting, but we're going734to go ahead and hear Ms. Kozak, and then we'll take the recess735to vote. Ms. Kozak, you are recognized for your five minutes.736737                  STATEMENT OF KAYLEIGH KOZAK738739    Ms. Kozak. Good morning, Chair Biggs, Ranking Member, and740the Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity741to speak on behalf of this bill. Thank you to Congressman742Hamadeh for introducing it.743    My name is Kayleigh Kozak. I am a survivor of childhood744sexual abuse, and I am the namesake behind Kayleigh's Law.745    When I was a little girl, telling the truth cost me746everything. At 12 years old, a trusted teacher, who was also my747club soccer coach, chose to sexually abuse me over a two-year748period.749    In 2006, that man was originally charged with eight counts750of child sexual abuse, classified as a dangerous crime against751a child under Arizona law. Offenses that carried a potential752sentence of 25 years to life in prison.753    He pled down to two counts, served his nine months in jail,754and received two terms of lifetime probation in lieu of prison755time per his request. A sweetheart plea deal for him that has756become a living hell for me.757    In January 2020, my world came to a halt when I learned758that he had petitioned to have his so-called lifetime probation759terminated. If it ended, every single safeguard that I had760would disappear. Three weeks later, I stood in court, broken761and confused, begging a judge not to grant his motion. This762experience exposed a critical flaw in our justice system. A763victim's protection is too often tied to and entirely depends764on the perpetrator's post-conviction conditions, such as765probation or sex offender registry requirements.766    This is what ignited Kayleigh's Law. The abuse itself is767horrific, but no one can prepare you for the hell that follows768even decades later.769    Just two months ago in February 2026, I found myself back770in court again for the same reason as 2020. He had again771petitioned to have his lifetime probation terminated. Only this772time, I witnessed my abuser be served with a lifetime no-773contact injunction under Kayleigh's Law in Arizona. I now have774permanent lifelong protection.775    The harm caused by sexual assault is not temporary, it is776lifelong. The protections for those who have been sexually777violated should be lifelong, too. However, in most States are778Federal--even when a heinous crime is committed, and an779individual is convicted, obtaining a protective order requires780continued proof, additional court hearings, which ultimately781revictimizes and retraumatizes victims. Still the order remains782temporary and limiting.783    There is little to no uniformity across States or federally784pertaining to sex crime definitions, sex offender registry, and785probation requirements, or protective orders.786    If the justice system is going to continue to grant787leniency to individuals convicted of sexual offenses, fail to788fully enforce SORNA standards, and remove convicted offenders789from probation or sex offender registry, which on conviction,790are typically the conditions that prevent an offender from791having contact with their victim, then the very least it should792do is guarantee victims permanent protection from the person793who is convicted of sexually violating them. Victims everywhere794deserve this protection. Pursuing this law nationally has795always been the goal.796    Kayleigh's Law has already passed in multiple States with797strong bipartisan support. In Arizona alone, in its first year,798more than 1,000 victims obtained a permanent order of799protection. Arizona has set the gold standard. It's time for800the Federal Government and every State to follow suit.801    This is a national crisis. Federal sex crimes have surged802more than 62 percent since 2020, and more than 87 percent of803these ends in plea deals with reduced charges and sentencing.804    Harsh penalties for these crimes are on the books. Yet,805those severe consequences become meaningless when the justice806system allows plea deals with drastically reduced sentences for807sex offenders, and in the end, still leave victims with no808protection.809    Sexual predators do not make mistakes; they make very810conscious choices. I have zero sympathy for pedophiles and sex811offenders who selfishly choose to sexually violate another812innocent human being. The hardships that they face as a result813of their choices that they made should never supersede a814victim's right to indefinite, lifelong protection. The priority815should always be protecting victims of these crimes, not816offenders who commit them.817    In sixth grade at a place where I should have been safe, my818elementary school, my teacher pulled me into the equipment room819closet, he locked the door, and he molested me until he was820sexually satisfied. Then, he shoved me out of the side door and821sent me back to class as if nothing had happened. In a matter822of minutes, my life changed forever by someone who was in a823position of trust that was supposed to protect me. That was824just the beginning of the sexual abuse and where my hell on825Earth began; the hell that I am stuck in.826    I could not protect myself then, but I can fight to protect827myself, other innocent children, and every victim now. I ask828that you fight to protect them, too.829    Please lead the effort and pass this bill. No survivor830should have to face their convicted abuser in court repeatedly.831I will never stop fighting for victims and survivors because832you still matter. Thank you.833    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kozak follows:]834    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]835836    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I regret to do this, but we are going837to take a recess so we can go vote. They've called the votes. I838have no idea how long that will last, and so, I would ask the839witnesses to kind of--you may actually have time to wander840around a little bit. Stay close so we can find you. When we do841get back, we can reconvene. Thank you so very much. We're in842recess.843    [Recess. 12:06 p.m.]844    Ms. Lee. [Presiding.] At this time, we'll reconvene the845meeting of the Subcommittee. Welcome back, witnesses. We will846now commence questioning by Members of Congress. We will go in847five-minute increments, alternating back and forth from each848side of the aisle. I will now recognize myself for five849minutes.850    Thank you all for being here today for the purpose of this851hearing to discuss strengthening protections for victims of852violent and sexual crimes. Thank you to each of our witnesses853for your testimony and your insight. I want to especially thank854Ms. Kayleigh Kozak. Your courage in coming here to share your855story and transforming trauma into advocacy for other survivors856is extraordinary. I want to personally thank you for your857bravery and for your leadership.858    Before coming to Congress, I served as both a Federal859prosecutor and a judge, and I saw firsthand the devastating and860lasting impact these crimes have on victims and on their861families. Cases involving sexual abuse, exploitation, and862violence are not something victims can simply move on from when863a sentence is handed down. The trauma, fear, and emotional toll864often last a lifetime, and our justice system should recognize865that reality. Too often victims are forced to repeatedly return866to court, relive painful experiences, and continue proving they867deserve protection from the very individuals who harmed them.868    Victims should not have to carry the burden of navigating869gaps in the system to simply feel safe. My hope for today's870hearing is that we better understand where these gaps still871exist, what protections are truly making a difference for872survivors, and what Congress can do to build a more victim-873centered justice system that provides safety, accountability,874and peace of mind for survivors across the country.875    Ms. Wright, I would like to begin with you. Florida,876unfortunately, sees a high volume of crimes involving877exploitation and trafficking. We also have a highly transient878population. One concern I have is whether protective orders879truly follow offenders in meaningful and enforceable ways when880someone relocates. From your perspective, are there gaps today881in how long-term protective orders are entered into national882databases, recognized across jurisdictions, or communicated to883local law enforcement agencies?884    Ms. Wright. Thank you for the question. In short, the885answer is yes. There are gaps. If an offender is moving to a886different jurisdiction, under State law, those orders may only887pertain to just that State conviction. A Federal bill, like the888one proposed, 8481, like Kayleigh's Law, the Federal version of889this, would close that hole. It would fill in that gap because890it's having a Federal jurisdiction, which means no matter where891the offender goes, no matter where the victim goes, that892protective order is going to apply to the offender still, and893that victim will still be protected.894    Also, it's focusing on the criminal sentencing aspect as895opposed to family law which is unique to the States. Also,896that's a gap that the Federal law would have to do differently,897because State by State, the family law also differs.898    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Ms. Kozak, from your perspective, how899important is it that our laws recognize the long-term reality900of trauma and provide victims with lasting certainty and901protection, not just during prosecution, but years afterwards902as survivors are moving forward with their lives?903    Ms. Kozak. Thank you so much for that question. It is904incredibly important that it's recognized that the effects from905sexual violence, especially for children, any victim of any age906do last a lifetime. Just because defendants' and offenders'907situation may change--whether it be their registry requirements908or their sex offender registry requirements, that does not909lessen the severity of what happened to a victim. It will go910with them for the rest of their life.911    Ms. Lee. One of the most striking parts of your story is912that the court required evidence of a recent encounter with913your abuser before considering additional protections. From a914survivor's perspective, how retraumatizing is it to essentially915have to wait for another frightening interaction before the916system will act?917    Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question, too. When we are918going through the judicial process, we can be proactive or919reactive. This law allows for a proactive order of protection920to be in place that lasts a lifetime.921    When I got the phone call in 2020 notifying me that I had922to go back to court to fight for my abuser to stay on923probation--and learn that it was all or nothing, and that I924wouldn't have protection if he got off, I couldn't wrap my head925around that reality. That is the reality that so many victims926are in. The crime itself should be sufficient enough to give a927very natural life protection. They have already shown that they928have no respect for boundaries, and that they will go to great929lengths to sexually violate someone. That order of protection930should stay in place.931    Ms. Lee. You have now worked with legislatures across the932country since Arizona passed Kayleigh's Law. Have you heard933from survivors who felt more willing to come forward or934cooperate with prosecutors or seek justice because they knew935the prospect of stronger long-term protection was available?936    Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. I've heard from937thousands of survivors across the Nation who are hopeful that938this type of protective order can be in place for them and for939victims. Specifically in Arizona, there's been over 3,000940victims now that have gotten this type of protection order put941in place. The comfort that this gives them and knowing that942they can actually move on with their life and not have it943interrupted because a perpetrator has decided that they want944things to change, has changed the trajectory of their lives945immensely. It allows them to go on healing. It takes control946away from the abuser who has continued to file things and drive947change in their life. The victim now has protection, and they948can move on.949    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the950Representative from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for five minutes.951    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair. Ms. Wright, do952Federal courts currently issue protective orders or restraining953orders of any kind to victims of crime that are not connected954to either pretrial release or criminal sentence?955    Ms. Wright. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member956McBath. The most comparable analogue right now to a restraining957order in the Federal system that is not a condition of pretrial958release or supervised release is going to be sex offender959registration. So, no.960    Ms. McBath. OK. Thank you. Statutes that allow for961permanent orders of protection have been adopted in several962States, including Arizona, Maryland, Wisconsin, Colorado,963Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Most States with a law like964Kayleigh's Law provide some way for victims or the courts to965review, modify, or terminate orders. It's often up to the966victim. Is that right, Ms. Kozak?967    Ms. Kozak. Thank you. For clarification, yes, the victim968can petition to have the order terminated or ended early, if969they wish.970    Ms. McBath. OK. The proposed Federal version of Kayleigh's971Law--it's actually different. It would prevent the victim from972having the order terminated or suspended unless the abuser's973conviction was the subject of a pardon or a commutation.974    Ms. Jordan, should we limit victim autonomy in this bill in975this way?976    Ms. Jordan. Thank you for that question. We should not977limit victim autonomy in that way. One of the critical things978that happens to survivors of any crime, but particularly of979sexual assault, is that they have had control taken away from980them by that crime. Part of our goal in giving a survivor981justice is to empower them.982    There are many different stories. There are many different983paths that survivors take. Some wish to speak with the984offender. Most know their offender. Sometimes they want to have985an order modified to allow for some sort of contact. It is not986our place to judge the reasons that survivors may have for987wanting to modify or tailor a permanent order. We should give988them the right to do that. That is why it is critical that any989legislation that this body passes includes the ability for a990survivor to decide to modify something.991    Ms. McBath. Then, should an action by the President992determine what a victim is allowed to do under the proposed993statute.994    Ms. Jordan. I am sorry, I didn't hear your question.995    Ms. McBath. Should an action by the President determine996what a victim is allowed to do under this proposed statute?997    Ms. Jordan. No, I would suggest that really we should allow998the victim to have the autonomy to make that decision, not an999act by the President.1000    Ms. McBath. Thank you. Ms. Kozak, who knows more about the1001needs and desires of a victim than a victim?1002    Ms. Kozak. A victim.1003    Ms. McBath. Ms. Wright.1004    Ms. Wright. A victim.1005    Ms. McBath. Ms. Jordan?1006    Ms. Jordan. A victim.1007    Ms. McBath. Senator Valladares?1008    Senator Valladares. A victim.1009    Ms. McBath. Thank you. We know that sexual and domestic1010abusers oftentimes stalk their victims, which can leave victims1011to seek restraining or protective orders against their abusers.1012Although stalking is a covered offense in the Arizona version1013of Kayleigh's Law, stalking is not a covered offense in the1014Federal version of the bill.1015    Ms. Kozak, why did you find it necessary to include1016stalking as a covered offense in the Arizona version of your1017bill? Should stalking be covered in the Federal version of your1018bill?1019    Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. Stalking is a very1020serious crime and a very real thing that we see throughout the1021Nation. Stalking was not originally included in the Arizona1022bill. It started as mostly heinous sex crimes, and there were1023amendments a couple years later. With this bill, we really1024focus on sex crimes to narrow. With the conversation of future1025amendments to add stalking, stalking is a very serious crime,1026and I absolutely believe that it should be included as one of1027the statutes that would make it be available to pursue a1028permanent order of protection under Federal law.1029    Ms. McBath. OK. Ms. Kozak, you decided to pursue the1030creation of permanent injunctions that would exist and could be1031in force separate and apart from any criminal sentence,1032correct.1033    Ms. Kozak. Can you repeat that question?1034    Ms. McBath. OK. You decided to pursue the creation of1035permanent injunctions that would exist and could be enforced1036separately and apart from any criminal sentence. Am I right?1037    Ms. Kozak. This would only be applicable to criminal1038sentences.1039    Ms. McBath. OK. I just want you to know, I commend your1040effort and your resolve. I am really very, very grateful to1041you. It appears that the Federal version of your bill would1042require a sentencing court to include a permanent injunction in1043any sentence imposed. Is that right.1044    Ms. Kozak. Yes, ma'am.1045    Ms. McBath. That injunction would remain in effect for the1046life of the defendant; correct?1047    Ms. Kozak. Yes, ma'am.1048    Ms. McBath. Ms. Wright, you note in--oh, sorry. I am out of1049time. Thank you.1050    Ms. Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.1051Kiley, for five minutes.1052    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Valladares,1053thank you for being with us today. I understand you introduced1054a bill in the State legislature that would have allowed victims1055of certain sex crimes to obtain a permanent restraining order1056against the perpetrator. Is that right?1057    Senator Valladares. Yes.1058    Mr. Kiley. What happened to this bill?1059    Senator Valladares. Last year when we introduced Kayleigh's1060Law, it had a broader framework that would allow for certain1061violent crimes and sexual crimes. It would give a judge1062discretion to issue a permanent injunction. The bill was1063immediate killed in public safety and--1064    Mr. Kiley. It was killed?1065    Senator Valladares. It was killed in public safety.1066    Mr. Kiley. Why?1067    Senator Valladares. I don't understand. When as we've heard1068here today, the trauma and retraumatization of victims is real.1069Having to return to court in California every three to seven1070years to seek extra protections is unacceptable.1071    Mr. Kiley. That's amazing. That's what they wanted--your1072colleagues in the California State legislature wanted--they1073wanted to force victims to have to come keep getting a1074restraining order every 3-7 years?1075    Senator Valladares. Unfortunately, the criminal justice1076reforms in California, and law after law that have been passed1077and signed by our Governor have emboldened criminals and taken1078every opportunity to create more barriers for survivors, which1079we saw in the public safety vote last year.1080    Mr. Kiley. Now, that's just unfathomable to me. It seems1081like if there's just one thing they should garner unanimous1082bipartisan support, it's saying that victims of these heinous1083crimes should be able to feel safe from their perpetrators, and1084certainly shouldn't have to reconfront them and re-experience1085the trauma on a regular basis; right?1086    Senator Valladares. Absolutely.1087    Mr. Kiley. This is especially important because in1088California, as you know very well, a lot of these folks get1089released from prison a lot earlier than they should. We had1090just a couple pretty recent cases in California where you had a1091serial child molester named David Funston who assaulted--1092kidnapped, molested multiple young children as young as 3 years1093old; would lure them to his car with candy; was sentenced to1094three life sentences. The judge called him the monster that1095parents fear most. He was granted parole; granted early release1096by the parole board. You are familiar with this case?1097    Senator Valladares. Yes, unfortunately, that's not the only1098case. Just this year I can recall three different instances1099where predators who violently raped and assaulted children--1100children as young as three years old--were sentenced to1101multiple life sentences, never really finished those sentences1102because the State of California and the parole board granted1103them early release. It just goes to show how important1104Kayleigh's Law is because there is no guarantee in California1105that a life sentence will be served. The victims that expect1106that justice when sentence is handed down are essentially1107slapped in the face when these violent criminals are released1108back into our communities.1109    Mr. Kiley. That's such an important point. This law is more1110important in California than basically anywhere. There is a1111Southern case, you mentioned several others, this Gregory1112Vogelsang was sentenced to 355 years in prison for victimizing1113five children in Citrus Heights, was recommended for release in1114California because of this elderly parole law, which I believe1115applies to anyone over 50; right?1116    Senator Valladares. Yes, my husband is not happy. He is a1117little bit over 50. Fifty is not elderly. When you see some of1118the parole hearings, this is what is graphic and horrific. A1119lot of these criminals still admit in parole hearings today or1120late last year that they're still attracted to children, yet1121the parole board is releasing them.1122    Mr. Kiley. I remember that in this case or one of these1123cases. It was the Funston case, I think. That was actually in1124the record, and they still recommended release. Again, 360-some1125years, you're sentenced to three life sentences. They're being1126released from prison early under this law.1127    Then, because the legislature has refused to pass your bill1128victims who had a restraining order in cases like this,1129suddenly they hear that the person who victimized them is out1130of prison. Whereas they might have thought, three life1131sentences, I might not have to worry about this. They're out of1132prison. Then, they have to keep going to court to get a1133restraining order. That seems pretty crazy to me.1134    I understand you've reintroduced your bill. Maybe there's a1135path toward getting the victim some relief at least?1136    Senator Valladares. Yes, this year we reintroduced1137Kayleigh's Law. It is very narrowed. Unfortunately, there was1138no appetite with my colleagues across the aisle to issue a1139lifetime injunction. We negotiated 25 years, and 25 years for1140convictions of sexually assaulting children, so this is very1141narrow. It's also very important to recognize that in my1142version of the bill in California, this gives a judge1143discretion. It requires the court to look at the seriousness of1144the matter, and to make this decision based on the facts of the1145case and the likelihood of the individual reoffending.1146    Mr. Kiley. Well, it's a good first step. I thank you for1147your efforts. I am calling on everyone in Sacramento, including1148the Governor, to really be on the side of victims when it comes1149to this issue. I yield back.1150    Ms. Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina,1151Mr. Knott, for five minutes.1152    Mr. Knott. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the witnesses here,1153thank you so much for being here. I want to start with you, Ms.1154Kozak. If you can just refresh the memory of people watching,1155when did you suffer your abuse?1156    Ms. Kozak. I was sexually abused my sixth and seventh grade1157year, when I was just 12 and 13 years old by my--1158    Mr. Knott. Before you were a teenager?1159    Ms. Kozak. Yes.1160    Mr. Knott. Excuse this question, but how old are you now?1161    Ms. Kozak. Thirty-four.1162    Mr. Knott. Thirty-four. In any way, shape, or form, has1163that trauma that you went through as a young lady, has it gone1164away, has it been cared for, or has it been an ongoing presence1165in your life?1166    Ms. Kozak. It's been ongoing. I did my best to pick up and1167move on with my life. In 2020, it changed when my abuser1168decided once again he wanted things to change. It's been all1169about what he wants.1170    Mr. Knott. Right.1171    Ms. Kozak. What he decides through the court.1172    Mr. Knott. This just again for clarity and context, he was1173convicted, correct?1174    Ms. Kozak. Yes, he was convicted.1175    Mr. Knott. In your experience, in your familiarity with1176this case, are you a lone example of his abuse?1177    Ms. Kozak. My case, specifically, or as a victim?1178    Mr. Knott. In terms of your familiarity with what went on1179at that school when you were a student there, was there other1180instances of abuse that you're familiar with?1181    Ms. Kozak. I am the only known documented victim. That does1182not mean that I am the only victim.1183    Mr. Knott. Sure. In terms of this particular perpetrator,1184he was convicted, he was given a very light sentence. In any1185way, shape, or form, do you believe that he has been reformed1186from his previous crimes?1187    Ms. Kozak. Thank you for that question. I do not believe1188that sex offenders can be rehabilitated.1189    Mr. Knott. Why.1190    Ms. Kozak. Well, because is there enough therapy that I can1191give anybody in this room to be sexually attracted to children?1192It's sexual preference. They may learn how to control their1193urges, but they cannot be rehabilitated into not being sexually1194attracted to children.1195    Mr. Knott. In regards to this particular individual who1196committed crimes against you, has he been reformed?1197    Ms. Kozak. No.1198    Mr. Knott. How do you know that?1199    Ms. Kozak. Because I am the victim. I receive all the1200documents. I see his test. I see the summaries. I see the1201results of the things that he does and his polygraphs and his1202psychosexuals. So, no.1203    Mr. Knott. Have there been other instances of either1204admitted or documented inappropriate sexual attraction or1205action that he has taken?1206    Mr. Knott. Yes, he was removed from his home in 2015 for1207continuous violations. He was almost put back in prison,1208revoked. Instead, they removed him from his home. The reasons1209were because he was continuously lying, and he was being1210sexually aroused by his own children.1211    Mr. Knott. Unbelievable. As a lawmaker, I have grave1212concerns that someone like that is candidly still alive. That1213the use of the death penalty for someone who does that to a1214child and continues to do this, we need to have serious1215discussions about that. At a minimum, they should be in jail1216for life. Again, this is someone who is not rumored, he has1217been convicted. He has documented instances of returning to1218this cesspool. The State is making you defend the protective1219order that you should be able to hold for the rest of your1220life. Isn't that correct?1221    Ms. Kozak. Yes.1222    Mr. Knott. In regard to the cost financially to you, how1223much have you--just ballpark estimate--how much have you had to1224spend to keep that evil man away from you?1225    Ms. Kozak. An immense amount of money.1226    Mr. Knott. Are we talking about $10,000? $100,000? Over $11227million?1228    Ms. Kozak. Probably the latter.1229    Mr. Knott. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. In regard to your1230life, ma'am, how have you been able to separate out what you1231went through to where you want to go?1232    Ms. Kozak. I never thought I would have to continue1233fighting the man who was convicted for sexually abusing me as a1234child, but if this is what I'm going through, then how many1235others? I owe it to every victim to stand and fight for them,1236because no one should have to endure this.1237    Mr. Knott. Right.1238    Ms. Kozak. When I was told a lifetime, I thought he would1239be on a lifetime sentence. I was not told the truth. When I1240found out that he was not on the sex offender registry, the1241public sex offender registry, due to a risk assessment, when he1242was convicted of committing a dangerous crime against a child,1243I could not believe it. I have really found my voice and fought1244for justice.1245    Mr. Knott. How does empowering these predators, what does1246that do to victims' likelihood of coming forward?1247    Ms. Kozak. Why would they?1248    Mr. Knott. Right.1249    Ms. Kozak. It's horrific.1250    Mr. Knott. If you had to do it over again, would you have1251come forward?1252    Ms. Kozak. If I knew then what I know now, no.1253    Mr. Knott. What a failure. Well, thank you for coming1254forward today. We are in your debt, and our toleration of this1255type of person is a grave concern of mine. I yield back.1256    Mr. Biggs. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields. I have1257several UCs. First, is this: ``Kayleigh's Law helps more than12581,000 Arizona crime victims.''1259    Second, ``Officials who claim to support victim rights go1260on offensive to silence outspoken victim advocate.''1261    Mr. Biggs. Valladares--do you say Valladares?1262    Senator Valladares. Valladares or Valladares, whichever.1263    Mr. Biggs. Valladares, OK. Third, ``Valladares introduces1264Kayleigh's Law bill to strengthen protections for crime1265victims.''1266    Fourth, ``Judge denies Liberty District's motion to dismiss1267decades-old sexual abuse negligence case.''1268    Fifth, ``Prosecutors want Idaho killer barred from1269contacting victim's families for nearly a century.''1270    Sixth, ``Arizona Senator celebrates legal triumph as court1271upholds strict sex offender law.''1272    Mr. Biggs. Without objection. I now will recognize Ms.1273McBath for five minutes.1274    Ms. McBath. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To kind of pick1275up where we left off, Ms. Wright, you note in your testimony1276that the Federal proposal would tie the no-contact order to the1277criminal sentence, correct?1278    Ms. Wright. Correct.1279    Ms. McBath. Ms. Kozak, is that not exactly what she wanted1280to avoid in Arizona when you fought for your bill's passage?1281    Ms. Kozak. I'm so sorry. Can you please repeat the1282original?1283    Ms. McBath. Sure.1284    Ms. Kozak. Thank you so much.1285    Ms. McBath. Sure. In your testimony that the Federal--you1286wrote in your testimony that--I'm sorry, in Ms. Wright's1287testimony, she wrote that, ``the Federal proposal would tie the1288no-contact order to the criminal sentence.'' She says,1289``correct.''1290    OK. My question to you is, is that not exactly what you1291wanted to avoid in Arizona when you were actually fighting for1292your bill's passage?1293    Ms. Kozak. In Arizona when we were fighting for this, what1294makes Kayleigh's Law the gold standard is that it would be1295implemented at the time of sentencing. Eliminating any future1296court hearings or having to justify that you may be in danger.1297The goal is to have it served at the time of sentencing, then1298everyone knows that it's intact.1299    In Arizona, it is retroactive, and so, there are thousands1300of victims who have petitioned and received the no-contact--the1301lifetime injunction is what it's called in Arizona--1302postconviction.1303    Ms. McBath. OK. Thank you. Then, we are here today because1304we know that protective orders are a tool that could help some1305victims and survivors obtain peace of mind. Victims and1306survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and abuse, and1307other violent felonies require comprehensive support because1308they have a wide range of needs that span safety, health,1309legal, financial--as you have expressed--and long-term1310recovery.1311    Ms. Jordan, beyond protective orders, what other care and1312services and support are necessary to help survivors and1313victims of sexual and domestic violence?1314    Ms. Jordan. Thank you for that question. It is hugely1315important, because survivors all have different needs, and we1316need to meet them where they are. Some need housing, others1317need legal services. The bill before you today is exceptionally1318complicated. Enforcing something with a contempt of court, you1319would need a lawyer to help with that.1320    Also, consider that if you were, for instance, the mom of a1321child who was sexually abused by your husband, by a stepfather,1322you wouldn't just need a criminal prosecution of that offender;1323you would also need a divorce; you would also need a custody1324order; you would also need clinical attention; you would need1325therapy; you would need support; and you would need your rape1326crisis centers that are available throughout the country.1327    Listening to some of the testimony here today, I'm reminded1328that one of the important things that Congress can do is to1329place a condition on funding. You could say that we need to1330have Kayleigh's Law at the local level where most sex crimes1331prosecutions occur, and those States, they would respond to1332that sort of mandate. It's not going to make a difference1333unless the money starts getting into the field.1334    Right now, again, we are facing huge barriers: No1335applications being released, awards not being announced, and1336some awards being rescinded. That tool of attaching funding to1337a condition like creating Kayleigh's Law at the local level; it1338is a huge tool that Congress has, but only if the money is1339flowing and only if those grants are working.1340    Ms. McBath. Ms. Jordan--this is last question that I have--1341an abusive partner's access to a firearm greatly increases the1342danger faced by victims of domestic violence, making it five1343times more likely that a woman will be killed and also creating1344a grave risk to her children. Are extreme risk protection1345orders, would you consider them a tool in addition to1346traditional protective orders that should be available to1347everyone, any woman, anyone facing domestic abuse no matter1348where they live?1349    Ms. Jordan. Absolutely. That is a critical tool. It is a1350critical tool for survivors of intimate partner violence. Guns,1351remember, increase lethality in all crimes, including sexual1352violence, and including robberies. ERPOs are a fundamental tool1353to help get the guns out of people who may use them against the1354people who are here in America. Thank you for your leadership1355on that issue. It is something that should be considered side1356by side with this law.1357    Ms. McBath. Thank you very much. I'm out of time.1358    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes1359the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Lee.1360    Ms. Lee. Senator Valladares, you testified earlier about1361California ultimately moving toward a 25-year framework rather1362than lifetime protections. From a legislative negotiation1363standpoint, was that compromise driven more by constitutional1364concerns, enforcement concerns, or political opposition to the1365concept of lifetime victim protections themselves?1366    Senator Valladares. Yes. I'm happy that our bill is still1367moving through the legislative process, not in a protective1368order--lifeline protective order form. To quote the Chair of1369the Public Safety Committee, ``we have a fundamental difference1370of opinion on lifetime orders.''1371    Ms. Lee. It sounds like the opponents of lifetime1372protections were primarily framing their objections through the1373lens of offender rehabilitation. Tell me how you perceive1374balancing rehabilitation arguments against the ongoing public1375safety and psychological needs of victims who may carry trauma1376for life?1377    Senator Valladares. Well, I think that the truth is for1378victims and for survivors, their trauma does not expire. It1379does not end. From my perspective, Kayleigh's Law gets us back1380to where we should have never left, which is protecting and1381prioritizing the rights of victims and the trauma of victims.1382That's the balance. California has yet to get there yet, but1383we're continuing to work on it.1384    Ms. Lee. Ms. Wright, as Congress looks at whether laws like1385Kayleigh's Law are working, should we be measuring success not1386just by recidivism or convictions statistics, but also by1387whether victims actually feel safer, are more willing to come1388forward and cooperate with law enforcement, experience fewer1389repeat contacts from offenders, and are able to move on with1390their lives instead of repeatedly returning to court?1391    Ms. Wright. That is an excellent question, and it's both,1392Congresswoman. That's because on one hand we need to analyze1393the data and information that State agencies are providing to1394States, and then also if this law--or this bill were become1395law, how DOJ is reporting those kind of statistics for1396Congress.1397    However, to take a step back from the sterility of1398lawmaking and sometimes being in a courtroom, the criminal1399justice system is not based just on data and numbers; it's1400based on people and stories. It would be important for Congress1401to be reminded when we're looking at this, yes, maybe the1402recidivism data would show that these are--this would be a1403positive policy. Maybe it wouldn't. To say that this one1404specific bill would be the silver bullet for crime numbers1405going down would be impossible.1406    For instance, when the FBI released its crime data earlier1407this year, we all saw that crime numbers are decreasing. That1408is a hollow reprieve for people who in big cities are still1409feeling unsafe.1410    It is imperative that the crime data is kind of stagnant,1411but we have to remember that a victim feeling that they have1412someone in their corner, that they are part of the1413conversation, and that someone is looking out for their1414interest, that in and of itself is the law working too.1415    Ms. Lee. Along those lines, is it your view that we should1416also take into consideration things like victim stability1417outcomes, such as whether survivors are better able to maintain1418employment, housing, or schooling?1419    Ms. Wright. That's an important consideration definitely,1420because survivors are impacted by this and they are seeking1421reprieve from their trauma. It's not just a conversation for1422just the defendant on how that person is being rehabilitated1423and reintegrated into society. The criminal justice system is a1424trying process that is not quickly done, criminal litigation1425and then the sentencing and then the post-incarceration1426conversations, and then as Ms. Kozak was describing, having to1427be heralded back into court decades after the crime itself.1428Yes, that's an excellent point.1429    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1430    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes the1431gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Knott.1432    Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1433    Senator Valladares, I want to talk to you briefly about1434kind of picking up where you were with Mr. Kiley. In terms of,1435you stated there was no appetite with your colleagues across1436the aisle to give a lifetime injunction or a lifetime ban from1437predators to have access to the victims. Again, just to1438highlight the situation here, we're not talking about mere1439accusers. These are people, like Ms. Kozak, whose perpetrator1440was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt for heinous crimes.1441What's the reason behind, I would say, this artificial1442compassion?1443    Senator Valladares. It's important to clarify that in the1444California version of Kayleigh's Law it is tailored to crimes1445or convictions of sexual assault on minors.1446    Mr. Knott. Right.1447    Senator Valladares. This is the only crime in the bill, and1448as I mentioned earlier, my colleagues have no appetite to offer1449permanent injunction for those victims. If you think about some1450of the cases we heard earlier where a victim is brutally raped1451at 3-5 years old, under the current law, 4-7 years later, they1452could still be a child and having to face their predator once1453again just to maintain safety. I simply cannot relate to anyone1454who doesn't agree or have compassion for someone being--1455    Mr. Knott. A three-year-old. A three-year-old. How that's1456excused with anything less than a life sentence and up to a1457death penalty, I can't sympathize with that. I can't understand1458that. It's part of a broader trend, as you well know. In1459California, as you're well aware, there was a bill that was1460blocked that would have made it heightened--there would be1461heightened penalties for efforts to purchase sex from 16-17-1462year-olds.1463    In the State of Washington, there was a bill to reduce1464penalties for sex offenders who do not register on the public1465list as required by law. In Illinois, there was an effort to1466remove buffers that convicted sex offenders must abide by as it1467relates to daycare, as it relates to playgrounds, as it relates1468to schools. Also, in Illinois, there was an effort to lower1469penalties for people who did not register on the sex offender1470list, and there was an effort to make it a misdemeanor as1471opposed to a felony.1472    Then, here in the U.S. Senate, there was an effort to block1473a bill that would have strengthened penalties for possessing1474and producing child pornography. Why is it that there are these1475efforts to reduce the disincentive of strong penalties for sex1476predators as it relates to children?1477    Senator Valladares. Unfortunately, in the California1478legislature, I feel like we have a procriminal sentiment and1479body that likes to pass these bills, contrary to the belief of1480the California people, who overwhelmingly have asked1481legislators to hold criminals accountable in a variety of ways.1482One thing I'll also point out is that that bill you talked1483about earlier that would omit 16-17-year-olds started as a bill1484that would increase penalties for buying sex with any minor,1485and that was rejected from the public safety committee.1486    Mr. Knott. Unbelievable.1487    Senator Valladares. Public outcry required them to take it1488up again.1489    Mr. Knott. Purchasing sex from a minor, that's astounding.1490That doesn't even begin to touch what Members of the Left want1491to put before children in school as young as kindergarten. It's1492just sexually explicit material. Even in my home State of North1493Carolina, they are going to the bat to defend their right to1494put this type of material in front of children.1495    Ms. Wright, I have a question for you. In regard to the1496criticism or the question about this particular law, do you1497believe that there's any issues with States' rights, federalism1498issues and so forth? Why or why not?1499    Ms. Wright. No, I don't believe that this bill infringes on1500any State rights for a few reasons:1501    First, there is language in the bill toward the end1502basically separating out this shall not impact any State laws1503on this issue, like the Kayleigh's Laws that are being1504implemented across the country.1505    Second, the way that the bill is written, it does not try1506to create a new family law system in the Federal jurisdiction.1507It is staying squarely within the sentencing parameters of 181508U.S.C.1509    Mr. Knott. Yes.1510    Ms. Wright. In fact, the contempt of court penalty1511attributed to a defendant violating the no-contact condition of1512his sentencing is 18 U.S.C. I don't believe that there's any1513federalism concerns here.1514    Mr. Knott. OK. Last, Ms. Jordan, in your experience, is1515there room for Federal programs to be involved with victim1516protection, or should it be more of a grant system? What's the1517optimum solution as you see it in your experience?1518    Ms. Jordan. Oh, absolutely. We should have Federal1519protection. However, you would be remiss if you didn't take1520advantage of the tool that you have here in Congress that1521affects State crimes, because the reality is very few sex1522crimes are prosecuted at the Federal level.1523    Mr. Knott. Right.1524    Ms. Jordan. It is almost exclusively a matter of a State1525jurisdiction. Absolutely, give those Federal crime victims1526these rights, but don't neglect our State crime victims, and1527use the tools that you have.1528    Mr. Knott. Wonderful. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1529    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back.1530    I now recognize myself for my first round of questions. I1531apologize. I got caught on the floor and couldn't get off until1532just now, again, I've read all your testimony. I want you to1533know, I've read all your testimony, and so I'm going to cover1534just a few aspects of this and try to address some of the1535issues that have arisen that have been mentioned here.1536    If you turn to the language of the bill itself and you1537looked at line six of page 2, it says,15381539        In the case of any defendant convicted of a covered defense,1540        the court shall, on motion of the government or victim, include1541        in any sentence imposed.15421543An issue has been raised as to whether that means that the1544judge is going to actually condition that, and so when the1545sentence is completed, do you have a conflict.1546    That we might want to consider putting in language1547something like this:15481549        The court shall, on motion of the government or victim, issue1550        at the time of sentence on that defendant an order prohibiting1551        contact with the victim.15521553It would be like a separate lifetime order, and that's what we1554really want. We don't want necessarily to get confused about1555that gets taken up. Then, the other is that--and then you'd1556have to correct on line 11-13, that line too.1557    Anyway, the next point would be, on the contempt of court1558issue, because it does stay, as Ms. Wright says, that keeps it1559in 18 U.S.C.1560    I'm going to ask, Ms. Jordan, can you tell me what that is1561in your mind, what that process--I know what I think the1562process would look like. I want to hear what you think the1563process would look like.1564    Ms. Jordan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question. I1565think the difficulty, and my concern about this is, if you have1566a separate order, a protective order that either is part of the1567family law or part of, for instance, we have a peace order as1568part of courts and judicial proceedings, the law officer on the1569street who encounters an offender outside the home of a crime1570victim has the immediate ability to arrest that person.1571    That is not the case for contempt of court. Contempt of1572court would require that the officer file a petition, that it1573would go to court, that the judge review it. It's much more1574similar to a violation of probation. My suggestion would be1575that this body look at something that fits into the existing1576framework of law enforcement who can quickly and immediately1577respond when a victim is being threatened by an offender.1578    Mr. Biggs. Thank you for that, and I agree. There's some1579other nuances that we might consider, but that's beyond the1580scope of this hearing. We definitely want that person who's1581violating the order of protection to be immediately removed and1582detained and--in other words, arrested. We want them arrested1583and taken out.1584    Mr. Knott. Will the Chair yield?1585    Mr. Biggs. Yes.1586    Mr. Knott. I have a logistics question in that same vein1587for Ms. Wright. It says, in general,15881589        In the case of any defendant convicted of a covered defense,1590        the court shall, on motion of the government or a victim,1591        include in any sentence imposed on that defendant an order1592        prohibiting contact with a victim.15931594Do you think we need to splice that out to make sure that the1595order lasts longer than the sentence imposed?1596    Ms. Wright. Yes, because--1597    Mr. Knott. How would you recommend--because logistically--1598    Mr. Biggs. Did you not just listen to my excellent,1599eruditious language that I had drafted?1600    Mr. Knott. As your juror, I need more clarification.1601    Mr. Biggs. OK.1602    Mr. Knott. How would you recommend we amend that, if we do1603so or choose to do so, to make it crystal clear?1604    Ms. Wright. Well, Chair Biggs had an excellent suggestion,1605if I may.1606    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.1607    Ms. Wright. No, I think just some clarity in the language.1608For instance, truly, like Chair Biggs mentioned, striking the1609language ``include in any sentence,'' and instead say, ``issue1610at the time of sentence.'' Then, also, I'm not a legislative1611drafter, but that saying that the covered offense does not1612preclude the term of--the covered offense sentence does not1613preclude the order being longer than that.1614    Mr. Knott. Yes.1615    Ms. Wright. I just think clarity in writing really--1616    Mr. Knott. Because you do need to--we need to separate the1617order from the sentence imposed.1618    Ms. Wright. Yes. Which, the way I read this, it is; but I1619could see how an OK defense attorney would disagree.1620    Mr. Knott. OK. All right. Thank you. I yield back.1621    Mr. Biggs. Thanks. I like the secondary sentence there,1622clause there, because then you have the belt-and-suspenders1623approach to it, right?1624    Mr. Knott. Right.1625    Mr. Biggs. Let's see here. Just to remind people, in1626Arizona, if you violate the order of protection, it's a class1627one misdemeanor, which means you can be sentenced up to six1628months in jail, three years' probation. It's unsupervised1629probation, which is a problem, but--and then a fine of, I want1630to say, it's $2,500-$3,500. Is that right, Ms. Kozak?1631    Ms. Kozak. Yes.1632    Mr. Biggs. OK. We might want to look at that because of its1633vis-a-vis civil contempt. You're really looking at a reason to1634have an arrest and removal and turning it into a crime might do1635that, so we ought to look at that too.1636    Then, I want to remind everybody what we're talking about1637here in this. I went down and I listed every one of these1638offenses that are covered--that are considered covered offenses1639under the law, and they're all in Title 18, but I will just go1640through them: Sex trafficking, aggravated sex abuse, sex abuse,1641sex abuse of a minor--and then I can't read the rest of my1642writing--oh, no, ward or person in custody, so any of that;1643abusive sex contact in prison; an offense resulting in death1644while committing any of those offenses that I just iterated;1645sexual exploitation of minors; selling or buying children; CSAM1646or implementing CSAM in interstate commerce; other civil1647forfeitures related to these; civil remedies for child1648exploitation; and CSAM importing to the United States or1649transporting across State lines for illegal sex or1650prostitution, or of minor children, or of internet material1651under the age 16 soliciting sex or child porn, moving that1652across.1653    We've tried to cover Representative Hamadeh tried to cover1654as much of the code as he possibly can. It's very good. We1655might want just make a few of those amendments so we can nail1656that down.1657    Then, I want to bring up just a couple things. I want to1658give you the crime victims fund--victims of crimes fund, I'm1659going to put this into the record, but just to give you an1660idea. In 2017, because of a court settlement, it was over $131661billion, and then in 2018, it was $9 billion, and these are all1662Trump years. In Trump in 2019, $6.4 billion, then $4.4 billion.1663Then, under President Biden it went to $3.1 billion, $2.6--1664excuse me, $1.5 billion, $1 billion, and $2 billion. Then, in1665last two years, under this President, more than $3.5 billion1666per year. You see that it just kind of flows all over, and it1667doesn't matter.1668    The other issue that was raised in an opening statement1669that was given was that--regarding a number of cases that are1670dismissed or declined for prosecution in D.C. Under the Biden1671Administration, they declined more than 50 percent--56 percent1672of all cases were declined for prosecution in D.C. I just raise1673that because I don't want this to be a partisan issue. I think1674this is something that we should all agree on, and this is1675something that we all need to take steps on and move forward1676on.1677    Your testimony here today was very important, and I1678appreciate all of you being here, and I thank you. Thanks for1679excusing me for a little bit during this hearing, and God bless1680all of you for having the courage to come on this very1681important issue.1682    Specifically, yes, we want to thank Kayleigh for coming1683forward as a victim, to have the courage to come here, and not1684just be here but all over the country trying to fix something1685that is really disgusting. I share Mr. Knott's frustration.1686    We are adjourned. Thank you.1687    [Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]16881689    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the1690Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance can1691be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent1692.aspx?EventID=119240.16931694                                 [all]