[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMBATING MODERN SLAVERY:
REAUTHORIZATION OF
ANTI-TRAFFICKING PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 31, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-640 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 31, 2007
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 2
WITNESSES
Katya, Detroit, MI
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
The Honorable Laurence E. Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Ms. Marcy M. Forman, Director, Office of Investigations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland
Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 19
Ms. Florrie Burke, Human Trafficking Consultant
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
Mr. Bradley W. Myles, National Program Director, Polaris Project
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 41
Ms. Amy Farrell, Ph.D., Associate Director, Institute on Race and
Justice, Principal Research Scientist, Northeastern University
Oral Testimony................................................. 46
Prepared Statement............................................. 49
Ms. Anastasia K. Brown, Director, Refugee Programs, Migration and
Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Bishops
Oral Testimony................................................. 60
Prepared Statement............................................. 62
Ms. Dorchen A. Leidholdt, Director, Sanctuary for Families'
Center for Battered Women's Legal Services, Founding Board
Member, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
Oral Testimony................................................. 75
Prepared Statement............................................. 77
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York.......... 29
Letter from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women........... 31
Article from The Washington Post entitled ``The Damned: Slavery
Did Not End With the Civil War. One Man's Odyssey Into a
Nation's Secret Shame,'' June 16, 1996......................... 80
Article from PRISM Magazine entitled, ``Portrait of
Exploitation,'' September-October 2007 Issue................... 106
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 123
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 125
Letter from the Honorable Laurence Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of
Justice, to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 126
COMBATING MODERN SLAVERY:
REAUTHORIZATION OF
ANTI-TRAFFICKING PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Watt,
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Johnson, Ellison, Smith, Coble,
Chabot, Keller, and King.
Staff Present: Lou DeBaca, Majority Counsel; Andrea Loving,
Minority Counsel; and Teresa Vest, Chief Clerk.
Chairman Conyers. Good afternoon. The Committee will come
to order. Welcome, everyone.
This is an incredible and an unusual kind of hearing
because of the promise of freedom of the 13th amendment, a
promise written from the suffering of all of those who have
been held in bondage. Sadly, involuntary servitude lives on in
this country long after Emancipation Day. Freedom can only be
advanced through sustained determination. The Civil Rights
Movement could only occur after the change of peonage and
exploitation had been broken in the late 1940's by the NAACP
and, as well, the FBI and the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Section all working together.
The same type of collaboration is happening today with
nonprofit groups and the Government working together to
confront trafficking for modern slavery. Here in Congress we
must work to ensure that they have the tools they need to
fulfill the living promise of the 13th amendment, and that
essentially is what this hearing is about today.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was a
groundbreaking, bipartisan effort to update our involuntary
servitude statutes and to create victim protections. I thank
for this cooperation the Ranking Member of the Judiciary, Lamar
Smith.
It is a bipartisan bill, recently introduced with both
Chairman Tom Lantos' and Congress Member Chris Smith's
reauthorizing the statute. The principal features include
immigration avenues to protect victims and their families from
retaliation and to ensure that children are protected,
assistance to U.S. citizens who fall prey to modern slavery or
who are caught up by pimps or other types of criminal social
activity, more flexibility in the ability to employ servitude
statutes and other criminal laws against sex tourism operators
and others who retaliate against escapees.
The measure does not, however, create a general Federal
antipimping statute or import the Mann Act into the trafficking
and slavery statutes, as some have advocated. It is proper to
seek compassionate responses for persons in prostitution, but
we do not need to conflate prostitution and slavery or change
settled bipartisan definitions of the TVPA and international
law to accomplish this worthy goal.
The bill is named after the British parliamentarian William
Wilberforce, who fought so hard to end the Transatlantic slave
trade 200 years ago. There is a university named in his honor.
I am proud that we are following in his footsteps to stand
against slavery and exploitation in the modern era, and I
express, again, amazement that it is so prominent and is a
subject matter of such notoriety that we need to meet this
afternoon on it.
I am now pleased to introduce Lamar Smith, the Ranking
Member of the Judiciary, for his comments.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Human trafficking is a horrendous crime that exploits the
innocent while promoting illegal immigration.
When we first created the anti-trafficking programs and
immigration benefits for trafficking victims in 2000 with the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, I tried to ensure
that these programs would not be subject to fraud and abuse and
would actually help in the prosecution and the conviction of
human traffickers. I was not the only Member of Congress with
such concerns, and we were all assured that these programs were
narrowly written to prevent abuse, but now, 7 years later, when
the time has come to reauthorize the TVPA, we see that H.R.
3887, the ``William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' is not a straight
reauthorization. Rather, it shreds the carefully negotiated and
written standards of the original bill. Supporters of H.R. 3887
claim that this bill will help law enforcement officials and
prosecutors stop human trafficking, but it sometimes does the
opposite.
For instance, the bill encourages more people to put
themselves in a position to be trafficked. Many trafficking
victims start out as willing participants and have plans to
come illegally to the United States. They either pay coyotes to
smuggle them across or they sign up for jobs in America despite
their illegal status.
H.R. 3887 makes it easier for people who knowingly and
willfully violate U.S. law to get immigration benefits for
themselves and for their families. It eliminates the
requirement that a T-visa applicant must incur, quote,
``unusual and severe harm if subject to removal.'' The bill
allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to stay the removal
of a T-visa applicant if the application, quote, ``sets forth a
prima facie case for approval.'' Such a low threshold approved
may result in many stays of removal for illegal aliens with
dubious trafficking claims.
In addition, the bill requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security, when deciding whether or not the T-visa applicant
would suffer extreme hardship if removed from the U.S., to
consider whether the applicant's country of removal can
adequately address security concerns and the mental and
physical health needs of the aliens and their families. Many
countries are unlikely to meet such standards.
The bill also hinders DHS' ability to remove illegal
immigrants who are under 18 or who simply claim to be so. In a
world with suicide bombers and gang members as young as 16 and
17 years old, this is a troubling provision. DHS will be able
to promptly return home illegal immigrants under the age of 18
from Mexico and Canada, apprehended along the border, only
after DHS has signed a special repatriation agreement with
Mexico or with Canada and has determined on a case-by-case
basis if the aliens are nontrafficking victims or if they even
have an undefined fear of being trafficked and if they meet
other requirements. In all other cases, DHS will be barred from
subjecting illegal aliens under the age of 18 to expedite a
removal or allowing them to return home voluntarily.
The unaccompanied alien minor provisions will make it
exceedingly difficult for DHS to remove any illegal immigrants
apprehended along the border, at ports of entry or in the
interior who are under 18 or who claim to be under 18, and the
bill's provisions prohibit the exclusive use of radiographs to
determine the real age of illegal immigrants claiming to be
under 18, greatly raising the prospect that illegal immigrants
will fraudulently claim to be minors in order to access all of
the benefits of the bill.
The provisions require that unaccompanied minors in the
Government's custody cannot be put in secure facilities and
that they can be outplaced with persons who are not even family
members. This could allow illegal immigrant minors to escape
DHS supervision and force DHS to release many gang members,
potential terrorists and other dangerous aliens.
The bill reverses longstanding immigration law and requires
that taxpayers pay for the lawyers and for other representation
of the illegal alien minors.
In addition, this bill creates problems for law enforcement
officials and for prosecutors. The bill adds provisions that
make it harder for a prosecutor to prove that criminals force
victims to work in sweatshops or as prostitutes. At the same
time, the bill lowers the criminal penalty for trafficking for
the purpose of forced labor from 5 years to 1 year.
If the purpose of this bill is to punish human traffickers
for enslaving victims and to dissuade others from committing
these crimes in the future, why reduce the penalties? The
statute's outlying retaliation against people who help Federal
authorities investigate trafficking cases and sex tourism also
now have lower penalties than current law. Incredibly, this
bill creates an escape clause for people who travel abroad to
have sex with children, and it allows these criminals to not
pay for their crimes if they believe the child is over 18.
Why is a bill that is meant to protect women and children
from being enslaved in our country and abroad being used to
create defenses to sex tourism? In short, H.R. 3887 makes it
harder to bring traffickers to justice, and it encourages the
violation of our immigration laws.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time, and I yield
back.
Chairman Conyers. Well, we welcome your comments and take
it that we and our staffs have a great deal of work to continue
to do on this measure as we move it through the Judiciary
Committee, and I am happy to work with the distinguished
gentleman from Texas.
We have a number of witnesses--the Director of the Office
of Investigations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ms.
Marcy Forman; Safe Horizon from New York, Florrie Burke; the
Institute on Race and Justice, Dr. Amy Farrell; the Sanctuary
for Families' Center for Battered Women's Legal Services,
Dorchen Leidholdt, Director; the Director of Refugee Programs
of the Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, Anastasia Brown; the National Program
Director of the Polaris Project, Bradley Myles; the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Policy of the
United States Department of Justice, Laurence Rothenberg--I
think I called Florrie Burke of Safe Horizon--and from Detroit,
Michigan, we have a witness whom we will call Katya.
She will be our first witness this afternoon. For her
protection, she is testifying only under that name. This brave
young woman will describe her own experience with human
trafficking and how exploiters use false hope to trap people in
modern slavery.
We welcome you to this hearing. I know you are in a room
full of people and two, four, six, seven other witnesses, and
then you are called to start it off. Please forget all of that.
I want you to be your usual, friendly, personable, direct-
speaking self, and feel comfortable among us here on the
Judiciary Committee this afternoon.
You can begin your testimony whenever you want.
TESTIMONY OF KATYA, DETROIT, MI
Katya. Thank you.
Good afternoon. I would like to thank the House Committee
on the Judiciary for the opportunity to speak on behalf of
trafficking victims. This is my story.
I did not work as a maid or on a farm. I was not made to be
a prostitute. I came from another country, but I will try to
speak for all survivors on trafficking no matter what they were
made to do or where they were from, because our desire is a
universal one, the desire for freedom. Please call me Katya. I
cannot use my real name today, and I am also in disguise
because I fear that my captors will recognize me and will place
my life and those of my family in danger.
In the fall of 2003, I was a university student in the
Ukraine. I found out about a summer program that allowed me to
come to the U.S. and study English. I was very excited. I
applied for the program and obtained a student visa. I found
out that I would be working as waitress in Virginia Beach.
In May 2004, I traveled to the U.S. I flew from Kiev to
Washington, D.C. When I landed, I was surprised to see Michael
Aronov and Alex Maksimenko, people who I knew from the Ukraine,
at the airport in Washington, D.C. They told me that I would no
longer be going to Virginia but not to worry because they had
things worked out, and I would be going to Detroit. They gave
me the bus ticket to Detroit.
When the bus arrived in Detroit, I saw Michael, Alex and
another Ukrainian man waiting for me. Once I got off the bus in
Detroit, everything changed. They took me in the hotel and took
all of my identity documents from me. They told me that they
needed them in order to get a State identification card for me.
They told me that I owed them $12,000 for travel to the U.S.
and $10,000 for identification documents and that I only had a
short time to pay them off. I quickly learned how I would have
to pay it off.
They told me I was going to have to work at a strip club
called Cheetah. They forced me to work 6 days a week for 12
hours a day. I could not refuse to go to work or I would be
beaten. I had to hand over all of my money to Michael and Alex.
I was often yelled at for not making enough money, and I had a
gun put to my face. Every week, I would hand over around $3,000
to $4,000 to Alex and Michael. I was their slave.
My captors kept me in an apartment with one of the other
girls. I was never allowed out of the apartment by myself. I
was driven to work by Michael or Alex, sometimes both, every
day except when they were on vacation. Then they hired a car
service for us. There was no phone in our apartment. Sometimes
I was forced to call home to talk to my mom and to tell her
that I was okay. Someone was always listening in on the calls
so I could not tell her the truth, but I think she could tell
by my voice that I was in trouble. I never felt safe. Between
me and the other girl, we had only one key to our apartment.
Michael and Alex also had a key. Sometimes they would just come
into our apartment, without knocking, even if we were in the
shower or were sleeping. They would also come in our apartment
when we were not there. I knew that they did this because I
found my things moved around. I think they were looking around
to make sure we did not keep any money.
The girl I lived with and I were trying to keep some money
to escape. Our captors would give us money at the store, and we
would have to give them any leftover money back. To try to keep
some money for our escape, we would slide money into candy
boxes. Once we got back to our place, we would hide the money
in a hole outside of our apartment.
My enslavement finally ended when I escaped with the girl
that I lived with. I was terrified that Alex and Michael were
going to catch us. When we escaped from our apartment, we put
the stuff we wanted to take with us in garbage bags in case
Alex and Michael showed up. Then we could just act like we were
taking out the trash. We escaped with the help of someone who
believed us. The other girl was confident in a man who came to
the strip club regularly and who she felt she could trust. When
he found out what happened, he agreed to help us. We were
scared, but we went with him to ICE because they were supposed
to help escapees. It was intimidating, but we told our story.
The agents not only believed us and helped us, but they went
that night and rescued two other women who had also been
enslaved. They arrested Alex and Michael before they could run
away or hide any evidence. Once they were arrested, I felt safe
for the first time.
Since I have escaped, I have been learning English on my
own and have been working full time. I really want to go back
to school and finish my degree in sports medicine, but the
money for college is an issue.
I am lucky. I escaped and survived being a victim of human
trafficking. Many other victims right now--they need help.
Traffickers should not be able to exploit the student visa
process. I was aware of human trafficking. I knew about it. I
checked the program out and talked to people who had used the
same company and who came back safely. Still, I was a victim.
Businesses in the U.S. should not be able to make money off
of slaves simply because they have someone else bringing them
in to work. Not only did Alex and Michael make a lot of money
by exploiting me, but so did the strip club.
Finally, when I left the Ukraine in May of 2004 and I said
goodbye to my mother, I expected to see her again in a few
months. Life in the U.S. is hard without my mom being next to
me. I never wanted to be here this long, but it is not safe for
me to return to the Ukraine. I miss my mom, and I worry about
her safety since Alex's dad, Veniamin, is still in the Ukraine.
If the trafficking law had allowed for my mom to come and live
with me in the USA, it would have helped me and would have
protected her.
Please help future victims like me. Do not let this happen
to anyone else.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Katya follows:]
Prepared Statement of Katya
Good afternoon. I would like to thank the House Committee on the
Judiciary for the opportunity to speak on behalf of trafficking
victims. This is my story. I did not work as a maid, or on a farm. I
was not made to be a prostitute. I came from another country. But I
will try to speak for all survivors of trafficking, no matter what they
were made to do or where they are from. Because our desire is a
universal one--the desire for freedom.
Please call me Katya. I cannot use my real name today and I am also
in disguise because I fear that my captors will recognize me and place
my life and that of my family in danger.
In Fall 2003 I was a university student in Ukraine. I found out
about a summer program that would allow me to work in the United States
and study English. I was very excited. I applied for the program and
obtained a student visa. I found out that I would be working as a
waitress in Virginia Beach.
In May 2004 I traveled to the United States. I flew from Kiev to
Washington D.C. When I landed, I was surprised to see Michael Aronov
and Alex Maksimenko, people I knew from Ukraine, at the airport in
Washington D.C. They told me that I would no longer be going to
Virginia but not to worry because they had worked things out and I
would be going to Detroit. They gave me a bus ticket to Detroit.
When the bus arrived in Detroit I saw Michael, Alex, and another
Ukranian man that I knew, Veniamin Gonikman waiting for me. Once I got
off the bus in Detroit, everything changed. They took me to a hotel and
took all of my identity documents from me. They told me that they
needed them in order to get a state identification card for me. They
told me that I owed them $12,000 for travel to the United States and
$10,000 for the identification document, and that I only had a short
time to pay them off.
I quickly leaned how I would have to pay it off. They told me I was
going to have to work at a strip club called Cheetah's. They forced me
to work six days a week for twelve hours a day. I could not refuse to
go to work or I would be beaten. I had to hand over all of my money to
Michael and Alex. I was often yelled at for not making enough money or
had a gun put to my face. Every week I handed over around $3000-$4000
to Alex and Michael. I was their slave.
My captors kept me in an apartment with one of the other girls. I
was never allowed out of the apartment by myself. I was driven to work
by Michael or Alex (sometimes both) every day, except when they were on
vacation. Then, they hired a car service for us. There was no phone in
our apartment. Sometimes I was forced to call home to talk to my mom
and tell her I was okay. Someone was always listening in on the calls
so I could not tell her the truth, but I think she could tell by my
voice that I was in trouble.
I never felt safe, between the other girl and I we only had one key
to our apartment. Michael and Alex also had keys. Sometimes they would
just come into our apartment without knocking, even if we were in the
shower or sleeping. They would also come into our apartment when we
weren't there. I know that they did this, because I found my things
moved around. I think they were looking around to make sure we hadn't
been keeping any of the money. The girl I lived with and I were trying
to keep some money to escape. Our captors would give us money at the
store and we would have to give them any leftover money. To try to keep
some money for our escape we would slide some money into candy boxes.
Once we got back to our place we hid the money in a hole outside in
front of the apartment.
My enslavement finally ended when I escaped with the girl that I
lived with. I was terrified that Alex and Michael were going to catch
us. When we escaped from our apartment we put the stuff we wanted to
take with us in garbage bags in case Alex or Michael showed up, that
way we could just act like we were taking out the trash.
We escaped with the help from someone who believed us. The other
girl confided in a man who came to the strip club regularly and who she
felt she could trust. When he found out what happened, he agreed to
help us. We were scared but went with him to ICE because they were
supposed to help escapees. It was intimidating, but we told our story.
The agents not only believed us and helped us, but they went that night
and rescued two other women that had also been enslaved. They arrested
Alex and Michael before they could run away or hide the evidence. Once
they were arrested, I felt safe for the first time.
Since I escaped I have been learning English on my own and working
full time. I really want to go back to school and finish my degree in
sport medicine, but the money for college is an issue.
I am lucky, I escaped and survived being a victim of human
trafficking. Many others are victims right now, they need help.
Traffickers should not be able to exploit the student visa process. I
was aware of human trafficking, I knew about it. I checked the program
out and talked to people who had used the same company and come back
safely. Still I was victim.
Businesses in the United States should not be able to make money
off of slaves simply because they have someone else bring them into
work. Not only did Alex and Michael make a lot of money by exploiting
me, so did the strip club.
Finally, when I left Ukraine in May of 2004 and I said good-bye to
my mother, I expected to see her again in a few months. Life in the
United States is hard without my mother being with me. I never wanted
to be here this long, but it is not safe for me to return to Ukraine. I
miss my mom, and I worry about her safety since Alex's dad, Veniamin,
is still in Ukraine. If the trafficking law had allowed for my mother
to come and live with me in the United States it would have helped me
and protected her.
Please help future victims like me, do not let this happen to
anyone else. Thank you.
Chairman Conyers. You are a very brave person, Katya. We
thank you for coming here to tell your story. We want you to
know you have a lot of people who are working to end the
circumstances that you have reported to us here today.
I would like now to call on the Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy,
Laurence Rothenberg. Among his responsibilities are helping to
develop the Department's legal policy regarding child
exploitation, obscenity, violence against women, and
trafficking in persons, among other issues.
We welcome you to the Committee today, sir.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LAURENCE E. ROTHENBERG, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rothenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith.
Thank you for the opportunity to present an overview of efforts
to combat human trafficking by the Department of Justice.
The Department has undertaken a comprehensive, robust and
aggressive strategy to fight this terrible crime that includes
the infiltration of the dark places of the underground economy
in this country, the rescue of victims and the prosecution of
perpetrators. In addition, our work includes comprehensive
training, the design of proactive investigative methodologies,
the coordination with multidisciplinary task forces in 42 U.S.
cities, the development of partnerships with nongovernmental
organizations and with our sister agencies, including
participation in the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center and
the Senior Policy Operating Group, the funding of research to
better help us understand the nature and the scope of the
problem of human trafficking, and the awarding of grants to
victim services organizations, all under the concept we call a
``victim-centered approach.'' The reward of this effort is the
knowledge that our efforts support the foundational values of
our Nation--the liberty promised by the 13th amendment to our
Constitution.
It is an honor to appear before this Committee to talk
about the Department's anti-trafficking efforts as you consider
H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007. At the center of our
efforts to fight trafficking is the TVPA of 2000. Reauthorizing
the TVPA is, therefore, vital to the Department's continued
success in fighting this crime.
Using the tools provided to the Department under that
legislation and its subsequent reauthorizations, the
Department's multifaceted approach to combating human
trafficking has yielded significant results.
Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, the Department's Civil
Rights Division increased by 600 percent the number of human
trafficking cases filed as compared to the same immediately
preceding time period. The Civil Rights Division has increased
by 10 percent the number of human trafficking investigations
opened in fiscal year 2007 from the preceding year, an all-time
high. For the fourth year in a row, the Division and the U.S.
Attorney's Offices around the country have convicted a record-
high number of human trafficking defendants. In addition, in
fiscal year 2007, the Innocence Lost National Initiative, led
by the FBI and the Department's Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section, has led to 125 investigations, 300 arrests,
55 indictments, 106 convictions, and most importantly, 181
children rescued from prostitution.
The 42 human trafficking task forces, funded by our Bureau
of Justice Assistance, have identified 1,500 potential victims
of human trafficking since the beginning of the program through
the last fiscal year. In addition, the Office of Victims of
Crime funds services agencies that work collaboratively with
those human trafficking task forces. In addition to providing
services to over 1,900 victims prior to their official
certification as victims, we have also trained more than 65,000
victim services practitioners to identify victims and to
provide them those services.
Finally, we engage in quite a bit of outreach. For example,
in the last year, attorneys in the Civil Rights Division spoke
more than 130 times at public events or training sessions. We
also engage in research. We are funding research at
Northeastern University to design and to implement a national
human trafficking reporting system. In the last fiscal year,
the National Institute of Justice funded three new research
projects to assist in the understanding of the phenomenon, its
perpetrators and its effect on victims.
As I noted above, the Department strongly supports
reauthorizing the TVPA. We commend the Committee for its
leadership on this important issue. With your support, we can
continue to build our human trafficking program to identify and
to prosecute human trafficking crimes and to restore the
victims of this terrible crime.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Laurence E. Rothenberg
Chairman Conyers. Thank you very much.
The Director of the Office of Investigations at the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is Marcy Forman. Her office
not only has conducted successful investigations in the United
States and abroad but has also been a leader in seeking to
incorporate victim witness protections into the Federal law
enforcement response to trafficking.
We welcome you to the proceedings, and we understand that
you have a short promotion that you would like to play at this
time.
Ms. Forman. Yes.
Chairman Conyers. Please. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF MARCY M. FORMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Forman. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and
Members of the Committee.
I have a public service announcement that I would like you
all to view that was put together by ICE.
[Film shown.]
Ms. Forman. Thank you. Let me take you back to the early
hours of a June morning of 2004. On that morning, ICE agents
executed search warrants at three seemingly middle-class
bungalows in suburban New York. What they found was one of the
most horrific cases of human trafficking and slavery in recent
U.S. history.
Inside those homes were 69 Peruvians, including 13
children, being held in filthy, overcrowded and unsanitary
conditions, who were forced to work in janitorial and factory
operations. These people were brought to the United States by a
couple who identified their victims in Peru and who had
provided them false documents and who had helped them enter the
United States.
Fortunately, the victims in this case were rescued, and the
lead defendant was sentenced to 15 years in a Federal prison.
After the enforcement action, ICE worked in concert with the
Department of Health and Human Services and NGOs. I am pleased
to say Florrie Burke from Safe Horizons, who is sitting with
me, was the referer in this case and identified an additional
25 other human trafficking victims.
It is my privilege to appear before you today to discuss
ICE's comprehensive efforts against human traffickers who
exploit women, children and men, a form of modern day slavery.
ICE integrates Immigration and Customs authorities to
investigate criminal organizations on multiple fronts, and in
doing so, it is able to identify, disrupt and dismantle
organizations. The most critical piece of legislation
supporting our efforts in fighting human trafficking is the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the tenets of
prevention, protection and prosecution.
Let me take this opportunity to highlight ICE's
investigative efforts and successes in combating human
trafficking. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, ICE initiated 652
human trafficking investigations, an increase of over 21
percent from the previous 2 years. During the same period, ICE
investigative efforts have resulted in 341 arrests, 230
indictments and 190 convictions related to human trafficking.
Examples of the successes include:
Several weeks ago, the ICE office in Newark rescued 21 West
African victims of labor trafficking--14 women and 7 juveniles.
The youngest was 12 years old. Based on information provided by
one of the victims, ICE was able to identify and to rescue
additional victims in three separate locations, resulting in 22
victims who were identified and rescued in this case. Three
traffickers were arrested and jailed.
In a Special Agent in Charge New York case, based on a
referral from our ICE office in Mexico City, ICE was able to
locate and to rescue several victims involved in sex
trafficking. This investigation resulted in the sentencing of
each of the two primary defendants to 50 years incarceration
each, which is the longest sentence since the enactment of the
TVPA.
Trafficking is big business for organized criminal
syndicates as well as for informal networks and for individuals
who seek to gain profit from the exploitation of others. ICE
makes every effort to not only find and rescue victims but to
target and cripple the financial motivations and infrastructure
that allow human trafficking organizations to thrive.
Given the international scope of human trafficking, ICE has
an established global reach that has allowed us to foster
strong international relationships through over 50 offices
overseas, located in 39 countries. Our investigations begin in
the source countries where trafficking begins, it continues
into transit countries, and it concludes at the destination
countries.
Human trafficking cases require law enforcement agencies to
be victim-oriented. ICE has trained and deployed over 300
victim witness coordinators. The testimony of a victim is
critical to the success of a prosecution. Victims are our best
evidence of the crime. Yet, a victim should not and cannot be
treated simply as a piece of evidence. We in law enforcement
have a responsibility to treat victims fairly, with compassion
and with attention to their needs.
ICE, in conjunction with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, are the sole agencies charged with providing short-
term immigration relief, also known as ``continued presence.''
It allows certified victims of trafficking to remain in the
United States. In each of the cases cited, we granted the
victims continued presence, which is part of our victim-
centered approach.
Under an ICE initiative titled ICE TIPS, ICE offices
conduct outreach to law enforcement agencies and NGOs to expand
the awareness of trafficking cases. ICE domestic field offices
and ICE attache offices located overseas have provided training
to over 9,000 staff from 323 NGOs and over 7,000 foreign law
enforcement personnel from 867 agencies worldwide. ICE has
established a toll-free tip line for reporting human
trafficking leads as well as developed outreach materials for
law enforcement and NGOs. These materials include, to my right,
the training video and laminated, wallet-sized cards with human
trafficking indicators that are available in five different
languages.
ICE is committed to dedicating the resources necessary to
make human trafficking a crime of the past.
Thank you for inviting me, and I will be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Forman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcy M. Forman
Chairman Conyers. Thank you very much.
We will make those displays, without objection, a part of
our record.
Psychologist Florrie Burke has recently stepped down as the
head of the anti-trafficking programs at the social services
provider Safe Horizon in New York City. She now consults with
governments and with nonprofit organizations on best practices
for victim service provisions and assists with the litigation
of criminal and civil cases across the country.
We are pleased to have you with us today.
TESTIMONY OF FLORRIE BURKE,
HUMAN TRAFFICKING CONSULTANT
Ms. Burke. Thank you.
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished
Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Florrie Burke,
and I am a consultant from New York City where, until recently,
I was the Senior Director of International Programs at Safe
Horizon, the largest crime victim agency in the country. It is
my great privilege to testify before this Committee on behalf
of the survivors of trafficking who have told me of their
ordeals, their fears and, finally, their freedom.
This reauthorization act of 2007 builds on the foundation
of the TVPA 2000 in ways that are in keeping with the victim-
centered approach to the law. In the brief time I have today, I
would like to summarize some points that arise from my
experience of working directly with hundreds of victims of
trafficking and modern day slavery over the past 10 years,
beginning with the deaf Mexican peddling case of 1997 and
including individuals enslaved as nurses, ship welders, bar
girls, farm workers, prostituted women, massage parlor workers,
hotel maids, dancers, factory workers, and domestic workers,
among others.
What these individuals share in common is that, instead of
the legitimate work and fair treatment promised them, they were
deceived and devalued by the schemes of traffickers. Human
rights abuses were perpetrated upon them in our country by
people whose greed has allowed them to turn human beings into
commodities.
One: ensuring assistance for all victims of trafficking in
persons. Until this reauthorization bill of 2007, the needs of
U.S. citizens, especially youth who have been sexually
exploited, has not received adequate attention. This bill
highlights both the focus needed on the trafficking of U.S.
citizens and the concerted effort needed to address trafficked
children. However, this is not the time to turn away from
foreign-born victims of trafficking and focus only on U.S.
citizens. This is not an either/or situation. Both are equally
important and deserving of our attention.
Without substantive research, it is impossible to say with
certainty if there is in fact a disparity in the types, quality
and number of service programs available for either group. This
necessary research, the study outlined in section 214, should
examine the funding of programs, the utilization of the funds
and the efficacy, and it should look at different types of
programs. Taking away funding from one group of victims to
support programs for another group is not a solution. There
already exists programs that have the expertise in working with
exploited youth and U.S. citizens and others with expertise in
working with foreign victims of slavery of all types. These
groups need to come together, look at best practices and need
to strategize ways of working that will help meet the goal of
identifying and helping more victims.
Two: the important immigration provisions detailed in the
section ensuring availability of possible witnesses and
informants must remain if we are to increase the rate of
prosecutions and put a stop to this crime. Threats against a
family are often the strongest deterrent to cooperation on the
part of a witness. Allowing a family in danger of retaliation
to join the victim will enable the victim witness to
participate without fear and distraction.
We can never forget the bravery of the survivors of the
brutal sex trafficking case, U.S. v. Carreto. There,
traffickers never expected them to testify. Their children were
being held hostage, but these women had worked long and hard
with a dedicated team of law enforcement, prosecutors and
service providers, and they were determined to seek justice for
themselves and for other women in similar situations. These
traffickers received sentences of 50 years.
Assisting those victims who are not able to participate in
a law enforcement interview due to the level of their trauma is
both necessary and humane. We do not want any more victims to
be hospitalized for attempts at self-harm and escalated mental
health problems due to having to recount brutal details of the
case to law enforcement before the victims are emotionally able
to do so.
We urge you to keep all immigration provisions in this bill
as they were clearly designed to ensure that survivors can more
easily access protections and can assist in investigating and
in prosecuting their traffickers.
Three, information for work-based nonimmigrants on legal
rights and resources and the provisions regarding the
registration of foreign recruiters are effective mechanisms to
combat labor trafficking. The current abuse is often seen in
guest worker programs.
During an interview just last week, an H-2A guest worker
told me, ``It was more than fear. It was ignorance of the U.S.
We did not know how to make a phone call; did not know anyone
here; did not know where to get help. We did not know the laws.
We did not even know exactly where we were. We had no access to
the world.''
The development of information is a major step in ensuring
that workers will be protected, not exploited. If the welders
in Oklahoma from the John Pickle case had been given this
information and if the sheepherders in Idaho and the
agricultural workers in south Florida had been provided with
this help, employers would be held accountable, and workers
would do the work they had been promised with the results they
expected.
I support, in large part, the Wilberforce Reauthorization
Act of 2007, and I urge this Committee and your Congressional
colleagues to keep the victim as the focus. This bill should
reflect every victim every time. We cannot and we must not stop
now in our efforts. We must use our past work as a foundation
to continue, but to do better, to evaluate and to strategize
and to put our considerable knowledge and expertise into
working to free every man, every woman, every child, U.S.
citizen and immigrant victim of slavery alike.
Thank you for your attention and for the invitation to
appear here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Florrie Burke
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Distinguished Members of
the Judiciary Committee. My name is Florrie Burke and I am a Human
Trafficking Consultant from New York City. Until recently, I was the
Senior Director of International Programs at Safe Horizon, the largest
victim service agency in the country where I oversaw the Anti-
Trafficking Program, the Survivors of Torture Program, and the 9/11
Community Trauma Response. Among other current projects, I am
consulting to New York State agencies responsible for implementing
services mandated by the new state law. I also consult to a number of
Anti-Trafficking programs nationally and internationally and serve as
an expert on various cases. It is my great privilege to testify before
this committee on behalf of the hundreds of survivors of trafficking
who have told me of their ordeals, their fears and finally, their
freedom. I hope to also give voice to those victims who have not yet
been discovered, identified or liberated.
Let me begin by congratulating Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lantos and co-
sponsors of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2007. This act reflects the broad understanding,
compassion and intelligence necessary to fight this crime. The Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 and the
Reauthorization Acts of 2003 and 2005 have greatly impacted the lives
of many who were led to believe that legitimate work, education, and a
chance to earn a decent wage were available to them. Instead, they were
deceived and devalued by the schemes of traffickers. Because of our
laws and your hard work and diligence, life is better now for these
survivors. Consider Ivana who answered an ad in her local paper in
Eastern Europe. She was working as a teacher, but not earning enough to
support herself and her aging, sick parents. The ad described a job in
the U.S. as a hostess in a restaurant. Instead, Ivana was forced into a
nightmare of prostitution with multiple rapes a daily occurrence. A
customer rescued her and brought her to a service provider. After a
lengthy process, but while receiving the necessary supports and
assistance, Ivana's traffickers are in jail; she is now employed as a
paralegal and has her sights set on a career as an attorney.
While acknowledging the advances of the field, the important
provisions of the law and the Reauthorizations in 2003 and 2005, there
are still many fewer victims being discovered than we had thought.
There are surprisingly small numbers of children being identified as
victims of trafficking despite the lurid headlines and stories in the
media. The very law enforcement entities that might identify these
cases need greater understanding of the issues.
My introduction to Modern Day Slavery was the Deaf Mexican case of
1997, involving 60 people held in a peddling ring. (U.S. v. Paoletti)
After several years of working on that case, the multiple issues of
trafficking were apparent: recruitment, transportation, abuse,
violence, psychological coercion, fraud, deception, immigration issues,
document withholding, wage and hour elements and much more. This case
provided an opportunity to use existing social services and enhance
them by developing and adding innovative programs to address the
specific needs of those who had been enslaved. We did not start from
scratch--we used expertise available to us and built on it. In Section
214, Ensuring Assistance For All Victims Of Trafficking In Persons, the
bill references the need to develop, expand and strengthen victim
service programs. Because human trafficking is a hidden crime, it has
taken years to develop a coordinated response and to create the
infrastructure that can deal with it. Government and non-government
agencies have proven that they can work together to address victim
needs and the punishment of traffickers. This is not the time to
dismantle existing programs by switching focus to a different
population group. It is vitally important that U.S. citizens receive
the attention they so deserve. It is also critical that the concerted
effort to address the needs of trafficked children as outlined in this
bill be recognized and carried forth. Until this Reauthorization bill
of 2007, the needs of U.S. citizens, especially youth that have been
sexually exploited, have not received adequate attention. However, it
is not necessary to reinvent the wheel in order to serve these victims
of this egregious form of slavery. There already exist programs that
have expertise in working with exploited youth and programs that have
expertise in working with foreign victims of human trafficking of all
types. These groups need to come together in partnership with
leadership from government agencies and then look at best practices and
strategize ways of working that will help meet the goal of identifying
more victims.
Unfortunately, a divide exists between assistance for immigrant
victims of trafficking and citizen victims of trafficking. Without
substantive research into this, it is impossible to say with certainty
if there is, in fact, a disparity in the types, quality and number of
service programs available for either group. This necessary research,
the Study outlined in Section 214, should examine the funding of
programs, the utilization of funds, the efficacy of programs and should
also look at different types of programs. Taking away funding from one
group of victims to support programs for another group of victims is
not a solution. It is incumbent upon us to figure out better ways of
utilizing resources. Certain funding restrictions appear to be
antithetical to the goal of finding exploited youth and prosecuting
their traffickers. To do that, partnerships must be created with those
programs that know how to reach exploited youth through street
outreach, education, counseling, peer support and other evidence based
practice. Without these partnerships, victim service agencies and
others will have difficulty reaching a group of youngsters who are
afraid, dependent on traffickers and distrustful of law enforcement and
providers. This is not the time to turn away from foreign born victims
of trafficking and focus only on U.S. citizens. This is not an either-
or situation. Both are equally important and deserving of full
attention. These crimes are occurring in our country; the human rights
abuses cannot be overlooked.
It is critical for the esteemed members of this committee and your
Congressional colleagues to recognize the remarkable work of the DOJ
prosecutors, OVC, ICE, FBI, DOL, HHS and countless NGO providers in
addressing modern day slavery. We all want to stop the scourge of human
beings being used as commodities and as pathways to feed the greed of
their traffickers. We can not and must not stop now in our efforts; we
must use this work as a foundation to continue, to do better, to
evaluate and strategize and put our considerable knowledge and
expertise into working to free every US citizen and immigrant victim of
slavery.
In my work with survivors of Human Trafficking, I have interviewed
individuals enslaved as nurses, ship welders, bargirls, prostituted
women, peddlers, massage parlor workers, hotel maids, dancers, migrant
farm workers, factory workers, and domestic workers, among others.
These people put themselves and their families at great risk when they
agree to cooperate, tell their stories and assist in the prosecution.
We can never forget the bravery of the survivors of the sex trafficking
case, U.S. v. Carreto. Their traffickers never expected them to
testify, their children were being held hostage, but these women had
worked long and hard with a dedicated team of law enforcement,
prosecutors and service providers and were determined to seek justice
for themselves and for other women in similar situations. These
traffickers received sentences of 50 years.
The important immigration provisions of the Reauthorization bill of
2007, Subtitle A-Ensuring Availability of Possible Witnesses and
Informants must remain if we are to increase the rate of prosecutions
and put a stop to the crime. One example of the import of these
provisions concerns the threats made by traffickers against the
victim's family, Section 205. We know these to be very real threats and
often the strongest deterrent to cooperation on the part of a witness.
Allowing parents and siblings who are in danger of retaliation because
of the victim's cooperation with law enforcement to join the victim
will greatly help in the prosecution, as the victims will not have to
be constantly afraid and distracted from their roles as a witnesses.
Section 201 will assist those victims who are not able to participate
in a Law Enforcement interview due to their trauma apply for
immigration relief regardless, based on the elements of their
trafficking situation. This is both necessary and humane. Section 206
asks that the regulations regarding adjustment of status to permanent
residence for T visa holders be issued according to the TVPRA 2005. We
urge the release of these regulations as many survivors of trafficking
have had T visas for more than the three year requirement and have
complied and cooperated with all government entities. We urge you to
keep all immigration provisions in this bill as they are clearly
designed to ensure that survivors of trafficking can more easily access
protections and assist in investigating and prosecuting their
traffickers.
As an expert witness in several cases of workers brought to the
U.S. on employment based non-immigrant visas, and through extensive
interviews with the workers, I have learned of the exploitation and
abuse suffered at the hands of their employers. These workers were
isolated, enslaved and uninformed as to their rights in this country.
In the case of ship welders in Oklahoma, (EEOC v. John Pickle Co.) the
men from India were highly trained engineers, machinists and welders
possessing advanced certification of their skills. They were locked in
a factory, forced to live on the premises in crowded, squalid
conditions, had little time off, had their documents taken and were
paid well below the minimum wage. Their movements were monitored, their
e-mails and phone conversations read and listened to and they were
constantly threatened with deportation, abuse by the local law
enforcement and retaliation against their families. These intelligent,
hard working individuals had been given no information about labor laws
in this country, about their rights, about workers compensation
programs, etc. It is my opinion that Section 202, Information for Work-
Based Non-Immigrants on Legal Rights and Resources, in the
Reauthorization bill is a vastly needed prevention of the abuses that
are often present in the current Guest Worker programs. During an
interview just last week, a guest worker told me, ``It was more than
fear, it was ignorance of the U.S., We didn't know how to make a phone
call, didn't know anyone here, didn't know where to get help and we did
not know the law. We didn't even know exactly where we were.''
The development of a pamphlet that outlines workers rights,
resources, laws and access to help is a major step in ensuring that the
workers in this employment program will be protected, not exploited.
(Sections 110, 202) If the welders in Oklahoma had been given this
information, if the sheepherders out west had been provided with this
help, employers would be held accountable, injuries and death might
have been prevented, and workers would do the work they had been
promised with the results they expected. Additionally, the sections of
the reauthorization outlining requirements for foreign labor
contractors are a positive and necessary step in this process of
curtailing trafficking and slavery. In all cases of exploitation of
workers here on work-based non immigrant visas with which I am
familiar, the recruiters/contractors have not provided accurate
information about the work conditions of the specific job awaiting
these workers in the U.S. This reauthorization clearly spells out what
information needs to be provided, as well as the certification of
recruiters/contractors and the various enforcement processes for
Department of Labor. The information to be conveyed consists of exactly
what any individual in this country is entitled to by law when entering
into an employment agreement.
In summary, I support the William Wilberforce Reauthorization of
2007 and urge this committee to carefully consider the TVPA of 2000
that established a victim centered approach. In the words of the Office
for Victims of Crime at Department of Justice, this should reflect
every victim, every time. This law was created to assist both foreign
born and U.S. citizens, men, women and children and the reauthorization
2007 needs to reflect that.
Thank you for your attention and the invitation to appear here
today.
Chairman Conyers. Thank you, Psychologist Florrie Burke.
The Chair notices that there are two votes pending. We will
try to take one more witness' testimony, that of Mr. Bradley
Myles.
The Chair notices the presence of Ms. Carolyn Maloney of
New York, who is very interested in this subject matter. We
welcome her to this hearing and include, without objection, her
statement and a letter from the Coalition against Trafficking
in Women.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Maloney follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney,
a Representative in Congress from the State of New York
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, members of the committee, I
want to thank you for allowing me to submit a statement about the issue
of human trafficking.
Human trafficking is at least a $10 billion dollar worldwide
industry and one of the largest organized crime rings in history.
According to the State Department, approximately 800,000 people are
trafficked across international borders for labor slavery and
commercial sex purposes each year; the number is in the millions when
trafficking within borders is counted. However, trafficking is not just
a problem in other countries, it is happening in the United States in
communities across the country. It represents what many have called the
slavery issue of our time, and because girls and women are its
overwhelming victims, it is one of the great women's issues of our
time.
The lives of trafficking victims are pure horror--many are tricked
into the country, fooled into believing that they'll be doing
legitimate jobs. They arrive, many with limited English skills, or are
picked up as runaways at U.S. bus stations, and have everything taken
from them--their documents are held by the trafficker, if they have
any. They see very little of the money they earn. They are cut off from
the outside world, have no freedom of movement and no friends or
relatives to help them.
I became involved in the fight to end human trafficking several
years ago when I learned that a company, Big Apple Oriental Tours, was
promoting sex tourism in my district in Queens. Since then, I have
worked with my colleagues in Congress to pass several important pieces
of legislation to fight this horrible problem. The 2005 Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) included an important
bill, the ``End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act,'' that I worked on with
Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH) to address the problems of domestic
trafficking. I also have reintroduced legislation, H.R. 3424, that
would combat human trafficking by using the tax code to put traffickers
in prison.
Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted out important
legislation, H.R. 3887, the ``William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' which would help combat
trafficking both domestically and internationally. I am a cosponsor of
this legislation, and I believe that it is a good starting point. At
the same time, I believe it critical that additional changes should be
made to the legislation by this committee before it reaches the Floor
for a vote by the whole House.
First, I would urge a revision of the existing Mann Act statute by
substituting ``in or affecting interstate commerce'' for the existing
requirement that a trafficker must cause his victim to ``travel in
interstate commerce.'' This change, along with moving the Mann Act into
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act statute, would ensure that
traffickers would be prosecuted for their heinous crimes, and would
make it clear as we must, to ourselves and the world, that the act of
trafficking--or the act of being a pimp--is a crime. Second, I believe
that H.R. 3887 should call for the withdrawal of the current Department
of Justice Model Law with one that would make proof of fraud, force, or
coercion, or the minor status of trafficked persons, the basis of
enhanced punishment of traffickers, rather than a required element of
proof for the conviction of traffickers. Because states have been
adopting the current DoJ Model Law, I share the concerns of the
distinguished signers of the October 5, 2007, letter to Acting Attorney
General Peter Keisler that fewer prosecutions of traffickers are
occurring because of this proof requirement. I ask permission to enter
this letter into the committee record, and I hope that the members of
the committee will take the time to read the document signed by the
leaders ranging from Gloria Steinem to Gary Bauer, from Walter Fauntroy
to Beverly Lehay. Finally, I would urge the adoption of language in
H.R. 3887 to make clear to DoJ that when Congress authorized a biennial
survey in the 2005 TVPRA of the commercial sex industry in the United
States, it expected this survey to be done. We must know the extent of
this problem in the United States if we are going to target effectively
our resources to combating it.
I want to commend this committee for its work on behalf of the
victims and survivors of human trafficking, and want in particular to
commend the work of the chairman, and the chair of the Crime
Subcommittee, our distinguished colleague Bobby Scott. I believe that
through our collective efforts, we can make not only a difference, but
history. The signers of the letter believe this can be so, and look to
us to work together to protect the victims of the sex trade industry,
and punish the predators who exploit them.
Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Conyers. Mr. Bradley Myles, the next witness
before our recess, is connected with the Polaris Project, a
group in Washington that works with trafficking victims from
the United States and abroad, and is engaged in intensive
outreach with women in prostitution generally. Mr. Myles has
played a key role in the development of State legislation and
anti-trafficking task forces around the country.
We welcome you to this hearing, sir.
TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY W. MYLES, NATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
POLARIS PROJECT
Mr. Myles. Thank you, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member
Smith, and Committee Members.
My name is Bradley Myles, and I am the National Program
Director of a nongovernmental organization based here in
Washington, D.C., called the Polaris Project.
Our organization is dedicated exclusively to fighting
modern day slavery and human trafficking. With my brief
comments today, I hope to provide some concrete examples of our
direct experiences of working in the field in order to inform
your sound policy decisions. The following are my
recommendations which are supplemented and elaborated in my
written testimony.
First, our field must emphasize that human trafficking
involves both the transnational trafficking of foreign
nationals into our country as well as the internal trafficking
of citizens within our country. In our field experience, we
frequently encounter the common misconception that trafficking
only involves foreign nationals who are brought across country
borders. As the Federal law has been clear since the year 2000,
the definition of ``human trafficking'' not only includes
foreign nationals but also includes domestic or internal U.S.
citizens. In the U.S., this means U.S. citizen victims of both
sex trafficking and of forced labor.
We need to use consistent and comprehensive definitions. We
need to be inclusive of all types of victims, and we need to
ensure that our structures, our systems, our policies,
dialogues, and statistics consistently include both
populations.
Second, in the area of estimating the scope of trafficking,
we are encountering skepticism in the field of the total number
of victims in the U.S., and we need more research to help
better and more accurate counting mechanisms for all victims in
the U.S., including foreign nationals and U.S. citizens and
victims of sex trafficking and forced labor. Currently, the
majority of the victim counts out there, such as the Federal
certification process, do not include U.S. citizen victims. The
certification process and other counting mechanisms can be
revisited toward these ends, and if we enable more sources
beyond Federal law enforcement to initiate the certification
process, I believe more victims can receive services and can be
included in the count, reflecting our victim-centered values.
Third, I encourage Congress to support the need for U.S.
citizen victims of trafficking to receive funding for
specialized services in addition to their foreign national
counterparts, not in place of them. For the past 7 years,
little to no Federal anti-trafficking funding to victims
through the TVPA or its reauthorizations have been made
available to provide case management services to victims who
are U.S. citizens. The Polaris Project works with both U.S.
citizens and foreign national victims, and we feel it is
important for Federal anti-trafficking policies and funding
streams to enable specialized providers in the field to work
with both populations and to provide a sustainable continuum of
care.
Moreover, both foreign national and U.S. citizen victims
need increased services, and the inclusion of VOCA funds in
section 214(b) of this bill is a good step. However, I feel
that additional legislative language is needed to address how
these VOCA funds will reach victims at the State level.
Fourth, it is critical to invest in the sustainability of
the Federal human trafficking task forces and coalitions that
have been built over the past 3 years. Since 2004, HHS and DOJ
have been hard at work in creating long-term, sustainable
infrastructure for the field. These structures have generated
results, like in Washington, D.C., where our task force has
prosecuted over 30 traffickers and has helped to provide
services to over 70 victims. Yet, after watching our task force
lose its funding about a month ago, we are now struggling to
avoid losing the know-how, the capacity, the momentum, and the
infrastructure that we have built over the past 3 years. Other
cities are facing a similar struggle.
Fifth, we must give prosecutors the strongest tools they
need to effectively and efficiently prosecute traffickers. Our
task force in Washington, D.C. has prosecuted around 30 sex
traffickers, and while with only a small number of these
prosecutions we actually went Federal with U.S. Code 1591, for
a number of the prosecutions, we were able to use the local
``pimping of a minor'' statute. I encourage the replication of
these types of prosecution strategies and support their
consideration in model statutes related to sex trafficking.
Section 221's provision, addressing the knowledge of the age
requirement for those who engage in the sex trafficking of
minors, is a great tool that will advance the field.
Other recommendations in my written testimony focus on the
benefits of increased training, resources for task forces and
coalitions, the need for increased research in the field to
identify best practices and to share them, and the need for the
increased coordination between DOJ's two types of anti-
trafficking task forces--the BJA-funded human trafficking task
forces and also the Innocence Lost task forces that work with
the sex trafficking of minors.
The Polaris Project is honored to testify before you all
today. As a member of the anti-trafficking field, as a voice
for the victims we serve, as a leading member of the
Washington, DC human trafficking task force, as HHS' national
training and technical assistance grantee, as a member of
numerous policy-related coalitions, including the action group
to end human trafficking and modern day slavery, and in
solidarity with survivors and with our partners in the field--
both the NGO and Federal partners--thank you for the
opportunity to contribute to this hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myles follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bradley W. Myles
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and Committee Members,
Thank you for convening this hearing on the 2007 Reauthorization of
Federal anti-trafficking legislation and for inviting representatives
of our field to participate in this hearing and contribute to what I
hope will be the passage of a historic anti-trafficking bill this year.
My name is Bradley Myles, and I am the National Program Director of
a non-governmental organization called Polaris Project headquartered
here in Washington, DC. Our organization is dedicated exclusively to
combating human trafficking and modern-day slavery, and my comments are
based on our everyday experiences working on-the-ground identifying
victims, operating hotlines, serving victims, participating on task
forces with law enforcement, offering training and technical assistance
on counter-trafficking strategies, fighting for stronger anti-
trafficking policies, and working in collaboration with Federal
government agencies and our NGO partners in the field.
In my testimony today, I will relay information about our direct
experiences from the field in the hopes of providing this committee
with concrete information from which to form important policy decisions
that will make a difference in the lives of survivors of human
trafficking. All of the information provided below is categorized by in
the following areas:
Human Trafficking Task Force Sustainability
From Fall 2004 through the end of September 2007, the DC
metropolitan area benefited from one of the 42 Department of
Justice (DOJ) Human Trafficking Task Force grants. I played an
active leadership role in the task force and can testify to the
momentum and infrastructure that has been built to fight human
trafficking in the nation's Capitol over the past three years.
The task force grew to include participation from 20 government
agencies and over 35 NGOs, and our results included providing
services to over 70 victims and prosecuting approximately 30
traffickers thus far. Since the end of our grant on 9/30/07 and
without renewal funding, our task force is now focused on
struggling for sustainability in the face of competing
organizational priorities. I know of a number of other task
forces throughout the field that are experiencing similar
struggles. I strongly believe in the effectiveness of the task
force model in fighting trafficking, and I encourage continued
investment to ensure that the organizational knowledge,
infrastructure, and capacity that the field has built over
three years is maintained.
Technical Assistance, Training, and Coordination Efforts for
the Task Forces
After the launch of the 42 BJA-funded Human Trafficking Task
Forces, it became immediately evident that the task forces
demonstrated a desire for increased communication and peer-to-
peer cross-learning between and among each other. Through my
role on the DC Task Force, I worked with others in the field to
reach out to all 42 task forces across the nation and invite
everyone's participation in an informal national listserv to
provide a vehicle for communication among the task force
leadership in each major city. In my opinion, the enthusiastic
participation that has occurred on the listserv is our clue
that the task forces can benefit greatly from strategic
interventions and increased support in the areas of training
and technical assistance. It has been uplifting to see linkages
being made and to see so many parts of the field all benefit
from the value of peer to peer learning. With increased
resources in these areas, we can raise the field to a whole new
level of maturity by exploring ideas such as regional multi-
jurisdictional task forces, new prosecutorial strategies, an
array of topical roundtables addressing cutting edge
challenges, and field visits between task forces.
Increased Coordination Between Inter-Related Types of DOJ-
Initiated Task Forces
Coming out of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, and in
close collaboration with the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit
(HTPU), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the Office
for Victims of Crime (OVC), the field has benefited from the
launch of 42 Human Trafficking Task Forces, which I've just
described above. In addition, coming out of the Criminal
Division of the DOJ, and in close collaboration with the FBI
Crimes Against Children (CAC) squad, and the Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section (CEOS), the Innocence Lost Task Force
Initiative has yielded important success in focusing on the sex
trafficking of minors. Both of these types of task forces are
working on different parts of the issue of human trafficking,
and DC has been a city where the BJA-funded Human Trafficking
Task Force has merged with the Innocence Lost task force to
function as a seamless whole. However, in my experience working
in other parts of the country, I've seen cities and States
where the two types of task forces are not in close
communication, are not coordinating efforts, and are not
connecting the dots to identify areas of overlap. Both types of
task forces have important strengths, and stronger centralized
coordination of all anti-trafficking efforts within DOJ should
help to increase collaboration levels.
Prosecution Strategies Related to Sex Trafficking
In the Washington, DC area, the DC Human Trafficking Task
Force/FBI Innocence Lost Task Force has placed a particular
emphasis on the sex trafficking of U.S. citizens. In our
efforts, we have encountered significant numbers of sex
traffickers who are inducing minors into commercial sex acts
and inducing women ages 18 or over into commercial sex acts
using violence, deception, lies, and threats. Based on the
Federal definition outlined in the TVPA of 2000, all of these
U.S. citizen sex traffickers have committed acts that meet the
definition of severe forms of trafficking in persons. However,
of the more than 30 sex traffickers that our Task Force has
prosecuted, only a small minority of them have involved Federal
cases using U.S.C 1591, the Federal severe forms of sex
trafficking statute created in the TVPA of 2000. Instead, the
majority of the cases have involved the use of local DC
statutes related to pandering and pimping a minor. These cases
have involved less Federal resources, have tended to occur
quickly, and have generally been less taxing on the limited
resources of the task force. Our task force is currently
exploring other ways to use similar local statutes to give
prosecutors more tools to crack down on sex traffickers while
still avoiding resource intensive Federal cases that often
require victims to take the stand to prove that elements of
force, fraud, or coercion were present. The overall goal is to
foster increased numbers of prosecutions of sex traffickers in
the most efficient and least resource-intensive ways that place
minimal risks of retraumatization on the victims. Based on the
experience of our task force, we encourage the exploration and
replication of these strategies for use in other cities and for
consideration in model statutes related to prosecution of sex
trafficking.
Persistent Myths and Misconceptions about Definitions of Human
Trafficking
In my experience discussing the issue of human trafficking with
a wide variety of audiences over the past five years, it is
quite apparent that the prevailing image of human trafficking
in most people's minds involves border crossing and the
movement of people into a country. Trafficking victims are
conceptualized as a group very similar to refugees, and the
structures, systems, statistics, counting mechanisms, and
dialogue about victims tends to mirror discussions about
refugees. In actuality, based on the Federal definition
outlined in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of
2000, victims of human trafficking do not have to be from other
countries and do not have to cross national borders.
``Domestic'' or ``internal'' trafficking that happens to
citizens of a country, within their own country, warrants
increased attention, research, and understanding. Moreover, our
national response to the issue of human trafficking must take
domestic or internal trafficking into account at all levels.
What are the estimates of total numbers of U.S. citizen victims
of trafficking? How are U.S. citizen victims targeted by
traffickers, and what types of exploitation do they experience?
Do training and awareness materials about human trafficking
adequately address U.S. citizen victims? What government
systems and services are U.S. citizen trafficking victims
encountering, and how are those systems meeting their unique
needs? It is these types of questions that I encourage the
field to ask and answer to more adequately understand the full
spectrum of ways that the issue of human trafficking affects
our country. We need to engage in dialogues that are inclusive
of all victims, that do not pit types of victims against each
other, and that do not divide the field based on the
nationality of victims.
Estimating the Full Scope and Prevalence of Human Trafficking
in the U.S.
As an NGO working on the ground on this issue, I can testify to
our recent experience of having the scope and prevalence of
this issue being increasingly questioned by skeptics who draw
their conclusions about low victim numbers based largely on the
number of ``certified'' victims. As reflected in the Attorney
General's Annual Report to Congress on US Government Activities
to Combat Trafficking in Persons Fiscal Year 2006, 1076 total
certification letters have been issued to victims of
trafficking in the first six fiscal years in which the
certification program has operated. Whether or not it was
originally intended to be viewed as such, it seems the
``certification'' process is now being used by various sources
as an indication of an ``official count'' of trafficking
victims in the U.S. Those of us in the field who have a more
detailed understanding of the certification process know that
it does not include victims who are unwilling to be known to or
cooperate with law enforcement, it does not include victims for
whom Federal law enforcement agents were not willing to sign a
Law Enforcement Authorization (LEA) form, it does not include
pools of victims who are seeking other immigration remedies
outside of the T-visa, and it does not include any U.S. citizen
victims because as currently designed, certification is a
process reserved only for foreign national victims. Therefore,
judging the prevalence of the issue of human trafficking based
on the certification process is clearly not the most inclusive
indicator of the total numbers of individuals experiencing the
crime of human trafficking in the U.S. each year. We need
better, more accurate, and more exhaustive counting mechanisms
for all victims to help provide a more true picture of the full
scope of human trafficking occurring within the United States
that includes transnational trafficking of foreign nationals
into the U.S., as well as the internal trafficking of U.S.
citizens within the U.S. If the certification process will
continue to be viewed as the national official ``count'' of
victims, revisions to the process should be considered such as
including US citizen victims, and enabling more sources beyond
Federal law enforcement to initiate the certification process
so that a victim's cooperation with Federal law enforcement is
not so strongly linked to the victim's ability to be counted
and provided with services.
The Need for Specialized Services for U.S. Citizen Victims of
Human Trafficking
As stated in the aforementioned May 2007 Attorney General's
Annual Report to Congress, the section on benefits and services
for victims clearly states that ``the funds provided under the
TVPA by the federal government for direct services to victims
are dedicated to assist non-U.S. citizen victims and may not
currently be used to assist U.S. citizen victims;''. Because
Polaris Project is a service provider for victims of
trafficking working with both populations of U.S. citizen
victims and foreign national victims, we are very well aware of
the service landscape for both types of victims, not only in
Washington, DC, but also on a national scale. OVC grants to
NGOs for case management services to victims of trafficking
have been restricted exclusively to foreign national victims,
and HHS anti-trafficking services and benefits have also been
restricted to non-citizen victims because of HHS' statutory
authority that is linked to certification, which again is a
process reserved only for foreign national victims. The result
of these two Federal funding streams is that while all
trafficking victims need specialized case management services,
U.S. citizen trafficking victims have been particularly
underserved with Federal anti-trafficking dollars over the past
seven years. To date, little to no Federal anti-trafficking
funds for specialized services to victims through the TVPA or
its reauthorizations have been made available to work with
victims who are U.S. citizens, thereby making nationality, not
the nature of victimization, the determining variable of
whether a trafficking victims receives specialized case
management services or not. Moreover, although both foreign
national and U.S. citizen trafficking victims are encountering
other government service systems and government-funded programs
in various ways, both populations demonstrate an array of
comprehensive and specialized service needs that are best met
by comprehensive and specialized anti-trafficking service
providers. In my opinion, it is important for Federal anti-
trafficking policies and funding streams to enable specialized
providers in the field to work with all types of trafficking
victims, not to restrict them to one population or another, and
to provide a sustainable continuum of care that will benefit
all victims, regardless of nationality.
The Role of Demand Reduction in Fighting Sex Trafficking
With specific regard to sex trafficking, through our local
knowledge of trafficking networks and trends, we're seeing sex
traffickers responding directly to spikes and dips in demand
for commercial sex. As a market-based issue that operates on
principles of supply and demand, this direct correlation is a
natural and predictable phenomenon. As an example, we're seeing
domestic sex traffickers raising nightly quotas on the women
under their control when they know demand for commercial sex is
high and more money can be made. These clear linkages help us
to realize the importance of associating demand for commercial
sex with the growth and proliferation of sex trafficking. Sex
traffickers are in the business of making profits, and the
demand-based presence of cash flows provides the incentive to
operate. Moreover, because of the direct correlation, we know
that demand reduction strategies are an in important part of
the fight against sex trafficking. These may include both law
enforcement strategies, as well as community-based, faith-
based, and other social strategies. Based on our experiences in
the communities where we work, we can testify to the importance
of many of the provisions in Title II of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 that relate to
demand reduction.
The Need for Increased Coordination of Federal Training
Initiatives on Trafficking
Through a FY07 contract and a recently awarded additional
grant, Polaris Project has functioned as a specialized training
and technical assistance (T&TA) provider for the field, funded
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Anti-
Trafficking in Persons (ATIP) program. Moreover, being in the
space of providing training and technical assistance to others
has helped us to more fully understand and experience the
proliferation of disparate and uncoordinated T&TA efforts
occurring in the anti-trafficking field that is reflective of
the silos and stove-pipes that sometimes occur within and
between government departments. While all of these initiatives
are important for advancing the field, a lack of coordination
among providers hinders the overall effectiveness and
continuity of these multi-pronged efforts. Proactive steps and
concrete venues to bring these providers together will, in my
opinion, help to bring the anti-trafficking field to a new
level of capacity-building, coordination, and sophistication.
The Critical Role of Increased Research
Being on the ground and learning how to make the most of scarce
resources, NGOs in the field are constantly vigilant of the
tools we have and the tools we wish for that could help make
our jobs more effective. I've experienced countless examples of
meetings, presentations, and trainings where audience members
asked important questions that I simply didn't have the tools
to fully answer. Continually refined estimates of the total
numbers of victims nationwide, the size of certain economies,
the estimated profits of certain trafficking networks, or the
total revenue of the unlawful commercial sex trade in the U.S.
could all be useful tools that would boost the effectiveness of
practitioners in the field. In addition, descriptions of known
slave-made goods, new trends in the behavior of traffickers, or
largely unknown niches of victims, such as the scope of US
citizen victims of labor trafficking, could also be incredibly
useful for on the ground advocacy. Combined with the ever-
present need to identify and share best and promising practices
for law enforcement, victim care, and victim identification,
research clearly plays an important role in helping to
validate, explore, highlight, and describe different parts of
the anti-trafficking field.
Understanding How Trafficking Victims Encounter Other
Government Programs
Beyond various anecdotal accounts and informal research
efforts, very little is currently known on a formal basis about
how victims of human trafficking encounter other government
programs such as welfare offices, the child welfare system,
victim compensation funds, or government-run shelters.
Moreover, our field also does not have a complete
understanding, based on formal research, of how many
trafficking victims are being served by other types of service
programs such as domestic violence shelters, rape crisis
centers, and runaway and homeless youth shelters, and what
types of positive and negative experiences they are having
within these other systems. The commencement of a study to
determine the extent to which victims of trafficking are being
served by other systems and programs on both a local and
national scale could be quite useful for the field to more
fully understand the experiences of victims as they access
services from different agencies.
The Benefits of Inter-Disciplinary Dialogue with Other Fields
and Sectors
On the ground service organizations for victims of trafficking
frequently operate in a local environment where they
collaborate and form linkages with a vast array of other types
of service providers, such as domestic violence shelters, legal
services organizations, rape crisis centers, runaway and
homeless youth programs, and health clinics. Throughout the
process of collaboration, it is likely that linkages,
commonalities, and points of overlap will be identified and
explored. Given these inter-disciplinary linkages between
fields, we feel that there is great room for rich dialogue and
cross-learning to occur that will increase the cohesion of the
systems of care that work with victims of crime. The creation
of more formal mechanisms, vehicles, and venues for these types
of inter-disciplinary dialogues to occur will, in my opinion,
enhance the efforts of the anti-trafficking field as a whole.
Polaris Project implements its programs and strategies using a
comprehensive approach that matches top-down system-based change and
institutionalization with bottom-up community-based implementation and
grassroots advocacy. We strongly believe in the importance of policy
advocacy, at the Federal, State, and local levels, as an essential
component of a comprehensive counter-trafficking response. As a result,
we are members of numerous coalitions that participate in policy
advocacy, including the Action Group to End Human Trafficking and
Modern-day Slavery.
The movement to end human trafficking and modern-day slavery in the
United States and around the world gains momentum and sophistication
each year, and I am continually hopeful to see our field grow and
improve. I am confident that the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2007 will represent a bold and historic step
towards these aims, and I hope the recommendations provided in this
testimony have offered policy-makers concrete tools for improving the
field and services to victims.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak before you all today.
Chairman Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Myles.
The Committee will stand in recess. There are two votes of
15 minutes each, so you can gauge your time accordingly, and we
will resume immediately after the conclusion of those votes.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Chairman Conyers. The Committee will come to order.
We are now pleased to recognize Dr. Amy Farrell of the
Institute on Race and Justice of Northeastern University's
College of Criminal Justice. Building from their groundbreaking
work on hate crimes in the 1990's, Dr. Farrell and her team
have recently completed the first large-scale, peer-reviewed
study of anti-trafficking task forces nationwide.
We welcome you to the Committee and look forward to your
comments.
TESTIMONY OF AMY FARRELL, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
ON RACE AND JUSTICE, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST, NORTHEASTERN
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Farrell. I would like to thank the Chairman and the
leadership of the House Judiciary Committee for convening this
important hearing.
I am very proud to appear today in support of the William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victim s Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2007.
I am joined at this hearing by my colleague and research
partner, Jack McDevitt, the director of the Institute on Race
and Justice and the Associate Dean in the College of Criminal
Justice at Northeastern University.
Over the past 4 years, we have conducted extensive research
on local law enforcement's ability to identify, investigate and
respond to human trafficking in communities throughout the
United States. I will use my time today to discuss the role of
local law enforcement in fighting human trafficking and
highlight some of the important ways that this legislation can
improve law enforcement responses to the problem.
It is from my background as a police researcher that I
approach questions about human trafficking. During my career, I
conducted extensive research in the field of policing, with a
focus on understanding how police respond to new or newly
recognized crimes. My research with Jack McDevitt on hate crime
identification, for example, has added significantly to our
understanding of the challenges police face in identifying,
investigating and reporting information about newly defined
crime.
We recently completed a study for the National Institute of
Justice examining the experiences of thousands of county, State
and local law enforcement agencies in identifying and
responding to human trafficking. And I am currently leading a
project for the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop the
first national standardized data collection procedure for
human-trafficking investigations that originate from local law
enforcement agencies. I will discuss some preliminary findings
from these studies which are pertinent to today's hearing.
Local law enforcement agencies can often be in the best
position to identify human-trafficking victims or perpetrators
who may be hidden in the communities they serve. These agencies
are involved in routine activities that bring them into contact
with the criminal elements where trafficking may be occurring.
While some have criticized the present response by local
law enforcement to human-trafficking crime, I believe law
enforcement must play a central role in the eradication of
human trafficking. Local law enforcement has, in the past,
demonstrated the capacity and willingness to understand and
respond to complex and challenging newly recognized crimes
similar to those we are discussing here.
As an illustration, in 1990, no more than a handful of hate
crimes were investigated by local law enforcement. In fact, few
officers even recognized the term ``hate crime.'' Today, we
have over 7,000 hate crimes that are investigated annually by
local law enforcement across the country.
This kind of success is possible for human-trafficking
victims, but there are a number of challenges that we must
overcome. As a starting point, law enforcement must have a
shared definition of ``human trafficking.'' And an essential
part of this definition is developing an understanding of how
to operationalize the elements of force, fraud and coercion in
their own communities.
Once law enforcement understands what human trafficking is,
they will be more likely to recognize all forms of trafficking
that exist in their community, including both labor and sex
trafficking. The results of our national study indicate that
when local law enforcement agencies understand what human
trafficking is and perceive it as a problem in their community,
they are more likely to prepare their officers to respond to
these cases, and subsequently they identify victims.
Despite these efforts, victims of human trafficking remain
difficult to identify and serve, for a number of reasons. They
are often hidden from the public with little or no ability to
contact the police. And even when they have the ability to seek
help, they are often afraid of the police. Perpetrators of
human trafficking depend on victim fear of law enforcement as a
means of coercion.
These characteristics are endemic to human trafficking. And
as a result, it is now imperative for us to develop innovative
strategies to identify and prosecute offenders, even with
limited victim cooperation.
Investigation of human trafficking often involves a number
of Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. These
groups have different mandates and conflicting goals. Sometimes
they impede the efforts to support victims and arrest
perpetrators. Despite these challenges, our study shows that
agencies working in federally funded task forces have a better
understanding of human trafficking, identify more cases of
human trafficking, and are much more likely to bring the cases
that they identify to prosecution.
So, improved coordination, training and technical
assistance across all levels of law enforcement are essential
to the fight against human trafficking. The TVPA and this
reauthorization provide a powerful framework through which this
goal can be accomplished.
Modern slavery, which is what human trafficking is, is an
affront to American values. Every day, men, women and children
are forced to engage in labor and sex against their will across
this country. It is a crime that cannot be tolerated in this
great Nation. Through strong Federal leadership and
legislation, such as the William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, local communities can
enhance their efforts to identify and assist victims of this
horrendous crime and bring its perpetrators to justice.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Amy Farrell
Chairman Conyers. Thank you so much.
The Director of Refugee Programs of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops is Anastasia Brown, who
supervises services to refugees, victims of trafficking and
unaccompanied alien minors resettled through the Catholic
network in the United States.
We welcome you to this hearing.
TESTIMONY OF ANASTASIA K. BROWN, DIRECTOR, REFUGEE PROGRAMS,
MIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICES, U.S. CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS
Ms. Brown. I am Anastasia Brown, Director of Refugee
Programs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Representative Smith, for holding this important hearing and
inviting USCCB to testify.
I will have my testimony today in support of H.R. 3887, the
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2007.
Mr. Chairman, my written remarks more completely address
our concerns for victims of trafficking. I will focus the oral
testimony today on how the U.S. Government responds to the
plight of children who are subject to the horrific crime of
human trafficking.
Children are perhaps the most vulnerable group of victims
of trafficking. While efforts to find and assist victims have
been pursued with commendable commitment over the last several
years, I fear that children, as a group, have fallen through
the cracks of these enforcement efforts. Of the close to 17,500
persons trafficked into the United States each year, an
estimated one-third are children. But unfortunately, there have
been few referrals of children for services since 2000. Special
attention needs to be given to identifying child victims.
Immediate safety and long-term stability are the
overwhelming need of child victims, regardless of age,
background, type of enslavement or any other characteristic.
For some of the children to date, the referral and service
system has worked well. However, a continuum of care in which
the child experiences the most stability should become the norm
for all child victims.
The care of children, particularly extremely vulnerable
children, should be governed by a set of principles to ensure
positive outcomes. These principles include the use of best
interest of the child's standards in all cases; the provision
of immediate safe haven with a systematic plan for assessing a
child's needs; the exploration of family reunification as a
priority; the placement of children in the least restrictive
stetting; the provision of legal assistance to children; and
the development of a long-term plan for self-sufficiency of
children.
Unfortunately, these principles have not always governed
how the United States has treated vulnerable children. I would
like to point to several provisions in H.R. 3887 and explain
how they would improve the protection regime for child
trafficking victims and other vulnerable children who come into
the Government's care.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support provisions in Section
213, which provide interim emergency assistance for potential
trafficking victims prior to their final determination as
victims. This is a critical need, as often children can
languish in detention or without any appropriate care, often
relying on good Samaritans, while their eligibility or legal
custody is determined.
We also support the sense-of-Congress language which urges
ORR to determine eligibility for services without approval of
another agency. We urge you to add provisions which would give
the Secretary of HHS discretion to continue care for children
beyond the standard for adult victims. We consider
unaccompanied refugee minor programs to be the most appropriate
placement for child victims of trafficking with no family.
Mr. Chairman, we have also found that child trafficking
victims are often not immediately identified as such. Federal
authorities, including the Border Patrol agents as well as
State and local authorities, are not always well-trained in
identifying trafficking victims and often are unaware of the
care available to these victims. We support in Section 213 the
requirement that law enforcement notify HHS of possible child
victims of trafficking.
We ask you to encourage or to accept referrals for services
from other entities, including faith groups and nonprofit
organizations trained in identifying trafficking victims. This
is particularly of concern for children.
Mr. Chairman, USCCB strongly supports Section 236, which
ensures the safe and protective placement of vulnerable
children who may be subject to human traffickers. These
provisions are needed to ensure that vulnerable children are
protected.
Specifically, we support language that directs the
Secretary of HHS to place vulnerable children in the least
restrictive setting possible, determined by the best interest
of the child. Foster care and family reunification placements
provide the most protective setting for children. We agree that
home studies should be conducted before the placement of a
child with a sponsor, and this should be required in all
potentially at-risk situations.
We are generally supportive of the concept of providing
guardian ad litem for each child in order to protect the child,
but that guardian must have a voice in the court rendering a
decision on the child. And we believe that such a guardian must
be a child-welfare expert who understands the emotional and
physical needs of the child.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3887 makes strides in strengthening the
protection regime for vulnerable children, especially child
trafficking victims. We strongly support its enactment.
Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anatasia K. Brown
Chairman Conyers. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
Lamar Smith has gone to the White House for a bill signing.
He has been replaced by Steve King of Iowa as the Ranking
Member for the Committee.
And in Iowa, the Northern District, the U.S. Attorney's
Office has established for the first time a task force on human
trafficking and modern slavery. And I wanted to commend that
activity that is now going on in your State.
The director of the Sanctuary for Families' Center for
Battered Women's Legal Services is Ms. Dorchen Leidholt. And
she is a founding member of the Coalition Against Trafficking
in Women. Ms. Leidholt has worked on the problem of sex
trafficking for nearly 2 decades and is an internationally
recognized expert in this field.
We welcome you to the hearing.
TESTIMONY OF DORCHEN A. LEIDHOLDT, DIRECTOR, SANCTUARY FOR
FAMILIES' CENTER FOR BATTERED WOMEN'S LEGAL SERVICES, FOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER, COALITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN
Ms. Leidholt. Thank you very much. Chairman Conyers,
Members of the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member King,
fellow anti-trafficking advocates, I am grateful for this
opportunity to address the subject of how the TVPA can become a
more effective vehicle to prosecute traffickers engaging in the
sexual slavery of women and girls.
Both Sanctuary for Families and the Coalition Against
Trafficking in Women understands sex trafficking to be an acute
form of violence against women that often overlaps with and
sometimes is coextensive with other practices of gender-based
violence, in particular, domestic violence and sexual assault.
We have seen that sex traffickers and their agents lure
vulnerable women and girls into situations of sex slavery by
establishing relationships with them, holding themselves out as
boyfriends and protectors. The modus operandi of domestic sex
traffickers, popularly known as pimps, is to enslave vulnerable
girls and women through tactics that combine seduction with
brainwashing and terrorism.
Rarely are these victims recognized for what they are:
severely battered women. Almost all sex trafficking victims are
victims of serial sexual assault. They typically suffer from
rape trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression,
acute feelings of worthlessness and shame, memory loss, and
sometimes even suicidal ideations and acts. In short, victims
of sex trafficking experience all of the trauma battered women
and rape victims sustain, often at significantly higher levels.
These realities, Mr. Chairman, have profound implications
not only for how we can best assist sex-trafficking victims but
also for how we can most effectively prosecute their
exploiters.
The TVPA defines ``sex trafficking'' as the recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person
for a commercial sex act. To prosecute a sex trafficker under
the TVPA, however, the Government must prove not only that sex
trafficking took place, but also that the trafficking was
carried out through force, fraud or coercion. Too often, Mr.
Chairman, these proof requirements create insurmountable
obstacles to the successful and effective prosecution of sex
traffickers.
Mr. Chairman, Sanctuary represents two Korean immigrant
sex-trafficking victims whose traffickers are currently on
trial in Federal court in the Southern District of New York.
These traffickers preyed on their victims' poverty and
undocumented status, made them endure 14- to 16-hour days of
sexual servitude, deprived them of sleep and food, and demanded
that they endure sexual intercourse with as many as 10
customers a shift. The tactics these traffickers used precisely
fit Amnesty International's definition of torture.
Although both victims are physically and psychologically
devastated by their brutal exploitation, these traffickers are
not being prosecuted under the TVPA. Why not? Because the U.S.
attorneys prosecuting the case, hard-working and resourceful
though they are, are unable to make out the TVPA's proof
requirements of force, fraud or coercion.
In other cases, traffickers use force, fraud or coercion,
but their victims are too terrified to testify about it, often
because the traffickers threaten to harm family members abroad.
The need to prove force, fraud or coercion makes it all but
impossible for any sex-trafficking prosecution to go forward
without a victim willing and able to take the stand to testify
at length about her abuse and sexual exploitation and undergo
brutal and humiliating cross-examination. When victims facing
such an ordeal refuse to testify, as they often do,
prosecutorial strategies to force them to testify often only
serve to deepen their trauma and may even result in testimony
that is beneficial to traffickers.
Requiring prosecutors to prove force, fraud or coercion
places victims and their families abroad in greater danger. The
smartest and most ruthless traffickers realize that using
violence and threats of violence brutal enough to terrorize
their victims into silence is a good business practice. As long
as force, fraud and coercion are elements of the offense, the
worse traffickers are, the more unreachable they remain.
The TVPA's unnecessarily onerous proof requirements have
not only hobbled trafficking prosecutions in the United States.
Other countries, most recently Mexico, have adopted Federal
anti-trafficking laws modeled after ours that require proof of
force, fraud or coercion in sex-trafficking cases. With some of
the most ruthless and brutal trafficking rings in the world--
and, correspondingly, some of the most terrified victims--
Mexico needs a law that takes the onus off of victims, not one
that puts them squarely in the traffickers' cross-hairs.
So what is the solution? The force, fraud or coercion
requirement of the TVPA is not present in other Federal laws
that have been used successfully to prosecute sex traffickers,
most notably the Mann Act. Unfortunately, the TVPA has all but
effectively supplanted these older laws.
While Federal prosecutors should be encouraged to begin to
use older laws to prosecute sex traffickers, this country's
most recent and best-recognized anti-trafficking initiative,
the law that has become the model for anti-trafficking
legislation domestically and internationally, must be a more
effective deterrent to sex traffickers.
As Congresswoman Maloney recommends in her statement, the
TVPA must be amended to eliminate its unnecessary and onerous
proof requirements for Federal sex-trafficking prosecutions
which only serve to intensify the danger and humiliation of
cooperation for victims. This can be done by revising the Mann
Act, as Congresswoman Maloney suggests, and moving it into the
TVPA.
Mr. Chairman, an important postscript: The force, fraud or
coercion requirements that have stymied sex-trafficking
prosecutions at the Federal level have also sabotaged State
anti-trafficking efforts. How did this happen? A few years
after the passage of the TVPA, the Department of Justice
unveiled a, quote, ``model anti-trafficking law'' for States.
That law made proof of force, fraud or coercion a requirement
for prosecuting sex traffickers. Well over half of the States
then passed State anti-trafficking laws, most borrowing heavily
from the Justice Department's, quote/unquote, ``model law.''
Just as the TVPA came to supplant the Mann Act, new State anti-
trafficking laws with this burdensome proof requirement began
to supplant existing laws against pimping.
Again, as Congresswoman Maloney urges, the Department of
Justice must withdraw this model statute and replace it with
one that makes force, fraud or coercion not an element of the
crime of sex trafficking, undermining successful prosecutions
and placing victims in needless danger, but must use force,
fraud or coercion as the basis of enhanced penalties.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for permitting this
contribution.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leidholdt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorchen A. Leidholdt
Chairman Conyers, Members of the House Judiciary Committee, fellow
anti-trafficking advocates: I am grateful for this opportunity to
address the subject of how the Trafficking Victims Protection Act can
become a more effective vehicle to prosecute traffickers engaging in
the sexual slavery of women and girls. I speak as the Director of
Sanctuary for Families' Center for Battered Women's Legal Services.
Founded in 1988, the Center is the largest legal services program for
domestic violence victims in the United States and, and since the mid
1990's, has been providing legal services to a growing number of
victims of sex trafficking. Since 2005, Sanctuary for Families has been
one of the lead organizations of the New York State Anti-Trafficking
Coalition, which successfully fought for the passage of a strong and
comprehensive anti-trafficking law in New York State. That law goes
into effect today.
I am also speaking as the Founding Board Member of the Coalition
Against Trafficking in Women, a non-governmental organization working
since 1988 to end all forms of trafficking in women and girls into
prostitution and related forms of commercial sexual exploitation. The
Coalition is made up of networks in Asia, Latin America, Africa,
Europe, North America, and Australia that work to prevent the sex
industry's exploitation and abuse of women and girls, to protect its
victims, and to prosecute and punish all those involved in this brutal
trade.
The Coalition has conducted pioneering research into the
trafficking of women, including the first comprehensive study of sex
trafficking into the United States, funded by the National Institute of
Justice. The Coalition has funded and assisted trafficking prevention
programs in Venezuela, the Philippines, Mexico, the Republic of Georgia
and supported services for Nigerian and Albanian sex trafficking
victims in Italy. The Coalition took a leadership role in drafting the
Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against
Transnational Organized Crime. More recently, the Coalition, together
with the European Women's Lobby has spearheaded a project to address
gender inequality, the demand for trafficking, and the link between
trafficking and prostitution in twelve Central and Eastern European
countries contending with escalating rates of sex trafficking.
Both Sanctuary and the Coalition understand sex trafficking to be
an acute form of violence against women that often overlaps with and
sometimes is coextensive with other practices of gender-based violence,
in particular domestic violence and sexual assault. In the cases we
have handled, we have seen that sex traffickers and their agents often
lure vulnerable women and girls into situations of sex slavery by
establishing relationships with them, holding themselves out as
boyfriends and protectors. Sometimes, as in U.S. v. Caretto, the
successful prosecution of a family of sex traffickers from Mexico,
traffickers even marry their victims. The modus operandi of domestic
sex traffickers, popularly known as pimps, is to enslave vulnerable
girls and women through tactics that combine seduction with
brainwashing and terrorism. Rarely are these victims recognized for
what they are: severely battered women.
Almost all sex trafficking victims are victims of serial sexual
assault. For many, sexual assault precedes their entry into sex
trafficking; the trauma they have sustained renders them vulnerable to
their traffickers, facilitates their traffickers' control, and is
exacerbated by the trafficking. For all sex trafficking victims, the
sexual exploitation they are subjected to an integral part of the
trafficking leaves profound psychic injuries. Sex trafficking victims
typically suffer from rape trauma, post traumatic stress disorder,
severe depression, acute feelings of worthlessness and shame, memory
loss, and/or suicidal ideations and acts. Victims of sex trafficking
experience all of the trauma battered women and rape victims sustain,
often at significantly higher levels.
These realities have profound implications not only for how we can
best assist sex trafficking victims but also for how can we most
effectively prosecute their exploiters. The TVPA defines sex
trafficking as ``the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision,
or obtaining of a person for a commercial sex act.'' To prosecute a sex
trafficker using the TVPA's criminal penalties, however, the government
must prove not only that sex trafficking took place but also that the
trafficking was carried out through ``force, fraud, or coercion.'' Too
often these proof requirements create insurmountable obstacles to the
successful prosecution of sex traffickers. In some cases, brutal and
exploitive sex traffickers need not resort to force, fraud, or coercion
because their victims are so vulnerable, terrified, or traumatized that
such conduct isn't necessary to obtain their victims' submission.
Sanctuary represents two Korean immigrant sex trafficking victims
whose traffickers are currently on trial in federal court in the
Southern District of New York. These traffickers preyed on their
victims' poverty and undocumented status, made them endure 14 to 16
hour days of sexual servitude, deprived them of sleep and food, and
demanded that they endure sexual intercourse with as many as ten
customers a shift. The tactics these traffickers used precisely fit
Amnesty International's definition of psychological torture. Although
both victims are physically and psychologically devastated by their
brutal exploitation, their traffickers are not being prosecuted under
the TVPA. Why not? Because the U.S. attorneys prosecuting the case,
hardworking and resourceful though they are, are unable to make out the
TVPA's proof requirements of force, fraud, or coercion. As a result the
traffickers are only facing charges of conspiring to violate the Mann
Act and a sentence of a mere three-to-five years in prison.
In another case, Sanctuary represents a sex trafficking victim from
Russia. Her trafficking scenario was classic: she answered an ad in a
Moscow paper for a babysitting job in New York City, was greeted at JFK
airport by traffickers who confiscated her passport and put her into
debt bondage, and was then forced into prostitution, where she was
passed from trafficker to trafficker. Katerina was so psychologically
broken by her abuse at the hands of the first group of traffickers that
its successors didn't need to resort to force, fraud, or coercion. When
Immigration Customs Enforcement finally busted the brothel in which
Katerina was being bought and sold, the only federal crime they could
charge her traffickers with was prostitution. Although these
traffickers had prostituted Katerina and many others like her, reaped
huge profits from their exploitation, and left Katerina drug addicted
and suicidal, their sentence was a single year in prison.
In other cases, traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion but their
victims are too terrified to testify about it, often because the
traffickers threatened to harm family members abroad. The need to prove
force, fraud, or coercion makes it all but impossible for any sex
trafficking prosecution to go forward without a victim willing and able
to take the stand, to testify at length about her abuse and sexual
exploitation, and to undergo brutal and humiliating cross-examination.
When victims facing such an ordeal refuse to testify, as they often do,
prosecutorial strategies to force them to testify often only serve to
deepen their trauma and may even result in testimony that is beneficial
to the traffickers.
Sex trafficking victims are often put into situations in which
their very survival is contingent on their outward compliance with
their traffickers' demands. Victims not infrequently have to pose
smilingly for pornographic pictures, dance with customers, sign
prostitution contracts, and even marry their traffickers, all of which
is later used by defense counsel to prove that the victims were
``willing prostitutes,'' not trafficking victims. If all that was
required was to show proof of sex trafficking itself, not force, fraud,
or coercion, such evidence would either be stricken as irrelevant or
deemed probative of sex trafficking.
Requiring prosecutors to prove force, fraud or coercion wrongly
puts the onus on victims, who must be proved ``innocent'' of willingly
having engaged in prostitution, rather than on traffickers, whose
criminal actions should be the focus of prosecutions. Much as
prosecutors once had to prove ``earnest resistance'' in rape cases to
show the victim was worthy, prosecutors in sex trafficking cases have
to prove force, fraud and coercion to demonstrate the bona fides of the
trafficking victims.
Even worse, requiring prosecutors to prove force, fraud or coercion
places victims and their families abroad in greater danger. The
smartest and most ruthless traffickers realize that using violence and
threats of violence brutal enough to terrorize victims into silence is
a good business practice. As long as force, fraud and coercion are
elements of the offense, the worse traffickers are the more unreachable
they remain.
The TVPA's unnecessarily onerous proof requirements have not only
hobbled trafficking prosecutions in the United States. Other countries,
most recently Mexico, have adopted federal anti-trafficking laws,
modeled after ours, that require proof of force, fraud, or coercion in
sex trafficking cases. With some of the most ruthless and brutal
trafficking rings in the world, and correspondingly some of the most
terrified victims, Mexico needs a law that takes the onus off victims,
not one that puts them squarely in the traffickers' crosshairs.
What is the solution? The force, fraud or coercion requirement of
the TVPA is not present in other federal laws that have been used
successfully to prosecute sex traffickers. The Mann Act criminalizes
anyone who ``knowingly persuades, induces, [or] entices . . . an
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce . . . to engage
in prostitution.'' Similarly, Title 8 USC Section 1328 of the
Immigration Code penalizes ``importing and harboring aliens for
purposes of prostitution.'' Unfortunately the TVPA has all but
effectively supplanted these older laws. And even if they were used
more frequently, the criminal penalties of these earlier anti-
trafficking statutes are not adequate to deter the crime of sex
trafficking or give its victims the satisfaction of knowing that
justice was served.
While federal prosecutors should be encouraged to dust off and
begin to use older laws to prosecute sex traffickers, this country's
most recent and best recognized anti-trafficking initiative--the law
that has become the model for anti-trafficking legislation domestically
and internationally--must be a more effective deterrent to sex
traffickers. The TVPA must be amended to eliminate its unnecessary and
onerous proof requirements for federal sex trafficking prosecutions,
which only serve to intensify the danger and humiliation of cooperation
for victims.
An important postscript: the force, fraud, or coercion requirements
that have stymied sex trafficking prosecution at the federal level have
also sabotaged state anti-trafficking efforts. How did this happen? A
few years after the passage of the TVPA, the Department of Justice held
a conference in Tampa, Florida that unveiled a model anti-trafficking
law for states. That law made proof of force, fraud, or coercion a
requirement for prosecuting sex traffickers. Well over half the states
then passed state anti-trafficking, most borrowing heavily from the
Justice Department model law. Just as the TVPA came to supplant the
Mann Act, new state anti-trafficking laws began to supplant existing
laws against pimping. The predictable upshot: a dearth of successful
prosecutions under the new state anti-trafficking laws.
Chairman Conyers. Thank you. And you have joined an issue
here that we will be discussing with you and Mr. Rothenberg
very soon.
I ask unanimous consent to put The Washington Post article
entitled, ``Slavery Did Not End with the Civil War.''
[The information referred to follows:]
Chairman Conyers. And I want to ask our first witness who
went to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement for help even
though she was obviously disturbed, upset, afraid, and I just
want her to tell us what kind of help she got.
What services were made available to you? And were there
things that you would want to tell us about that may need to be
changed as a result of your experiences?
Katya. I want to say that ICE was really good to me. I
received great help, great benefits, medical attention, a place
to stay, shelter, and money for food. Everything was really
good.
But the only one issue was a week that was given us $20,
food stamps, which was not enough. And I couldn't survive with
that amount of money. Everything else was perfect.
Chairman Conyers. Anything else you want to tell us about
how you were treated?
Because what we are doing is developing the law, and we
want--you are the only one that brings the unique experience of
what has happened in a very subjective way to us. So if you
think of anything else you would like to add, feel free to
intervene and let us know about it.
Katya. Okay.
Chairman Conyers. Mr. Rothenberg, I wanted to engage you
and Ms. Leidholt in just a discussion about the differences of
the positions that have been brought forward, in terms of the
model legislation that we are examining.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, it is, of course, the case that the
Federal anti-trafficking law relies on force, fraud or coercion
or anything involving a minor for sex trafficking, because a
minor is presumed not to be able to consent.
The reason we focus on that is, of course, that is the 13th
amendment against slavery. Force, fraud or coercion is our hook
into our constitutional authority to prosecute for that basis.
I am not sure I really agree with some of the premises of
the testimony we just heard, that we are losing cases because
of that. And I also don't believe that there are any shortcuts
to a prosecution. Any prosecution requires proving elements of
a crime. And I don't believe that one can say, because we
eliminate force, fraud or coercion, we will get more
prosecutions.
Also, I should add, we do bring a lot of Mann Act cases. We
use the statute. In fact, I can send you some figures on this.
But the figures that we have are that, prior to the focus on
anti-trafficking in the early part of the 2000's, there were
very few Mann Act cases brought, but in the last few years, we
have used the Mann Act in many, many cases.
We often bring it as a charge in other trafficking
instances. So, just for those purposes where if we have some
trouble proving force, fraud or coercion but we still think
that there was still sex trafficking going on, we use the Mann
Act charge.
Chairman Conyers. Thank you.
Ms. Leidholt, how would you add to our conversation this
afternoon?
Ms. Leidholt. Certainly we commend the Justice Department
for using the Mann Act for sex-trafficking prosecutions. The
Mann Act has its own proof hurdles which can stymie sex-
trafficking prosecutions--a requirement that the victims be
transported across State borders, for example, as opposed to a
broader requirement that simply the trafficking affected
interstate commerce.
But there is no question but that these proof requirements
stymie sex-trafficking prosecutions around the country. And
while the Justice Department points to many sex-trafficking
prosecutions and labor-trafficking prosecutions as well, many
of which are successful, many are not, in fact, being
prosecuted under the TVPA because of the burdensome nature of
these proof requirements, which are especially onerous in sex-
trafficking cases.
It essentially requires the victim to take the stand and go
into great detail about the abuse that she has suffered, and
much of it involves a great deal of humiliation. It makes any
proof that defense counsel can put together--and often there is
this kind of proof in these cases. For example, a photograph of
a victim dancing with a customer, a photograph of a victim
smiling in a pornographic picture. And we know the kind of
coercion that, of course, was behind that, but that of course
is going to be used by the defense counsel to say she was
complicit; there was no force, fraud or coercion. Victims
shouldn't be put in this kind of dilemma.
And if we removed the force, fraud or coercion requirement,
as Congresswoman Maloney suggests, by importing revised Mann
Act provisions into the crime of sex trafficking, we wouldn't
be having this problem. Don't we want to be able to get at
these traffickers?
Just one other scenario that we are seeing is that victims
who have been subjected to force, fraud or coercion by sex
traffickers in the most classic ways are then passed from
trafficker to trafficker to trafficker. The subsequent
traffickers may not need to use the force, fraud and coercion,
because the victims are so devastated. We can't get after those
traffickers, go after those traffickers under the TVPA.
So we urge the Judiciary Committee to really look at these
proof requirements and think about how we can resolve this
situation so we can go after sex traffickers and not subject
victims to humiliation and continued abuse, this time by our
legal system.
Chairman Conyers. Thank you so much.
Let me bring Ms. Farrell into this, because we are trying
to find out where you come in on this.
I would like to hear from everyone here today.
But do police lack the statutory tools needed in their
State criminal codes to address this question of prostitution
and pimping? Are many of the police officers involved in task
forces already also involved in vice squads? Does a human-
trafficking case differ from a pandering or a pimping case, in
the experiences of your research subjects?
Ms. Farrell. Thank you for the question.
In terms of looking at the trafficking task forces and the
responses of local law enforcement, one of the things that we
have seen is that on these task forces, local law enforcement
knowledgeable about existing laws--existing State statutory
laws around pimping, pandering, enticement--tend to be
affiliated with these task forces. And if the cases can't be
made under Federal human-trafficking violation, there is often
a movement to try to make those cases under statutory law.
Now, clearly the crimes that we are talking about today are
horrific. And one of the solutions to that would be to change
the evidentiary standards necessary to prosecute those crimes.
But I could suggest that this could cause some tremendous
problems for local law enforcement. It confuses the definition
of what human trafficking is. It causes people to move away
from focusing on force, fraud or coercion. Local law
enforcement may be very confused by the fact that something
that they for years categorized as prostitution or pimping or
pandering is now conflated with definitions around human
trafficking.
I would suggest that we have had an experience with this,
with the hate crime legislation, that might be instructive
here, which is in the 1990's, in the late 1990's, there were
efforts by some States to include rape and offenses of rape in
hate crimes, on the basis that they were forms of gender
discrimination, and there was a movement to get these included
in the elements. And what ended up happening is that regularly
those were not included in State statutes. And the suggestion
by the hate crimes movement was that laws should be changed
around rape to make those penalties more severe and punishment
more certain.
If the problem is how another law is being applied, the
solution is not necessarily to change a law like human
trafficking to remedy those problems. So I would suggest that
there are some definition problems that would be challenging to
local law enforcement if such a change were made.
Mr. Rothenberg. May I add something?
Particularly with regard to States, as you have heard, we
have 42 human-trafficking task forces which involve State and
local and Federal, range of service providers, law enforcement,
DHS, ICE; FBI is involved, along with State and locals. And
what we do in these task forces is we attack the problem. All
right? We don't go out and say, ``We are going to go enforce
Section 15.'' We attack the problem. We look for victims; we
find victims in the situation. And then, based on what
situation we find, we start figuring out, okay, do we have a
trafficking case here, are we going to prosecute it federally,
are we going to have the States take care of it, and those
sorts of things.
We currently now have a great relationship with the State
and local law enforcement and prosecutors. And we are able to
deal with a lot of these cases. That kind of relates to the
model State law that was brought up. What we were finding is
that, prior to the focus on human trafficking, many State law
enforcement agencies and local vice cops did not recognize,
when they came across a prostitution situation, that it was
actually human trafficking. So, by sort of pushing out to the
States and locals this model law, we were putting them on
notice, that, ``What you might think is prostitution is
actually human trafficking. Here is the way that you need to
attack it. Because there is force, fraud or coercion. This
isn't prostitution that you are familiar with, where you lock
up the prostitutes. This is human trafficking. You have to
provide the victims with benefits. You have to get them out of
that situation. Don't throw them in jail.''
So I would say that, far from causing a problem at the
State level, we have highlighted the issue. We have provided
them an example of more effective tools to attack the problem,
with far more penalties provided for in the law against the
people who commit these crimes.
Chairman Conyers. That is very interesting.
I see we are going to have to try to separate this out. And
so I will call on Howard Coble, the gentleman from North
Carolina, senior Member of the Committee.
Mr. Coble. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to have you all with us.
And, Katya, we particularly appreciate your testimony.
Folks, we only have 5 minutes, so if you could keep your
answers tersely, we can cover more ground.
Ms. Burke, do you believe that trafficking victims are more
likely to testify if they know their captors will be confined
to longer prison terms?
Ms. Burke. I think that definitely victims are more willing
to testify if they know that they are captors are incarcerated.
As to the length of prison terms, I think that, in
reviewing in my head victims I have talked to, there is always
great concern and sometimes anger when they hear about
sentences that they think are too short. So I think that that
makes it incumbent for the prosecution team and the service
providers to always be in touch with the victim about the
length of sentence.
Mr. Coble. Okay, that is good. Thank you.
Mr. Rothenberg, let me put a two-part question to you. Has
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act assisted the Justice
Department in its battle against human trafficking, A? And, B,
what are the greatest hurdles facing prosecutors in human-
trafficking cases?
Mr. Rothenberg. Yes, the TVPA has been a tremendous
assistance to us.
And I think, looking back at the history, as some people
have mentioned here today, before the Act was passed in 2000,
people did not recognize human trafficking for what it was. And
since it has been passed, we have been focusing not just on
finding victims, rescuing them, making the prosecutions, making
the cases, but also raising awareness of the problem. And
having one statute that we can focus on, one statute that
provides us all of the tools necessary to go after these
people, put them in jail for a long time, provide benefits to
victims, has been tremendous.
Mr. Coble. All right. How about the hurdles?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, I am limited in what I can say about
funding, but----
Mr. Coble. Well, maybe we can talk about that at another
time.
Mr. Rothenberg. I would say that--I am informed that, in
fact, I am allowed to say that we need more prosecutors and
resources for our investigative----
Mr. Coble. All right.
Ms. Forman, two-part question to you. Has the use of T
visas been successful, A? And, B, I presume that the recipients
are, in fact, eligible for some form of public assistance?
Ms. Forman. The first part of the question, in terms of T
visas, have certainly been helpful, in terms of granting a
benefit to a victim. Certainly, ICE doesn't authorize those T
visas. I mean, certainly, there has to be a certification of a
victim. And working with the NGOs and the individual, I mean,
they certainly have to agree to cooperate, in terms of pursuing
the investigation and going after the organizations.
Mr. Coble. Dr. Farrell, you may have responded to the
Chairman's question, but let me ask you this. What legal
requirements would you adjust to ease the burden of prosecuting
human-trafficking cases?
Ms. Farrell. I don't know that I would necessarily suggest
changing the legal requirements.
I mean, one of the things that we certainly have seen in
the prosecution of these cases is that new strategies may need
to be developed to figure out how you can bring cases forward
without relying as heavily on the victim testimony. And there
are things in this act that I think help improve victim
testimony, and there is some interesting language at looking at
ways to use innovative strategies to prosecute cases under non-
force, fraud or coercion that would be discussed at national
conferences where these task forces come together. And I think
those strategies would definitely be useful in those cases
where you identify a harm but can't necessarily use the TVPA.
Mr. Coble. I thank you.
Finally, Mr. Rothenberg, is human trafficking and organized
prostitution in the United States increasing or decreasing?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, it is very difficult to get a handle
on the problem. We are trying. We are funding numerous studies
to do that.
As you are aware, there are a lot of estimates out there,
but it is a hidden crime and we just don't know what the extent
it of is, because so many of these victims are deliberately
kept hidden by the traffickers.
So that is part of the reason that we have made such an
effort to reach out to State and locals. As one of the
witnesses said, it is the States and locals who are on the
ground, the vice cops, the cop on the beat. And what we need to
do is educate them to look for the signs of trafficking so that
they can bring these victims out of the shadows and we can
rescue them.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, the witnesses were terse in their
response, and I almost beat the red light. I yield back.
Mr. Scott. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rothenberg, in the 2005 reauthorization, Congress
authorized a biennial survey of the commercial sex industry in
the United States. Could you tell me the status of that study?
Mr. Rothenberg. We are working on that study. It is
difficult to design a scientifically valid study that would be
useful for us and gather all the data in a short period of
time. So we are working on that study.
Mr. Scott. You mean you are designing the study now?
Mr. Rothenberg. We are not designing the study now. I mean
the reason it hasn't been completed yet is we have been working
on it. And we do have funding for it. And the Bureau of Justice
Statistics is working on it.
Mr. Scott. And when can we expect some information as a
result of the study?
Mr. Rothenberg. I don't have that with me, but I can get
back to you on that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Burke, in your testimony you discuss the fact that the
TVPA, including the reauthorizations in 2003 and 2005, provided
for funding for immigrant victims while failing to do so for
United States victims. Can you comment on that and state
whether we should remedy that situation?
Ms. Burke. I think that the point I really would like to
make is that there is a lot of expertise among service
providers working in the field of human trafficking, and some
of the funding restricts those programs to provide services
only to foreign-born victims of trafficking. And I think we
need to eliminate those restrictions, so that programs who have
expertise in service provision can also provide services to
U.S. citizens.
And I think that those organizations that are skilled in
working with exploited children and other programs need to join
forces to attack this program on a broader view.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Rothenberg. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Rothenberg?
Mr. Rothenberg. Sorry. If I can say, that study will be
completed by mid-2008, mid next year.
Mr. Scott. Mid-2008. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Leidholt indicated the problems with requiring force,
fraud and coercion. Mr. Rothenberg, would there be any problem
in eliminating that in the Federal statute?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, it raises a lot of questions. As I
said earlier, I would stand by our prosecutions now. But there
are a lot of questions that will come up with that. For
example, as I did mention, what would it do to the relationship
between us and the States? And one of the other witnesses also
mentioned that----
Mr. Scott. Well, you would have to have a Federal nexus
either in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or
crossing State lines?
Mr. Rothenberg. Yeah. Of course, there would have to be a
Federal nexus in order for us to have constitutional authority
to do it. But even if we had that Federal nexus, I think it
could raise a lot of issues. It would raise resource issues, in
terms of where we would prioritize our prosecutions. At the
moment, we prosecute force, fraud or coercion. If we were to
expand that, it could bring a lot of new cases before us that
we simply don't have the----
Mr. Scott. If the problem with that is the interaction
between State and Federal prosecutions, why would we insist on
having that in the model State statute?
Mr. Rothenberg. I am sorry, I meant to say that eliminating
force, fraud or coercion, as one of the other witnesses
testified, and using that as the basis for Federal prosecutions
could harm the balance that we have between Federal and State
prosecutions that we currently have going on.
Mr. Scott. Right. But you, in your model State statute, you
include force, fraud and coercion. Why would you do that?
Mr. Rothenberg. Because, as I said before, our purpose in
doing the model State statute was to highlight for the State
and locals that what they previously had thought of as
prostitution was actually human trafficking. And, as we know,
the----
Mr. Scott. Well suppose, for the reasons that have been
articulated, that the proof of force, fraud and coercion might
even be counterproductive, because that only encourages the
perpetrators to intimidate the witness even more.
If you can prove the case without having to prove force,
fraud and coercion--I mean, can't you almost presume some kind
of coercion? I mean, people just don't decide this on their
own.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, I----
Mr. Scott. Do you have a problem eliminating that from your
model guidelines?
Mr. Rothenberg. It would raise a lot of questions for us.
We don't have a position on that. I know that is in the bill,
and we have been discussing it. But as we have been reviewing
this, as I say, it raises a lot of issues for us.
Mr. Scott. Like what?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, for example, if we eliminated that,
as I said, what effect would that have on our relationships
with the States?
Mr. Scott. It would be a State issue.
Mr. Rothenberg. Do you mean eliminating it from----
Mr. Scott. Model guidelines.
Mr. Rothenberg. I am sorry. I thought you meant in terms of
the Federal statute.
Mr. Scott. What is the problem with eliminating the
requirement of force, fraud and coercion from the model
guidelines?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, I just don't think that that is what
the model State statute's purpose was. I mean, the model State
statute does not in any way eliminate existing statutes on----
Mr. Scott. But it encourages them to put force, fraud and
coercion as an essential element in their prosecutions.
Mr. Rothenberg. For human trafficking. But, as we have
said, these sorts of cases can be brought under lots of
different statutes.
Mr. Scott. Not if you stick force, fraud and coercion in
the other statutes, because that is the model recommendation.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, this was a model anti-trafficking
law. It doesn't in any way displace existing laws against
prostitution and pimping.
Mr. Scott. And so, for those, whatever you want to call it,
you would not expect force, fraud and coercion to be in those
statutes?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, it depends upon the State, but a
State can prosecute a pimp under lots of different statutes
that are currently on the books. What we were doing, as I say,
was trying to highlight for people what you think is
prostitution can actually be punished as human trafficking.
Mr. Scott. Remind me of the difference between pimping and
trafficking.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, in our conception, the difference is
force, fraud or coercion. I mean, I understand that pimps often
use violence and subject people to lots of different forms of
coercion and so forth. But at least in the way that TVPA was
originally conceived and the way that we focused on two sets of
victims--the victims of force, fraud or coercion and children--
those are necessary elements to make it human trafficking and
the depravation of liberty.
Mr. Scott. And you are suggesting that there can be pimping
without force, fraud or coercion?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, I think there are certainly
situations in which people are driven to become prostitutes
by----
Mr. Scott. Coercion.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, coercion can be read very broadly. I
mean----
Mr. Scott. Fraud.
Mr. Rothenberg. Yes, and if fraud, force or coercion were
used, we would prosecute it as human trafficking. But I don't
think that every prostitute is necessarily a victim of human
trafficking.
Mr. Scott. No, that is prostitution. I said pimping.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, again, if the pimping involves force,
fraud or coercion, then that would be human trafficking, and it
would be prosecuted as such.
Mr. Scott. And you think this activity is done without
force, fraud or coercion. If you can just prove the
transactions, that is not enough for you to consider it
trafficking?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well----
Mr. Scott. If someone is living off the earnings of this
activity and you can prove that, do you think you need to prove
some more to consider it trafficking?
Mr. Rothenberg. Yes. By law, we need to prove force, fraud
or coercion. That is the way that we conceived of it.
Mr. Scott. That is because you put it in the law.
My time has expired.
The gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses, all, for your testimony.
I direct my first question to Ms. Forman, and ask you, in
the bill, it defines that the presentation of multiple forms of
evidence, including nonexclusive use of radiographs, determine
age. Is there another method to determine age that is as
reliable or more reliable than radiographs?
Ms. Forman. I would have to get back with you on that. It
is not my area.
Mr. King. Is there anyone on the panel that has any
expertise on radiographs?
I would be surprised--I would just submit here that my
reason for asking that question is that, if documents might be
used to supplement radiographs, if they are a nonexclusive use,
one should have a judgment as to whether that might be subject
to document fraud. So if there is another medical reason or
something of hard evidence, then I would want to know about
that. But radiographs apparently are the best medical version
we have.
I wanted to also ask Katya--and I thank you for coming
here. It took a lot of courage. And so, I appreciate your
testimony, as well as all of the others'.
I wanted to ask you, the perpetrators--as I understand,
there were two in this country. Were they arrested, prosecuted
and convicted and sentenced?
Katya. Yes, there was prosecuting.
Mr. King. And what were the sentences? Do you know?
Katya. One, I believe, was sentenced to 7 years. And Alex
was sentenced, I believe, to 12 years.
Mr. King. Were those sentences adequate for the crime they
committed? Do you believe that justice was served? Or if you
had to choose, would you want that to be more or less sentence
for them?
Katya. Definitely more. But I believe justice--she did what
she could to make it longer.
Mr. King. And I would submit that crime victims almost
always take that position, and I recognize and appreciate that.
I would point out that this bill actually reduces existing
penalties, in some cases, and that is something I hope we look
at as a Committee, in light of the testimony that you have
given. And I thank you, Katya, for that.
And I watched--Dr. Burke, I do have a question for you. And
I believe that you testified as to, I'll call it, family
reunification, the need to keep families together so that they
are not vulnerable to threats in foreign countries.
And my question to you--and I think also to Ms. Brown, who
also spoke to the issue--is, how far would you go with that?
Would you draw the limits to parents; parents and siblings;
parents, siblings, half-brothers, half-sisters, cousins? Where
would you draw that line? Because we have to ask those tough
questions here.
Ms. Burke. I appreciate those are tough questions. And I
think that, in replying, I can only say that it depends on a
case-by-case basis.
Katya testified that things would have been much easier if
her mother had been here with her during this ordeal.
You know, I can't give a blanket answer to that, but I
think that those family members most close to the victim and
who the victim needs to have there during the time of support--
and, also, I think it is linked to whether or not these family
members are being threatened with retaliation.
Mr. King. And, of course, we have to define this in law,
which gets significantly more difficult. But I appreciate your
approach on that.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Yes, I would also support that. In many of these
instances, the closest remaining relative may not be an
immediate relative in the definition of the law. So, as an
example, a grandmother may be the last surviving member of the
family that would be supportive to the child.
In addition, who the child, in this instance, feels is the
most in danger of the traffickers coming after them. For
instance, they may have said to this child, we are going to
take your sister, we are going to take some other member of the
family.
Mr. King. Would you limit that to a number of people, then?
Would you ask the victim to list close family members and limit
that to a number? How would you define that?
Ms. Brown. I would not necessarily limit it to a number. I
think that it is something that we need to look at with each
child. As you say, it needs to be defined in law. But, for
instance, if the child was related to six other sisters who
were all under the age of a certain frame, that may be
something that needed to be considered.
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Brown.
I ask Ms. Forman, can you tell me how someone might, either
individually or as an organized group, game this system?
Ms. Forman. Certainly. I mean, first, there is
individuals--I mean, you have to do a case-by-case assessment,
because there are many individuals who want to come into this
country. And we have certainly seen every day, on a daily
basis, fraud being used, fraudulent documents and lies, and
people who come into this country legally and overstay their
visas.
I will add that we do have something called significant
benefit parole. And during these human-trafficking cases, we
offer that to the victim and to the victim's relatives, as
well. And ICE can help facilitate that.
Mr. King. Thank you.
It is Dr. Farrell, isn't it?
I might have missed a couple of other doctors up there. You
are all designated as not necessarily your professions.
But I am interested in--first of all, I appreciate your
intensity. And I have an idea about how hard you must work in
the work that you have chosen for your life's profession.
And I would ask you, if you can inform this Committee, what
were some of the first examples of the implementation of hate
crime statutes, anywhere in the world, where it originated,
where it originated from?
Because, as I look back into the cradle of civilization, I
am trying to find out when we first came up with this idea that
we could punish the intent of the criminal rather than the
actual act of the criminal.
And how did this evolve and get to this point, where we are
passing judgment and punishing people for what we think they
thought or what we believe they thought or maybe even what you
believe we prove they thought.
Ms. Farrell. While I don't want to not answer your
question, because it is an extremely important one, I do want
to say that I don't want to take us away from our discussion
about human trafficking today.
I mean, there are many origins of hate crime across Europe
and the United States that came out of a variety of different
people coming together around a common idea. And I would be
happy to talk to you more afterward about the specific issues--
--
Mr. King. Just give me the first case, the first year, the
first time and which civilization.
Ms. Farrell. I don't actually have that at the top of my
head.
Mr. King. I would appreciate that and a supplemental report
on that. I am a little bit surprised, as much as you know about
hate crimes and as long as you have worked there, that that
wouldn't be the beginnings of your education and your learning
and the foundation for your judgment on that today. But I am
looking forward to that response.
I thank you and I thank all the witnesses, especially
Katya, for being here today.
And I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a cosponsor of this bill and think it is a good
measure. Obviously this hearing is important, to see if there
are improvements that can be made. But sometimes it is not just
what is in the law, but how it is administered.
And one of the questions that I have, I had the same
question for the Secretary of State--the Chairman and I and the
Ranking Members of the full Committee and Immigration
Subcommittee met with Secretary of State Rice last month--which
is the situation of child trafficking victims.
The State Department estimates that there are 5,000 a year,
yet we have only identified about 20 a year. And I guess I know
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been very active in
this arena.
I am wondering, you know, the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, you have suggested in your testimony, has been
slow in certifying child trafficking victims, even though they
have the authority. Is that the problem? I am trying to sort
through why this isn't working better, even though it seems
like we have the legal tools available.
Do you have an opinion on that?
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Yes, one of the issues truly is that the victim who is a
child must be, not certified, but determined to be eligible by
HHS ORR. However, in practice, they rely on a recommendation
from law enforcement agencies, DHS, in order to actually make
that recommendation.
What then happens is that the child is either languishing
and not actually being cared for at all by anybody or in a
system which is a removal system so that the child may, in
fact, be removed in an expeditious manner.
Additionally, children have a very difficult time,
sometimes, speaking correctly on the issue of the fact that
they have been forced, coerced, and don't even want to believe
that that has happened to them. And so, we find that the child
who is in care with people with child welfare expertise who is
able to speak to that child, we have had much more success with
those children.
Ms. Lofgren. So do you think the new custody provisions in
here are going to help on that?
Ms. Brown. I do.
Ms. Lofgren. That is very interesting. It is something I
have wanted to do for a long time. And I think that, you know,
there are humanitarian reasons, but there is also a very strong
law enforcement reason, which we have heard both from U.S.
attorneys and the like who have this responsibility. It is good
to hear your views.
Mr. Myles, did you have something to add on that?
Mr. Myles. I just wanted to add something briefly, sort of
in light of the testimony that I gave and others gave. I think
it is very important, again, when we do talk about the face of
trafficking, that we always include the face of those
trafficked into the U.S. who are from other countries, but also
those trafficked within the U.S. who are U.S. Citizens.
And if we are talking about the face of child trafficking
in the U.S. and we were not restricting it to foreign nationals
or U.S. citizens, we are talking about a lot more children than
5,000 children. Because I think that that statistic is
reflective only of the foreign nationals.
Ms. Lofgren. Right. I didn't mean to suggest that. I was
thinking of--the State Department, obviously, is looking at the
foreign trafficking victims. I didn't mean to include every
victim in their figure. That is not their responsibility to
estimate.
I am wondering, Dr. Burke, whether you had also identified
a deficiency in identifying child victims. Are there additional
things that we should do in this bill to assist that, do you
think?
Ms. Burke. Most of my work has been with adult victims.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
Ms. Burke. But in thinking of a child case that we worked
on, I know that it was very difficult for this child to provide
any concrete information about where he had been trafficked,
where he had been forced to work. He was driven around a large
geographical area by law enforcement.
But what I would say, as a mental health person, this child
came from a country in the Middle East that was undergoing a
war. He had seen his home burned and his parents murdered. And
then someone trafficked him here and put him to work. Now,
doesn't it make sense that he couldn't identify where he
worked?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes. Yes.
Just one final question, Mr. Rothenberg.
Mr. Smith, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, had a
number of criticisms this morning--I do not know if you heard
his testimony--including concerns about some of the immigration
provisions in the Act. Certainly, we want to have a system that
works well.
Do you think it is important to have a visa component if we
are going to do these prosecutions in this bill?
Mr. Rothenberg. A visa component?
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, we do currently have the T visas, and
that is a very important victim protection part of the law.
That is part of our victim-centered approach is to give people
T visas. These are people who have been taken from their homes
or even left willing, but then found themselves in a
trafficking situation in a country where they might not know
the language. We have to provide some way for them to stay here
and to recuperate from that while we build the case against the
people who did that to them, so we are very supportive of that.
I do want to add, with regard to the treatment of victims,
the Department and the FBI and, I am sure, our partners at ICE
take very seriously the provision of services to victims,
especially child victims. We do feel, however, that law
enforcement has a very important role to play in the
certification of victims and the provision of letters of
eligibility, mainly from the perspective of protecting the
victims' safety, especially for children, but for all victims.
It is really crucial, and there have been many cases where the
victims have been--or rather, I should say, the traffickers
have sought out the victims after the victims have been
rescued. We have to provide not just shelter; we have to
provide safe shelter for them, and if law enforcement is not
there, who is going to do that even for the NGOs and for the
service providers themselves? Because if traffickers come and
try to recapture those victims, the NGOs and their workers
might be in danger.
Also, a provision of services to victims is very important,
but we want to make sure that there are not any future victims.
So, if law enforcement is involved right away, we can talk to
the children and find out, you know, that maybe that child
managed to escape, but there are ten other children who are in
that circumstance. If we have that information, we can go
rescue those children and shut down the trafficking network.
So it is very important to find more victims and to provide
them services, but it is also important to have law enforcement
involved right from the beginning to make sure that the victims
are safe and to make sure that there are not any future
victims.
Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to say to Katya how impressed I was by
your testimony and your poise and how grateful we are for your
courage in coming here today and for sharing your story, which
is a very meaningful one for all of us. Thank you.
Katya. Thank you.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by also expressing to Katya how impressed I
am with your testimony and how much all of us admire your
courage in coming forward today and in taking a very horrible
tragedy and trying to make a difference in other people's
lives, and so your testimony has made a difference and did not
go unnoticed. I would like to ask you a question.
Do you feel safer in the United States or in the Ukraine?
Tell us why.
Katya. Definitely, I feel safer in the United States
because I still have the father of Alex. He is in the Ukraine,
and he is a really big person there, and definitely, I hope to
stay here.
Mr. Keller. He is not confined in prison? He is going
around free in the Ukraine?
Katya. Yes.
Mr. Keller. Alex and Michael are serving terms in prison, I
believe you said, for 7 years and 12 years, correct?
Katya. I believe so.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
Next, I am going to turn to some of the other witnesses.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Rothenberg and Ms.
Forman.
No bill is perfect. No bill that I write is perfect or any
other bill, but as I look at this bill, which has a lot of good
things, it is my understanding that the bill lowers the
criminal penalty for trafficking for the purpose of forced
labor from 5 years to 1 year.
If the goal is to punish human traffickers for enslaving
victims and to deter others, why should we reduce those
penalties? Let me be specific about my analysis here.
I am looking at the current law, which for those lawyers
out there, is Section 18, U.S. Code, Section 1592. It says,
``Whoever knowingly engages in forced labor shall be fined or
imprisoned not more than 5 years.''
Now I am looking at this bill, pages 62 through 64, also
with the same title, Section 1592. ``whoever knowingly engages
in forced labor shall be imprisoned for 1 year unless there
were $10,000 or more involved, and then it is 3 years unless
there is also bodily injury, and then it is 5 years.''
The current law is better. The conduct is so heinous that 5
years, I think, is a much more appropriate penalty, and if
there are circumstances that would justify a penalty of less
than 5 years under the existing law, the judge, clearly, has
discretion to do the 1-year or 3-year, but I am concerned about
that watering-down of the provision.
Let me ask you, Mr. Rothenberg, do you believe that higher
penalties serve as a deterrent to those who might engage in the
trafficking of humans for the purpose of forced labor?
Mr. Rothenberg. We are studying the bill at this moment. We
have not produced an official administrative position on it,
but I think, from a prosecutor's standpoint--I cannot say
specifically on the bill, but I think you can probably imagine
what prosecutors think about long sentences.
Mr. Keller. You are not allowed to officially state,
because it has not had certain clearance, that 5 years is
better than 1 year but that I can imagine what many prosecutors
might say to that?
Mr. Rothenberg. Yes.
Mr. Keller. Okay.
Mr. Rothenberg. Let me just add that I do appreciate your
focus on labor trafficking. We have talked a lot about sex
trafficking, which is, obviously, a horrible crime, and we have
heard testimony about it, but we should not forget about labor
trafficking, which is also horrible, and we see a lot of it--
migrant workers, domestic servants, people forced to cook and
clean, who are not allowed out of their homes. We have
prosecuted many of those cases, so----
Mr. Keller. Some might wonder, since I told you the
existing law is 5 years, how it is that Katya's abusers ended
up getting 7 years and 12 years. They abused a whole host of
criminal laws, I mean, false imprisonment and various other
crimes that justified the higher sentences.
Ms. Forman, let me ask you--do you have a view about
whether a 5-year penalty for those who engage in human
trafficking for the purpose of forced labor is better than 1
year?
Ms. Forman. All I can say is, based on the experience of
ICE and their investigations in human trafficking, it certainly
has served to be a much better deterrent in terms of higher
sentences.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I am sensitive to the fact that
there are certain limits and that it is not your fault that you
are not allowed to testify fully.
I would just point out with my remaining time, Mr.
Chairman, that one of the key reasons we heard from Katya as to
why she feels safer in the United States is because the bad
guys have been put away in prison for a long time, and that is
not the case in the Ukraine. So, as we go toward the markup, I
hope we will be sensitive to this testimony and will put the
penalty back where it belongs, at 5 years, as it exists under
existing law.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I would say to the gentleman that we need to read this
closely because it is my understanding that the lower sentences
apply to lesser-included offenses, which might actually expand
the prosecutions, but we will look at that, and during markup,
we will make sure that we are not making things worse. Thank
you for your questions.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the witnesses very much.
I understand my good friend, Congresswoman Maloney, was
here and had a poster board that really evidenced the mental
violence as well as the physical violence and the deteriorating
look of women. I hope that, one, the Department of Justice will
look at that set of pictures--I believe that is from PRISM
Magazine--and have that as they begin their discussions.
I am delayed in another hearing, but I tried to use my
marathon shoes to be here to make a point of, first, thanking
all of the witnesses for your presence here and to support the
legislation that my Chairman and others, along with myself, are
supporting, along with the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which
I am a Member as well. So let me just try to be pointed in my
questions.
Let me formally ask unanimous consent to have the PRISM
article submitted into the record.
Unanimous consent?
Mr. Scott. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I will just hold this for a moment and then pass it back.
This was, certainly, a much better portrait, but for anyone to
see, you would have to have a microscope here, but you can see
the deterioration of women, so I just want to express the
horror of it.
Let me go to Mr. Rothenberg and ask about the ``force,
fraud and coercion'' terminology because I am concerned, and
maybe we can work together. You indicated you needed that
language. I think it is in the model law, and our concern is
that sometimes victims are duped. I believe Katya came on a
student visa. Now, when she got here, there were indicators
that there was coercion and force in it. So I am concerned
about those who are duped, those who may be older than Katya of
whom one would say, ``of course, you knew what you were
doing,'' and those who were thrown into prostitution.
So my question is, very briefly--and I do have a number of
questions--is there some movement on this issue of force, fraud
and coercion, particularly those who come, maybe, on their own
will?
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, certainly, the way we conceive of the
crime and the way we prosecute the crime is that someone who
came over here willingly, even somebody who would otherwise
have been smuggled here but then is subject to force, fraud or
coercion once they get here, is a victim. The term is ``force,
fraud or coercion.'' So someone like Katya, of course, and as
we have heard the case----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But as to someone who is a domestic
worker, for example, who may be living the life of Riley but
who has not learned the language and who does not know what it
means to have days off or to go off and be free to walk around.
Mr. Rothenberg. Well, we prosecute those cases, and we have
prosecuted a case. We have a case going on right now in New
York.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me say this.
I, certainly, want the Department of Justice to look at
that carefully. I know you are stuck on that language, but I am
concerned, and let me raise that on the record as a concern,
and let me raise it for my colleagues.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Farrell, let me ask you about the distinction between
State laws and, really, moving it to the Federal level and the
importance of, in essence, the long arm of the Federal
Government. I have always indicated that we have a
responsibility to set a national standard.
Could you respond to that?
Ms. Farrell. Well, I think that is very true, and we have
seen this in a variety of other types of crimes where the
Federal Government has both provided leadership in the
definition of the crime, which I think we see here with the
TVPA, and has helped us understand what this crime is and what
its elements are so then States might know how to interpret
those same elements and create parallel State codes.
In addition to that, the Federal laws oftentimes serve as a
strong punishment against those types of crimes that are so
severe that additional sentences that can be meted out in the
Federal system may serve as some type of deterrent effect. We
have seen this in cases of guns and drugs and gangs and other
places where there are corresponding State laws and Federal
laws but where cases go into the Federal system because the
actual offenses are so egregious that they would apply under
the Federal Code, and those strong deterrent punishments might
be able to be used. So they can both lead, and then they can
also serve as an additional arm of the law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I see.
It looks as if you would like to answer. I cannot see your
name down there, but I am also asking Ms. Brown to comment. All
right. Who is next to--one in from the--yes, you.
Did you have a response to that? Because if you were trying
to respond, I am sorry. I cannot read your name there.
Ms. Leidholdt. Yes. Sorry.
I am Dorchen Leidholdt, and I am from Sanctuary for
Families' Center for Battered Women's Legal Services and the
Coalition against Trafficking and Women.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Leidholdt. I just wanted to make the point that in the
vast majority of trafficking--and we can look at sex
trafficking in particular--force, fraud or coercion is
integral. Proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is a different
story. That is the enormous, enormous problem, especially given
the high levels of trauma that trafficking victims sustain,
whether we are talking about a woman who was trafficked from
the Ukraine into the United States or whether we are talking
about a young woman on the streets of New York City or
Washington, D.C. under the control of a brutal pimp. These are
some of the most traumatized victims of gender violence around.
As we all know, anybody who works with victims of trauma, it is
very, very difficult to talk about what you went through, and
it is sometimes impossible.
Why do we have to build our successful anti-trafficking
prosecutions or our anti-trafficking prosecutions on the backs
of these brutalized victims? Why do we have to inject into this
a proof hurdle that is going to make it impossible to prosecute
traffickers?
I mean, sometimes the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act
is a wonderful and a revolutionary piece of legislation. I
sometimes wonder if those three words, ``force, fraud and
coercion,'' were injected, put into the statute by members of
the traffickers' defense bar, because it has hobbled
prosecutors, and there is the fact that States are now looking
at trafficking in terms of, ``If you cannot prove force, fraud
or coercion, it is not trafficking.'' What it means is that
police, service providers and prosecutors look for, if they do
not see the bruises and if the victim does not show something
that they can recognize as fear, they think, well, trafficking
has not taken place here.
The result is that some of the most brutal traffickers who
have terrorized their victims into silence are at large to
continue to prey on some of our most vulnerable women and
children.
This is an opportunity to really change this situation, to
really shift the paradigm, and I hope that the Members of the
House Judiciary Committee will take this opportunity to make a
difference for these vulnerable women, children and sometimes
men and boys as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I wish you could give us, after the
hearing or as we move toward markup, some of those actual case
studies that you have suggested because I think you are right,
and I will just use this example, the kidnapping of the young
boys who were found just a couple of months ago with a
perpetrator, a sexual predator, who were living quietly after a
while and who really succumbed to a father-son--certainly, we
have kidnapping laws. The point is and what I am concerned
about is the victim's becoming psychologically dominated so
that they look like a complacent, happy individual. That is my
concern as to whether or not that language is what really will
bring that person to justice. So I thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask Ms. Brown--and maybe I am reading
the wrong name. Is Ms. Brown here?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. I was trying to ask you about the
Federal law versus the State law. I mentioned your name.
Will you be able to comment on the Federal involvement
versus the State involvement and the importance of that?
Ms. Brown. As to Federal involvement versus State
involvement with regard to the law, one of the problems that I
have seen is that victims--if it is decided to prosecute under
State law, it could very well be that the victim is not always
provided the same services. So one of the problems that I--we
very strongly support State laws, but we should also ask, ``has
a Federal crime been committed?''
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. I think you have indicated
social services are key.
Let me thank Katya for her testimony and for how courageous
she has been to be with us here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their
testimony. Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative
days to submit any additional written questions to you, which
we will forward and will ask you to answer as promptly as you
can to be made part of the record.
Without objection, the record will remain open for 5
legislative days for the submission of any other, additional
materials.
In the 1800s, survivors such as Frederick Douglass and
Sojourner Truth bravely spoke out against slavery. They were
not passive objects in the struggle for freedom.
Today, Katya did not allow her enslavement or exploitation
to silence her. Today, she has a voice not just for herself but
for all who have suffered this heinous crime. Our expert panel
has shown that survivors, community groups and law enforcement
can work together to insist on that living promise of the 13th
amendment, and I commend our witnesses for their commitment to
fighting for freedom.
With that, the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on H.R.
3887, The Wilberforce Act Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2000, which would reauthorize Anti-Trafficking
Programs in order to provide tools to ensure the safety of victims,
including certain changes to the T-visa for trafficking victims.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hearing is to review the
implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,
Pub.L.106-386 (``TVPA''), as reauthorized in 2003 (``TVPRA 2003'') and
2005 (``TVPRA 2005''), and assess what if any additional or different
provisions are necessary or otherwise indicated for reauthorization
this Congress.
Indeed, the issue of trafficking of persons is one of utmost
significance from which no nation is exempt. To facilitate our
exploration of this issue we are fortunate to have a very impressive
panel of witnesses. To each of them let me extend a warm welcome:
Laurence E. Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice; Katya, from Detroit,
Michigan; Anatasia Brown, Director of Refugee Programs, Migration and
Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Bradley Myles,
National Program Director, Polaris Project; Marcy Forman, Director,
Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Florrie Burke, Safe Horizon, New York, New York; Dr. Amy Farrell,
Institute on Race and Justice, Northeastern University; and Dorchen
Leidholt, Director, Sanctuary for Families' Center for Battered Women's
Legal Services. I look forward to your testimony and hope that it will
lend guidance to this Committee on how we can most effectively address
and eliminate this very serious human rights tragedy.
Within the United States, we pride ourselves on overcoming the
historic stain of slavery, and we are comforted by the thought that
while others may persist in this repulsive practice, we do not. This
however, is simply not the case. According to the GAO, ``as many as
17,500 people are believed to be trafficked into the United States each
year.'' The trafficking of persons is our problem because they are
forced through our borders and used by our people. This extreme
injustice can no longer go unnoticed.
The United Nations Protocol defines human trafficking as the
activities involved in obtaining or maintaining persons in compelled
service:
``. . . the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or
receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the
abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the
giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person, for the
purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a
minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or
other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the
removal of organs.
The flow of human trafficking is no surprise; traffic flows from
the less industrialized countries to the more industrialized countries.
This fact makes the issue of human trafficking a problem for all
nations alike on a political, social, and moral level. The U.S.
Department of State estimates that 800,000 people are trafficked across
national borders every year, in addition to the reported millions of
people trafficked within their own countries. The trafficking industry
generates billions of dollars annually, and, together with drugs and
weapons, is now a leading source of profits for organized crime.
According to most analyst, the largest number of victims trafficked
internationally come from Asia, though significant numbers of women and
girls trafficked to work in the commercial sex industry come from the
former Soviet Union and southeastern Europe.
One subset of trafficking, and one of particular interest to the
United States, is trafficking for forced labor, which the International
Labor Organization defines as ``any situation in which work is carried
out involuntarily under the menace of a penalty.'' The ILO estimates
that some 12.3 million people have been the victims of forced labor,
with agriculture, construction, domestic service, restaurants, and
manufacturing sectors being the most prominent industries into which
forced labor is trafficked.
Under HR 3887, victims brought into the country by the government
for investigations or as witnesses will be able to receive the T-visa,
as opposed to only those who are found here. The bill also allows
access to the T-visa for who are unable to participate with law
enforcement because of the trauma experienced by the applicant, and
eliminates the onerous standard that they demonstrate that they would
suffer ``unusual and severe harm'' if they were returned home. The bill
also will allow parents and siblings who are in danger of retaliation
to travel to join the trafficking victim.
In March of this year, the Committee on Homeland Security, on which
I am a senior Member and I serve as Chairwoman of a subcommittee, held
a hearing on the crossing of borders and victims of trafficking which
produced a meaningful discourse on horrific implications of the
trafficking of persons and sought to address said issues. However, 7
months later, the issue is not resolved. The current policy of the
United States, under the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act of 2000,
allows the government to support many types of anti-trafficking
domestically and overseas. However, much more must be done. The GAO
currently reports that, while the government allocated funds to combat
trafficking, there was an over-emphasis by the government on sex
slavery, which came at a price for the majority of others who are a
victim of human trafficking.
Reliable information and independent evaluations of the success of
the United States in combating this human atrocity have been hard to
come by. While the State Department points to progress by citing the
increase of countries with anti-trafficking initiatives and an increase
in the number of arrests and convictions for human traffickers, the GAO
report cites a less optimistic reality. The U.S. government has yet to
develop a coordinated, inter-agency response to combat trafficking
overseas or a systematic way to evaluate the effectiveness of its anti-
trafficking policies. In addition, a July 2007 GAO report entitled
``Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects are Limited, but
Experts Suggest Improvements,'' found that monitoring mechanisms are
lacking in U.S.-funded international projects, and that the U.S. and
international organizations have encountered difficulties collaborating
with host governments that often lack the resources, capacity, and/or
political will to address trafficking.
Given the very real and persistent nature of the crime of human
trafficking, it is our responsibility as Members of the Congress of the
most powerful nation in the world to address and resolve this atrocity
once and for all. Nearly 150 years after our great country abolished
slavery at home, it is our job to once again be a beacon of progress
and hope and no longer allow one man to profit from the suffering of
another.
In the past ten years, we as a nation have made significant strides
forward. In 1998, the Civil Rights Division under Attorney General
Janet Reno convened the National Worker Exploitation Task Force, which
sought to increase prosecutions and update anti-slavery tools to create
a victim-centered approach to combating slavery. The Trafficking Victim
Protections Act (TVPA) of 2000 modernized the involuntary servitude
statutes, provided increased victim protections, and created mechanisms
to assist and encourage other nations to join us in combating this
serious problem. This legislation's ``3 P Approach'' of Prevention,
Protection, and Prosecution is visible in the United Nations
Trafficking Protocol signed in late 2000, and ratified by the United in
December 2005.
Under the TVPA, new criminal laws were established, allowing
prosecutions in cases involving psychological coercion and document
confiscation. These laws undo damage done in 1988 by the Supreme Court
case United States v. Kozminski, which rejected psychological coercion,
and narrowed the definition of servitude to cases involving force,
threats of force, or threats of legal coercion.
Last week, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a
Member, passed out of committee H.R. 3887, William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007, of which I
am proud to be a cosponsor. This legislation reauthorizes U.S. anti-
trafficking programs for four years, refines the requirements and
programs contained in the original TVPA, adds additional protections
against trafficking in the United States, and includes provisions to
end the use of child soldiers.
I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel and hope
to continue to work on this issue until it is finally resolved forever
and all of mankind is free and treated with the dignity, respect, and
equality they deserve.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the
Judiciary
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this important
hearing. I have long been active in fighting the occurrence of human
smuggling in Southern California, and the harms caused by the separate
and distinct crime of human trafficking are similar and equally
egregious.
It is difficult to imagine what victims of human trafficking
experience, be it in forced prostitution or other forms of labor. To
say such treatment is degrading only touches the surface of the horror
human trafficking victims face, as our witnesses have described. We
were right to pass the ``Trafficking Victims Protection Act'' in 2000
in an effort to prevent human trafficking, strongly punish human
traffickers, and protect victims of human trafficking.
I commend the Majority for introducing H.R. 3887, the ``William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of
2007.'' The programs authorized under the original act are important
and should be continued.
What I do not understand is why the Majority weakens many of the
criminal provisions enacted by the 2000 act. For example, one provision
of H.R. 3887 adds several intent requirements for human trafficking
prosecution, and another provision decreases the penalties for
trafficking for the purposes of forced labor from 5 years to 1 to 5
years. It seems to me that decreasing penalties does nothing to
discourage the underlying crime, but does make it less dangerous to
commit the crime.
As this process continues, I look forward to working with my
colleagues in addressing these and other issues and ensuring that we
are able to support a reauthorization that both protects human
trafficking victims and punishes their traffickers.
Letter from the Honorable Laurence Rothenberg, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice,
to the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary