U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–640 PDF 2007

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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

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,’’ SeptemberOctober 2007 Issue ............................................................................................... 106

Page

IV

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

(1)

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 serVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
2

vitude 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 conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
3

cerns 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 

4

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 DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
5

troit, 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. 

6

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. 

7

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. 

8

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 

9

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:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LAURENCE E. ROTHENBERG


LER-1.eps
11


LER-2.eps
12


LER-3.eps
13


LER-4.eps
14


LER-5.eps
15


LER-6.eps
16

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 arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
17

rests, 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. 

18

Thank you for inviting me, and I will be glad to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Forman follows:]

19

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCY M. FORMAN


MMF-1.eps
20


MMF-2.eps
21


MMF-3.eps
22


MMF-4.eps
23


MMF-5.eps
24


MMF-6.eps
25

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 

26

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. 

27

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. 

28

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 enforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
29

ment 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. 

30

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:]

31


2A-1.eps
32


2A-2.eps
33


2A-3.eps
34


2A-4.eps
35


2A-5.eps
36


2A-6.eps
37


2A-7.eps
38


2A-8.eps
39


2A-9.eps
40

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 vicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
41

tims 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 

42

in this hearing and contribute to what I hope will be the passage of a historic antitrafficking bill this year. 

My name is Bradley Myles, and I am the National Program Director of a nongovernmental 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 

43

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 

44

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 strateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
45

gies, 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-disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
46

ciplinary dialogues to occur will, in my opinion, enhance the efforts of the antitrafficking 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 underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
47

standing 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 

48

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:]

49

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMY FARRELL


AF-1.eps
50


AF-2.eps
51


AF-3.eps
52


AF-4.eps
53


AF-5.eps
54


AF-6.eps
55


AF-7.eps
56


AF-8.eps
57


AF-9.eps
58


AF-10.eps
59


AF-11.eps
60

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 selfsufficiency 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. 

61

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:]

62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANATASIA K. BROWN


AKB-1.eps
63


AKB-2.eps
64


AKB-3.eps
65


AKB-4.eps
66


AKB-5.eps
67


AKB-6.eps
68


AKB-7.eps
69


AKB-8.eps
70


AKB-9.eps
71


AKB-10.eps
72


AKB-11.eps
73


AKB-12.eps
74


AKB-13.eps
75

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, posttraumatic 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, 

76

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 sextrafficking 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 

77

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 antitrafficking 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 beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
78

tween 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 

79

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 antitrafficking 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:]

80


3A-1.eps
81


3A-2.eps
82


3A-3.eps
83


3A-4.eps
84


3A-5.eps
85


3A-6.eps
86


3A-7.eps
87


3A-8.eps
88


3A-9.eps
89


3A-10.eps
90


3A-11.eps
91

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 

92

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 humantrafficking violation, there is often a movement to try to make 

those cases under statutory law. 

93

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 exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
94

ample 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 

95

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? 

96

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 

97

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 

98

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. 

99

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. 

100

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. 

101

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. 

102

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 

103

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 

104

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 senVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:14 Jul 08, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\103107\38640.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38640
105

sitive 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:]

106


4A-1.eps
107


4A-2.eps
108


4A-3.eps
109


4A-4.eps
110


4A-5.eps
111


4A-6.eps
112


4A-7.eps
113


4A-8.eps
114


4A-9.eps
115


4A-10.eps
116


4A-11.eps
117


4A-12.eps
118


4A-13.eps
119

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 

120

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. 

121

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.] 

(123)

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 JUDI- CIARY

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 

124

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 

125

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. 

PREPARED

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. 

STATEMENT OF THE H

fONORABLE 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. 

f

126

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

Æ


3B.eps