U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–461PDF 2016

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY: EVALUATING THE

2015 ‘‘TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS REPORT’’

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 4, 2015

Serial No. 114–186

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Kari Johnstone, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 11

Mr. James Carouso, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 12

Mr. Alex Lee, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................................................... 14

The Honorable Mark P. Lagon, President, Freedom House (former Ambassador-at-Large for Trafficking in Persons, U.S. Department of State) ............ 40

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Kari Johnstone, Ph.D., Mr. James Carouso, and Mr. Alex Lee: Joint prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 15

The Honorable Mark P. Lagon: Prepared statement ............................................ 43

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

Written responses from Kari Johnstone, Ph.D., to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on 

Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations ....................................................................................................................... 58

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Material submitted for the record ......... 63

(1)

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY: EVALUATING 

THE 2015 ‘‘TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 

REPORT’’

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:03 p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. And good afternoon to everyone. 

We have come a long way since the September 14, 1999 hearing 

in this room that I chaired on human trafficking, one of a series 

that continues to this day. At that particular hearing, then Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor Harold Koh called human trafficking a ‘‘global 

plague’’ and said that while the Clinton administration supported 

the objective of my bill to combat human trafficking, he testified 

that the ‘‘existing legislative framework was sufficient and that 

new legislation should not focus on developing new institutions or 

establishing onerous new requirements.’’

No TIP office, no TIP Report, no TIP sanctions, he said. Beefed 

up reporting in the annual country reports of human rights practices would suffice. Assistant Secretary Koh testified that the administration strongly objected to singling out and sanctioning nations with poor records and government complicity in trafficking, 

but did agree on the need for alien asylum protection and enhanced 

criminal penalties for traffickers that was also contained in my legislation. 

That said, I pushed ahead in a bipartisan fashion and crafted a 

comprehensive piece of legislation, landmark legislation, known as 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 which just celebrated its 15th anniversary of when it was signed into law on October 28th. 

The power of the Trafficking in Persons Report, a mainstay of 

the legislation, rests on its credibility. And the credibility of the report rests on its accuracy. We must get the report right—no fudging, no favors to nations based on other agendas—or we risk losing 

2

the most effective tool we have to help the more than 20 million 

victims of trafficking enslaved around the world. 

Some countries, as you know, as the distinguished people at our 

witness table know, openly credit the TIP Report for their increased and effective anti-trafficking response. Over the last 14 

years, now into the 15th, more than 100 countries have enacted 

anti-trafficking laws, and many countries have taken other steps 

required to significantly raise their tier rankings. Tier 1 is for those 

who fully meet minimum standards; Tier 2 is for those who are 

making significant efforts to meet minimum standards and; Tier 3 

is for those who are not making significant efforts to meet minimum standards and, indeed, may be subject to sanctions. 

And for those between Tier 2 and 3, Congress in 2003 created a 

Tier 2 Watch List for those who have undertaken significant antitrafficking steps, often late in the evaluation year. And just for the 

record, I wrote that law too. Unfortunately, this ranking has been 

misused to allow countries to escape accountability, a loophole we 

thought we had closed with the Wilberforce Act. And that bill was 

sponsored by Howard Berman. 

We are holding this hearing today to focus due to well-founded 

concern that some of the rankings in the most recent report are inaccurate and undermine the credibility of the report. Grade inflation for certain favored countries undermines accuracy and accountability and, I would respectfully submit, demoralizes countries 

that actually made significant progress last year. 

The State Department heard from many House Members, 161 to 

be exact, when it was leaked that Malaysia was upgraded this year 

from Tier 3 to the Tier 2 Watch List. The report justified the upgrade because Malaysia introduced, but did not pass, an amendment to their trafficking law and allowed a limited number of their 

trafficking victims to work outside of detention while keeping the 

rest of the victims in detention. 

These incomplete actions pale in comparison to the size of Malaysia’s trafficking problem. Malaysia was the subject of an incisive 

Reuters investigative report in 2014. And without objection, I’d like 

to make that report a part of the record. 

It found that human traffickers were keeping hundreds of 

Rohingya refugees from Burma captive in houses in northern Malaysia, beating them, depriving them of food, and demanding a ransom from their families. 

At least 2 million vulnerable migrants work in the informal economy in Malaysia. NGOs on the ground tell us that the traffickers 

operate openly and with impunity, and that those who get in their 

way are killed. Only three traffickers were convicted in Malaysia 

last year, three in a country of more than 30 million people. 

I note for the record and parenthetically, as we went through the 

minimum standards over the last decade-and-a-half, we were always trying to calibrate those minimum standards because some 

countries like to game the system. In the very first piece of legislation we talked about the prosecutions and arrests and then found 

lots of prosecutions, but very few convictions. Then we started looking at how long and whether or not that individual or individuals 

served any time in jail, incarcerated. 

3

Again, in Malaysia only three traffickers were convicted last 

year. 

If that ratio were not bad enough, it also marks the third year 

of decline for convictions in Malaysia. Three convictions is onethird the number of convictions in Malaysia that they had in 2013 

when Malaysia was Tier 3, and one-seventh of the convictions they 

had in 2012. 

Trafficking in Malaysia is getting worse and the government’s 

enforcement of the law was nearly non-existent, and yet Malaysia 

was upgraded. So what happened? Was Malaysia’s upgrade in any 

way related to that nation’s eligibility to join the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership? 

This spring, Congress approved the Trade Priorities Act of 2015, 

excluding Tier 3 countries from expedited consideration by the Congress, for the simple reason that Congress does not want to increase trade with countries that engage in persistent trafficking, 

including labor trafficking. Malaysia was disqualified until their 

upgrade. 

More than bad optics, more than fighting the will of Congress, 

such circumventing of accountability is disastrous for labor trafficking victims and victims of all kinds in Malaysia. Instead of demanding change before Malaysia became a major trading partner, 

the administration weakened our standards to give Malaysia a 

pass. In other words, we looked the other way to empower a slave 

economy. 

The administration also upgraded Cuba this year to the Tier 2 

Watch List on very flimsy justifications, namely that Cuba began 

sharing information with the U.S. on trafficking and that it convicted 13 traffickers 2 years ago, which is outside of the reporting 

period. But what has changed in Cuba for trafficking victims in the 

last year? Cuba legally permits the pimping of 16-year-old girls, it 

is the top destination in the Western Hemisphere for child sex 

tourism, and does not criminalize labor trafficking at all. 

And I want to say again parenthetically, I read the TIP Report 

for all these countries. The Cuba report is excellent but it doesn’t 

comport with the ranking. You got it right on the report, not right 

on the ranking. 

On the labor trafficking side, Cuba does not criminalize labor 

trafficking. Indeed, Cuban healthcare personnel, who are sent 

abroad by the Castro regime to generate income for the government, report being forced to work in medical missions, having their 

passports withheld, and their families threatened. 

Again, as the author of the TVPA, I have to say unequivocally 

that the spirit and the letter of the law make clear that trafficking 

rankings should not be used in the hopes of bringing about better 

bilateral relations with countries such as Cuba. Rather, better relations with Cuba should be preconditioned on real protection for 

Cuba’s exploited and abused children and women, and recognition 

of labor trafficking which, again, they don’t recognize it. 

The bar also seems to be lowered in the case of Uzbekistan which 

was upgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List despite the fact that 

Uzbekistan’s Government openly and unapologetically forces its 

population into forced labor every year during the cotton harvest, 

something that Ambassador Lagon previously testified to at a hearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:23 Aug 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\110415\97461 SHIRL
4

ing here, having similar parallels to slavery in this country harvesting cotton before emancipation took place in the United States. 

In recent years the government has shifted away from pulling 

young children out of school and allowed the ILO to monitor conditions. But instead of children, they conscripted adults, continuing 

this systematic exploitation of its population. 

China’s premature upgrade to Tier 2 Watch List in 2014, and its 

continued presence there in the 2015 report, also raises very serious questions. How can a country that systematically trafficks its 

own people be anything but Tier 3? 

After 1 year on the Tier 3 list in 2013, China passed a law to 

allegedly closed its 320 re-education through labor detention centers which forced prisoners and other detainees to perform manual 

labor and padded the pockets of the government. The State Department upgraded China because of that reform in 2014. But now we 

know from the report—and I again would add parenthetically, I 

chair the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and we 

just put out our comprehensive report on China. They just simply 

have changed how they do business, not the fact that the laogai 

system continues and is a terrible blight on the Government of 

China. 

The report itself says the government only closed several of the 

320 forced labor sites and converted other reform through labor facilities into state-sponsored drug detention or custody and education centers. Again, tjere was a great deal of hype about this; 

there is very little when it came to actually changing the system. 

In other words, China continues to force detained citizens to perform manual labor and yet it got the tier upgrade it was given for 

allegedly ending this practice. 

I would note and remind my colleague that I have chaired 55 

hearings on human rights in China, sitting right where you sit. 

Years ago it was six members, including a Tibetan Palden Gyatso, 

who talked about the so-called reform through labor camps. He 

held up a cattle prod and said, ‘‘They put it here in our groin area, 

and that’s how they get us when we are reluctant to perform the 

mission.’’ Twelve to fourteen hours a day, or more, they are forced 

to be a part of work, so-called reform through labor. 

That hasn’t changed. It has morphed into a different but a very 

similar situation. And, again, that was the pretext for the upgrade. 

Additionally, China’s coercive of population control policy, in 

combination with the cultural preference for boys, has resulted in 

tens of millions of women and girls missing from the population, 

making China a regional magnet for sex and bride trafficking as 

men who reach marrying age, simply cannot find a wife. Just ask 

the Burmese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Laotian, and North Korean 

women imported to meet Chinese demand. 

And let me say and note here as well, I wrote an op-ed, it was 

in the Washington Times yesterday, Nicholas Eberstadt did an excellent one that was contained in The Wall Street Journal, and others have spoken out on the so-called relaxation of the one-child policy to a two-child policy has not changed one iota the coercive aspects of that population control program in China with forced abortion and forced sterilization as the mainstays and these terrible 

5

fees that they impose, draconian fines, as a means of implementation. 

So the continuance of missing girls will continue in China, and 

that will lead to more sex trafficking. 

We have had, at this subcommittee, a number of women who 

have been compelled to perform sex work, in other words sex trafficking, from other nations. An estimated 90 percent of North Korean women seeking asylum in China have been trafficked. We 

have had them sit here and tell their stories with very few lucky 

ones. And of course China breaks its word to the Refugee Convention, and rather than providing them some kind of durable remedy 

or protection, sends them right back to North Korea at the end of 

their exploitation, where then they are either executed or sent to 

that gulag system. 

Consider this: China convicted 35 traffickers last year in a country of 1.3 billion people. Three five. Not 3,500, not 35,000, 35. 

Thailand by contrast, a Tier 3 country of 67 million people, had 

151 convictions in 2014. Nothing, and I say again, nothing in China’s deplorable record in 2014 warrants anything but a Tier 3 

ranking. Thailand by contrast is Tier 3. China, with such a small 

number, a piddling number of convictions and government complicity up and down the system, is no longer a Tier 3 country. 

I wrote the TVPA to allow flexibility and discernment in rewarding a country for making progress over their record from the year 

before, and for significant, not modest or superficial changes, efforts that go to prosecution, prevention, and protection. 

Having a 3-day conference or making something around the 

edges isn’t what constitutes significant. Tier rankings are a tool to 

aid real change, not a rubber stamp for simply holding a meeting 

or being a major trading partner. The rankings in this 2015 report 

seem to be a real opportunity lost for several countries, not just for 

the countries we gave a pass to, but other countries where good 

faith efforts were made but were not sufficiently acknowledged. 

No country will take U.S. trafficking rankings seriously when 

there seems to be a wink and a nod agreement to look the other 

way when it suits U.S. business or other interests. Tellingly, Reuters reports that there was a lot of infighting at the State Department between the trafficking experts at the TIP office, who I have 

the highest regard for, and the bureaus. This year the two sides 

split, according to Reuters, on 17 countries, and J/TIP lost almost 

all of those conflicts. 

I look forward to our distinguished witnesses. But I would like 

to yield to my friend and colleague Ms. Bass for any opening comments. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, as usual, I 

want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and your creation of the TIP Report to begin with. 

I want to say that I share your concerns over Malaysia and Malaysia’s upgrading and say that there might be some of our colleagues that come and attend this session so that they can express 

their concerns over that. 

I don’t though, however, share your concerns about Cuba. And, 

in fact, I have been impressed with the way Cuba has responded 

to trafficking, especially sex trafficking. And I remember years ago 

6

when it was so obvious and open and flourishing. And what I saw 

took place is an absolute decline in this and the Cuban Government providing a lot of education. 

What was happening in the early years was that girls and 

women from the countryside were coming to the city because there 

wasn’t any employment. And so to discourage that they provided 

a lot of education. And they actually created a soap opera on television that was shown widely throughout the country to educate 

people in the countryside and ask them not to come to the city and 

get involved with this. 

So I do think that improvements have been made there and that 

it is important for us to acknowledge it. 

In regard to doctors that go over and go to different countries, 

I have spoken with many of them. And one of the things that I 

think that we are doing that I hope we stop, especially with the 

change in policy toward Cuba, is to try to seduce some of the 

Cuban doctors that are practicing around the world from returning 

to Cuba but actually to come to the United States. 

And when you see doctors that are providing healthcare in developing countries, to me it is important that they continue to do that. 

I also have to say that I often cringe when comparisons are made 

with other countries to slavery that took place in the United 

States, in particular because you are talking about my ancestors 

who actually don’t even know who they were. And when I think 

about our Capitol, our Nation’s Capitol which was built with slave 

labor, what we did is that we rented, the U.S. Government rented 

slaves from local plantations and they built the U.S. Capitol. And 

there is an acknowledgment of this in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

And so I think sometimes when those comparisons are made it 

can minimize what actually took place in this country for over 200 

years. 

And then in terms of the Trafficking Report, I am always interested in trafficking that takes place in the United States, in particular with girls who are in the foster care system. And I am 

proud to say that in my County of Los Angeles the Sheriff’s Department as well as social services got together. And our Sheriff’s Department have now adopted a policy where they will not arrest 

girls who are caught up in trafficking, and that they will stop using 

the term ‘‘John’’ to refer to the child molesters, because that is actually who they are. 

So while we hold the world accountable, and rightfully so, I think 

it is important that we continue to hold our own country accountable. And I appreciate that in the TIP Report it does have a section 

on the United States. But I want to continue to call for our own 

country, and as a matter of fact all 50 states, to adopt a policy 

where they will no longer arrest girls. 

Thank you. With that I yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. I yield to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your eloquent remarks as you opened up this particular hearing. 

To my right, to your left is the gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. 

Wagner. And as the ranking member was talking about putting the 

emphasis on what we do here in the United States, it has not only 

been her calling but her passion to address that. And so I wanted 

7

to acknowledge not only her presence but her willingness to engage 

on this horrific crime against, for many practical purposes, young 

girls, but not just young girls, young boys as we well know, but not 

only here in the United States, but internationally. And so her 

presence here hopefully underscores the importance that all Members of Congress, whether they are on this committee or not, places 

on this particular topic. 

I am troubled by the trend that I see. And I want to be very specific in terms of what I am looking for today from each one of you. 

I don’t doubt the work that many of you do and the passion at 

which you do it. This is some of you have been called to this and 

you see it as a personal mission and not just a profession. And I 

thank you for that. 

But I am troubled by what I see is a manipulation for political 

purposes of the TIP Report that basically has elevated to a level 

beyond many of you who are seated here at that particular desk. 

I am troubled by the reports, not only that the chairman has mentioned, but specifically how we seem to have all the way up to Secretary Kerry and those that are just shy of his position intervening 

with regards to decisions on who will be included and who will not 

be included. 

So let me be very clear. Many times when we have the Secretary 

or an Under Secretary coming in to testify and things have not 

gone well, they say that they oversee a vast agency of hundreds if 

not thousands of different reporting supervisors and managers, and 

they couldn’t individually weigh in on those when it comes to accountability. But yet as we started to do the analysis with who was 

included and who was excluded, it appears that it goes to the very 

highest levels within the State Department and then weighing in 

on who should be on the report and who should not. 

That is troubling because once you get away from those who best 

understand it, the decisions are political. It is beyond my comprehension, and certainly I find it extremely interesting that Malaysia would have been removed from their status during a TPP 

negotiation process that is ongoing. And yet we somehow see this 

as being a pragmatic decision when very little on the ground appears to have changed. 

Either the report and our efforts to correct these terrible crimes 

are meaningful or they become a political tool. And if they become 

a political tool, then indeed we need to do away with the agency 

and the very report itself because it is nothing more than sending 

the wrong message that we don’t take this serious. 

I am here today because I take this serious. I take it very serious. My daughter at 15 years of age brought this particular subject 

really up close and personal when she talked about what was happening in the United States and abroad. And if we are not going 

to stand up and be a voice, then who will? 

And so I am being direct. I expect direct answers as we go into 

the question and answer period, and specifically with what kinds 

of intervention has taken place that could potentially be perceived 

as political. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Very well. Mr. Cicilline. 

8

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses 

for being here today. And also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Member Bass for calling this hearing and for being such 

leaders in the fight against human trafficking, and particularly 

both here in the United States and around the world. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your legislation that created 

the TIP Report in your early years upon this issue. 

The Trafficking In Persons Report which was authorized by Congress in 2000 is designed to be used as an important tool in our 

international diplomacy to incentivize countries to take important 

steps to combat human trafficking and sanction those who fall 

short. Since the report’s inception, more than 120 countries have 

enacted anti-trafficking laws and many countries have taken other 

steps required to significantly raise their tier rankings, citing the 

report as a key factor in their increased anti-trafficking response. 

And that is why it is my judgment that it is particularly alarming and really a shame that we are here today discussing what 

seems to be the obvious politicization of the report in the context 

of Malaysia. 

I do not make that statement lightly. I think that the men and 

women of the State Department are dedicated public servants who 

fight every day to promote American values abroad. But it is nearly 

impossible, looking at the facts, to conclude anything other than 

the determination to move Malaysia from Tier 3 to Tier 2 Watch 

List status is without sufficient justification, and ill-advised at 

best. 

Universally, advocates on the ground and in the anti-human trafficking community here in the United States have reported that 

Malaysia has made minimal progress and, in fact, has fallen in 

some key areas in their anti-trafficking campaign in the past year. 

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times editorial 

boards raised concerns about this year’s report. 

Moreover, the anti-trafficking amendments that were apparently 

taken into account to improve Malaysia’s score have still not been 

adopted, more than 7 months after they were used in part to justify 

the change in ranking. With TPP eligibility for Malaysia hinging 

on this determination, it certainly comes off as a political one. 

I hope to hear a thorough explanation today of how this determination was made and by whom, but I fear that the damage has 

already been done. Countries around the world, many of whom 

have made much more progress in their countries than the countries that we are going to be discussing today have seen the discussion around this year’s report and decided that politics is more important than their actions. And that is a regrettable consequence. 

So I hope to hear from our witnesses how the State Department 

intends to take action to restores credibility to this vitally important report and to restore our credibility around the world on the 

issue of anti-trafficking efforts. 

And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

From what I have heard from my colleagues, if any of this is true 

this is alarming. So I am going to yield the rest of my time so we 

can hear from the witnesses. 

9

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Without objection, we are joined by Ann 

Wagner. And I would like to recognize my good friend. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

thank our witnesses for being here today to testify, many of whom 

are good and loyal, upstanding members of the State Department, 

of which I had the pleasure of serving as a United States Ambassador for 4 years. I applaud your work in this area. I applaud the 

chairman’s work, lifelong work in this area, along with Ranking 

Member Bass and the kind indulgence of the subcommittee in letting me come and speak on this very important issue. 

And I thank you for convening this hearing to investigate the potential political interference in this year’s Trafficking In Persons 

Report. I applaud the committee’s efforts to increase awareness of 

human trafficking, especially Chairman Smith’s ongoing leadership 

and dedication to combating this terrible crime that affects the 

most vulnerable members of our society, both here in the United 

States of America and around the globe. 

On July 27th, the State Department published the 15th installment of the Trafficking In Persons Report. This independent annual publication ranks 188 countries on their efforts to combat 

human trafficking in accordance with standards outlined in the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act. As a former United States Ambassador, I know well, very well, how the TIP Report serves as an 

important tool for pressuring countries to take meaningful action 

to address human rights violations. 

Frankly, my very first introduction to the world of human trafficking, both sex trafficking and labor trafficking, girls, boys, men, 

women, all of the above, came when I served at the State Department as a U.S. Ambassador and was responsible for the TIP Report 

that came out of my mission. 

And thus, when I came home from my tour of duty began to 

delve into this horrific crime against humanity and the most vulnerable, mostly young girls and women in the United States of 

America, and have worked hard with many on this committee and 

many throughout Congress in a bipartisan way to pass some of the 

most cutting edge legislation that we have seen in many, many 

years on human trafficking here domestically, and I am pleased 

that the President signed into law this past May. 

But it is absolutely, the TIP Report is key, key to addressing 

human rights violations. 

These recent media reports indicate that political appointees 

meddled in the compilation of this publication by challenging State 

Department human rights experts’ ratings recommendations for 17 

political strategic countries, and inflating the assessment of 14 of 

these. Over the objections, I am told, of the State Department’s 

own experts, Malaysia and Cuba were among countries upgraded 

from the blacklist of worst offenders on human trafficking. 

Malaysia’s unsubstantiated upgrade is particularly alarming because of its overt importance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Congress has restricted TPP negotiations with countries that have the 

worst records in combating human trafficking. Malaysia was one of 

those countries. However, on the eve of the July TPP negotiating 

10

round, the State Department took Malaysia off its human rights 

blacklist by upgrading its status from a Tier 3 to the less incriminating Tier 2 Watch List rating. 

If it is true that the administration politicized this report there 

are questions about why they chose to significantly, significantly 

diminish a tool that has been effective in fighting the scourge of 

human trafficking around the world. The United States cannot be 

a leader in the fight against human trafficking if we do not honestly assess the state of the problem for all countries, even our 

own, and most importantly including trading partners like Malaysia. The U.S. cannot allow political interest to outweigh the safety 

and the freedom of the thousands of trafficked men, women, and 

children. We have to hold governments accountable for their actions. 

I welcome the continuing investigations into this year’s TIP Report, and I would urge the administration to remain vigilant 

against any attempts to circumvent the veracity of future TIP reports and the protections they provide. 

I thank again the chairman, the ranking member and other 

members of the subcommittee for their kind indulgence. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Curt, do you want any opening comments? 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thank you for coming. I like you a lot. Yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Let me now introduce our very distinguished panel beginning 

with Dr. Kari Johnstone who is the Principal Deputy Director of 

the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. She 

began serving in this role in November 2014. 

Previously she served in the Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor in the Office of International Religious Freedom. 

She also served as the Director for Russia and Central Asia at the 

National Security Staff of the White House, as an election officer 

at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, and the Human Rights Officer 

at the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan. 

Then I would like to introduce Mr. James Carouso who is the 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs. He joined the Department of State in 1995 following 

a 14-year career in international banking and finance. 

Most recently Mr. Carouso served as the Counselor for Economic 

Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia. Prior to that he served 

with the State Department in a variety of economic and commercial roles in the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Australia, Thailand, and Cyprus. 

And finally we’ll hear from in this panel Mr. Alex Lee, who 

serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for South America and Cuba 

in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and he was named to his current 

position in February 2014. 

Mr. Lee has led the biannual U.S. delegation to the migration 

talks with Cuba in 2013 and 2014, and was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba. Prior to joining the 

State Department Mr. Lee was a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Dr. Johnstone, the floor is yours. 

11

STATEMENT OF KARI JOHNSTONE, PH.D., PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and members of 

this subcommittee for inviting us here today to talk about the 2015 

Trafficking In Persons, or TIP, Report. It has been my honor to be 

associated with the TIP Report and to lead the work of the Office 

to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in recent months. 

I also want to thank Deputy Assistant Secretary Alex Lee and 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Jim Carouso for testifying 

alongside me. 

Producing the annual TIP Report is a year-round, departmentwide effort involving hundreds of staff in Washington and at U.S. 

Embassies and consulates around the world. The final report reflects the Department’s best assessment of foreign government efforts to comply with the minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons as outlined in the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, or the TVPA. 

I know how important the issue of modern slavery is to Congress. On behalf of the entire Department I want to thank you for 

your commitment to this issue and, Mr. Chairman, for your authorship of this important legislation. We are thrilled that your colleagues in the Senate have recently confirmed our new Ambassador-at-Large to head the TIP office, Susan Coppedge. Last week 

Ambassador Coppedge and the TIP office recognized the 15th anniversary of the TVPA. 

Over these last 15 years we have learned that the TVPA’s legal 

framework is what makes the TIP Report such an effective tool in 

combating human trafficking across the globe. Since the passage of 

the TVPA, the TIP Report has helped to draw public attention to 

the issue of human trafficking and prompted foreign governments 

to take meaningful steps to address this crime. It is often referred 

to as the gold standard. And I have learned during my time leading 

the TIP office that it truly lives up to this designation. 

Not only is it one of the most effective diplomatic tools our Government has for encouraging a foreign government to take action 

and make progress in combating modern slavery, it also gives voice 

to the many stakeholders working on the front lines of the problem, 

whether they be government officials who want to see change in 

their country, activists who confront the crime wherever it occurs, 

or professionals providing services to victims around the world. 

And it conveys the human face of the world’s trafficking crimes to 

its readers. There is much to be proud of in this report. 

As always, the narratives and tier rankings reflect government 

efforts to increase prosecutions, improve protections and enhance 

prevention efforts to combat modern slavery, not to the extent of 

human trafficking in any particular country. We saw tangible 

progress in many places in the world. Many governments adopted 

new anti-trafficking laws or improved existing laws, strengthened 

their law enforcement efforts to convict and punish traffickers, increased inter-governmental coordination to combat human trafficking by establishing senior-level bodies and adopting national action plans, and improved victim protection measures. 

12

Between April 2014 and March 2015, Afghanistan, Angola, Barbados, the Czech Republic, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Sudan all became parties to the 2000 U.N. TIP Protocol, which we also refer to 

as the Palermo Protocol. Of the 188 countries and territories assessed in the 2015 TIP Report, 18 countries were upgraded this 

year. Unfortunately, we also saw efforts fall short in the 18 countries that were downgraded. Much work remains, and all of us 

must continue to improve our efforts to fight this crime. 

We will continue to use the report to elevate human trafficking 

and encourage governments to implement the actions recommended in the TIP Report. Secretary Kerry personally raises the 

issues with foreign leaders, as he recently did in both Cuba and 

Malaysia. Ultimately, the purpose of the report and our shared 

goal is to effect change. We continuously review how we can use 

the report ever more effectively as a lever year-round to motivate 

tangible progress around the world. 

For example, I just returned from a productive trip to Thailand, 

Malaysia, Hong Kong, and China during which I urged these governments to make stronger efforts to implement the recommendations in the 2015 TIP Report. I was pleased to see that every official I met with was aware of their tier designation in the TIP Report. I won’t claim that all these officials fully agreed with our assessment, but the report and minimum standards have clearly focused attention on the realities of modern slavery and the tangible 

steps required to combat this crime. 

It was also clear in each country I visited last month that officials in our Embassies and consulates are regularly engaging their 

host governments to improve their anti-trafficking efforts and to 

implement the TIP Report recommendations. Amidst all the important information found in the annual TIP Report, one message becomes clear year after year: Human trafficking is a challenge in 

nearly every corner of the globe, including here in the United 

States. Governments all over the world, including those on Tier 1, 

struggle to keep up with a crime that affects millions of individuals 

compelled into service for sex or labor or both. We must all continue to improve our efforts to fight and end this crime. 

We know our work is critical. We remain committed to addressing these challenges. And we look forward to helping to create a 

world free from modern slavery. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Would either of you like to add? I know it is a joint 

statement but please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES CAROUSO, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAROUSO. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and members of the 

subcommittee. It is a privilege to testify with Dr. Kari Johnstone. 

This acknowledged expert on this issue has done so much to combat trafficking across the region, I echo her appreciation for inviting us here today to talk about the 2015 Trafficking In Persons Report. And I want to again acknowledge the work of this subcommittee and you, too, Mr. Chairman, on the importance of this 

report for the work we do in our Embassies across the region. 

13

As Dr. Johnstone explained, producing the TIP Report is a yearround Department-wide effort involving all of our Embassies and 

consulates around the world. As a Foreign Service Officer I have 

experience myself when I served in Thailand I was in the border 

with China I was sent to a room full of garlic, a mountain of garlic, 

and all these young women peeling the garlic, speaking Chinese. 

Obviously they didn’t belong in Thailand. 

The credibility that we have as an Embassy, as U.S. Embassy 

employees, and using tools like the TIP Report help us solve problems like that. And some of my proudest moments are to be able 

to deal with things like that. 

It truly is, the TIP Report, is one of the best diplomatic tools we 

have to ensure the governments across the region take seriously 

the efforts to combat trafficking in persons. When progress is insufficient, as it unfortunately is in a number of countries in East Asia 

and the Pacific, the recommendations of the TIP Report provide 

guidance, concrete guidance, to our Embassies and consulates overseas as they carry out their diplomatic duties, as the Ambassador 

was saying. 

EAP and the TIP office collaborate closely with foreign governments and international partners to combat trafficking. EAP and 

the TIP office also work very closely with federal partners to provide foreign assistance to combat human trafficking, particularly 

the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; Population, Refugees, and Migration; Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor; USAID, and the Department of Labor. The TIP 

office currently funds 20 projects in 14 EAP countries. 

I would like to just highlight a few examples of this bilateral engagement. In the Philippines, civil society organizations are providing law enforcement with training and support to address the 

ongoing commercial sexual exploitation of children. Across the Pacific Islands we fund programs to enhance victim protection, 

strengthen anti-trafficking investigations and prosecutions. 

In Thailand we recently collaborated with the Department of 

Homeland Security to embed agents in the Royal Thai Police’s 

Anti-Trafficking Division and we are considering ways to replicate 

that model in other countries. 

Our approach to trafficking is not limited to just bilateral engagements. Due in part to the focus the U.S. Government places 

on combating trafficking in the region, we are working with 

ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as they come 

close to endorsing a Convention on Trafficking in Persons. And the 

State Department is planning to fund regional ASEAN projects to 

help meet the requirements of the convention. 

Year-round, even after the report is complete, U.S. officials at 

every level from Ambassadors down to the most junior officer regularly engage host governments in trafficking issues. From my own 

experience I know that these efforts are well-integrated into our 

Embassies’ overall strategic plans as well as their daily work. And 

thanks largely to the effectiveness of the report’s tier ranking system, we are able to urge progress. Armed with these rankings, the 

TIP office, EAP, and our posts overseas will continue to be able to 

effectively collaborate on programs and diplomatic strategies better 

combating this scourge in the future. 

14

Once again I truly thank you and we look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lee. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEX LEE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LEE. I have a short statement. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith and members of the subcommittee 

for the opportunity to develop and present remarks about the 2015 

Trafficking In Persons Report. 

The scourge of modern day trafficking in persons touches every 

region of the globe, including that of the Western Hemisphere. And 

the Bureau of the Western Hemisphere Affairs takes trafficking in 

persons and the challenge of addressing effective solutions to it 

very seriously. We regularly engage with partner governments to 

encourage the prosecution of traffickers, provide protection to victims, and to provide programs for prevention. 

Our Embassy personnel are on the front lines of this diplomatic 

engagement, whether at the senior level of the front office of our 

Ambassadors, whether at the working level with the ministries of 

foreign affairs, justice, or the security or public security ministries. 

And in addition, our Embassy personnel provide the reporting that 

informs much of the annual Trafficking In Persons Report. 

U.S. programs that promote rule of law, good governance, citizen 

security, and economic prosperity throughout the Western Hemisphere seek to address the underlying factors that allow trafficking 

in persons to persist. For example, the Department of State funds 

capacity building of law enforcement and immigration officials in 

the region to screen and identify victims of human trafficking and 

to investigate and prosecute those cases. 

We work closely with the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and with partner governments to compile the 

most accurate information that will allow us and our partners to 

assess government efforts and work toward the most effective solutions. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint statement of Ms. Johnstone, Mr. Carouso, and Mr. Lee 

follows:]

15


97461a-1.eps
16


97461a-2.eps
17


97461a-3.eps
18


97461a-4.eps
19

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

And again thanks to all of you for being here today. 

Let me just ask you, in light of the Reuters report, in light of 

concerns that many of us have about Malaysia, China, some of us 

at least have strong concerns about Cuba and Uzbekistan, and 

even Vietnam—I mean Vietnam has complicity in trafficking, particularly labor trafficking—did any other concern, such as a trade, 

factor in any way or come into play in the administration’s decision 

to upgrade Malaysia or Cuba or China? 

Again, I read the report on Cuba three times. It is excellent. It 

frames it. It gets it. It captures the information based on everything else I know and other sources. And yet it, it doesn’t warrant 

an upgrade. 

And I am wondering in light of the rapprochement that has occurred between Washington and Havana, was that in any way a 

part of this, any way? Because I would think that the TIP Report 

made recommendations—and perhaps, Doctor, you might want to 

speak to that—there should be more transparency in this process. 

I know very often the default is to say we can’t say what we recommended. But we need to know that. This is all about a gross 

human rights abuse that disproportionately now affects women and 

children. And, you know, like as I said in my opening, China had 

35 convictions; Watch List. Thailand had 151 convictions; Tier 3. 

Malaysia had three convictions and Cuba is down in the single digits as well. 

You know, Thailand must feel aggrieved with the juxtaposition 

of these other countries, the upgrades. And there appears to be 

other issues that come into play. 

I will note parenthetically, I was never more proud, and I am a 

very stauch supporter of Israel and South Korea, but during the 

previous administration both Israel and South Korea were designated as Tier 3 countries because that is where the evidence took 

the administration. And, frankly, both countries did robust things, 

did tremendous things. South Korea passed new laws. And certainly, I met with the Ambassador from Israel several times, they 

are reporting, their closing up of brothels just was extraordinary. 

And they got off Tier 3 the old fashioned way, they earned it. 

But then to look at, was there any other factor in this continuum 

of decision made by TIP, goes on to the Assistant Secretary, the 

Deputy, the DASes, right up to Secretary Kerry and to President 

Obama. And if you could—and I hope you will—if you could provide 

us with who made these decisions at the end of the day? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I may 

begin at least to answer that question. 

This year when we prepared the 2015 TIP Report, as in previous 

years it was a truly deliberative, fact-based process of discussions 

between our experts throughout the State Department, both at our 

Embassies and consulates overseas, with our colleagues in regional 

bureaus here in Washington, and experts in the TIP office. That is 

the same process that we use every year. We compare and assess 

governments’ efforts against that own government’s efforts the previous years, against the minimum standards as outlined in the 

TVPA, specifically looking at those criteria and whether or not the 

20

government has indeed made significant efforts to fulfill those minimum standards. 

That is the process that was true for all of the countries this year 

when we made those decisions. Ultimately, the final tier designations are made by the Secretary of State, this year as they are 

every year, by the authority given to him in the TVPA. So these 

decisions are in fact his to make, not the TIP office or others in the 

State Department. 

Mr. SMITH. But again, Doctor——

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The recommendations certainly——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. You do make a recommendation as to 

what the designations should be when there is a split? I mean no 

one knows more about it than you and the daily calls that went out 

to the various Embassies. They are on the ground. They know. 

And I think 15 years later we are really getting it right because 

every Embassy I go to, and there are many, I always ask who is 

doing TIP there. And I am always impressed just how seriously 

they take this. 

But, again, my big question is like with Malaysia, did TPP play 

a role in that upgrade? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The Secretary himself has said publicly that 

TPP did not come into it. He did not consult others in the administration, nor did the White House through USTR weigh in. I have 

no knowledge that that came up at any other officials’ discussions 

on the tier designation for Malaysia or any other country. 

Mr. SMITH. How about with regards to Cuba? Again the Report 

is excellent in its detail. And I mean when a country doesn’t even 

acknowledge its forced labor, when it pimps out girls who are 16. 

And we know that the government runs the infrastructure for hotels and the like. And it is a very, very cruel exploitation of young 

girls and young boys. And I am just wondering who, you know, 

what was the recommendation of the TIP Office and then to the 

bureau? Was it to keep it at Tier 3, Cuba? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As you yourself indicated, we don’t discuss the 

internal deliberations and recommendations of the different parts 

of the State Department. There is a robust discussion. In the vast 

majority of cases we reach consensus at the expert level and discussions don’t go further. 

There are some cases that the evidence may be pointing in different directions. As you know yourself, within the minimum 

standards there are four minimum standards and 12 indicia. So 

there are a lot of different factors we are looking at. In some cases 

they all point in the same direction of either progress or lack thereof. In some cases they are mixed, as was the case in Malaysia that 

we saw increased prosecutions and investigations but a decline in 

convictions. 

So when we do have more complicated situations like that, the 

discussions do go further up the chain and ultimately the Secretary 

makes the decision. 

Mr. SMITH. But again on this increased prosecution, without objection the testimony of Most Reverend Eusebio Elizondo an Auxiliary Bishop of Seattle who led a delegation of the U.S. Conference 

of Catholic Bishops to Malaysia. They make the point that despite 

the presence of an anti-trafficking law, the delegation learned that 

21

the government offers little or no protection or rescue to victims. 

And on the very issue you just mentioned, while Malaysia’s arrests 

increased, arrests for human traffickers, the conviction rate remains low due to the ability of the traffickers to bribe or threaten 

officials. 

That is exactly what we thought we corrected in previous 

iterations of the TVPA. It is not just how many arrests you make 

and then put that out as a neon light. Yes, look at all these arrests. 

What good is it if there are no convictions and nobody does real 

time or have their assets seized that they gleaned through such a 

nefarious enterprise. 

So, again, if there is a way you could tell us who made this decision? I mean TPP had no impact on this? Mr. Carouso, you might 

want to speak to that? 

I mean the Senate was very robust, including my senior Senator, 

in raising this issue, Bob Menendez. 

Mr. CAROUSO. I can tell you in every meeting I was ever in to 

discuss this, the discussions were strictly related to the facts of the 

trafficking in persons situation in the countries involved. And that 

includes reports you got in from the Embassy. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. If I may add, also you asked about the importance of the TVPA and the criteria outlined therein in the discussions. Absolutely they are central. And in the case of Malaysia we 

did look across the three P’s. And as you noted, we have serious 

concerns about victim protection in Malaysia. That has been our 

number one recommendation in the last several years in the TIP 

Report, encouraging the government to fundamentally change how 

it treats trafficking victims. 

They have essentially been held in government shelters that essentially serve as detention facilities where the victims have neither freedom of movement nor the right to work. And that has been 

our top priority recommendation in the last several years because, 

as you point out, it is a very serious concern 

The government did make significant efforts over the course of 

the 2015 reporting period in the 2014 calendar year to improve 

that. And the amendments that were passed just after the reporting period ended do seek to fundamentally revise that system. We 

are cautiously optimistic that once they are implemented they will 

make meaningful progress in this area. But that was the number 

one priority. 

Mr. SMITH. I have more questions but two of our members do 

have to leave. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to Ms. Bass and then to Mr. 

Meadows both. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. I really appreciate that. 

I wanted to ask you about online trafficking. And it is certainly 

a growing problem, especially in the U.S. when there are like large 

sporting events like, like the Super Bowl, for example. And there 

was this big, huge bust on sex trafficking and then there are sites 

like Backpage, Craigslist, and even Facebook. 

And so I wanted to know what, what efforts within the Federal 

Government are being made to curtail this? And then also, is this 

an international phenomena? 

22

Ms. JOHNSTONE. We are definitely tracking that issue, both in 

the United States. Our colleagues and other parts of the Federal 

Government are increasing their efforts on that in terms of law enforcement efforts to try to identify traffickers who are using online 

methods to find their victims. 

We, unfortunately, are also seeing that as a growing trend in 

some other countries. The Philippines, for example, is an area that 

we have focused on. So both through our diplomatic efforts, but 

also our programming efforts, we are trying to get a better handle 

on this because there does seem to be an increasing problem 

around the world. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like yield to Mr. Meadows for questions he 

has. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Dr. Johnstone, your testimony today, and let me be clear, is 

that no factor other than trafficking issues, no trade issues, no domestic policy issues have entered in in the decisions to either raise 

or lower the status of any of these countries this year? Is that your 

testimony? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. In all of the discussions that we had within the 

TIP office——

Mr. MEADOWS. Not discussions. I am asking about your testimony here today. Is that your testimony that it did not play a factor? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. None of the discussions with respect to the recommendations that were made by my colleagues in regional bureaus or the TIP office included any other factors other than trafficking itself. 

I cannot speak to the discussions that took place amongst 

the——

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not asking about discussions, okay. You are 

giving a great answer to a question I didn’t ask. I am talking about 

consideration. There is a difference between discussion and what is 

really considered in terms of the way that a decision is arrived at. 

And I am just saying that the evidence wouldn’t support that there 

were not other mitigating factors. 

And I want to know what your testimony is here today because 

that, you are leading us that direction and I want to make sure 

that we are clear. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The decisions on the tier rankings themselves 

were made by the Secretary of State. He himself has publicly said 

no other factors came into it. That is the full total of my knowledge. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am asking for your testimony. You are here 

today. If he was here I would ask him the same question. But I 

am asking for your testimony. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Any of the recommendations that were 

made——

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes or no. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE [continuing]. By my colleagues——

Mr. MEADOWS. I need to know, yes or no? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. There were no factors other than the TVPA criteria to my knowledge. 

23

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Are you and Mr. Carouso, are you willing 

to give us your split memos or split reports and supply them to this 

committee as it relates to the decisions and how they came? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The State Department does not share the internal deliberations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I know they don’t. I said are you willing to give 

them? Because that would help us eliminate the decision-making 

process without you having to weigh in on it personally. And do 

you not think the American people have a right to know? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I believe that the question of what information 

we would share and what documents we are able to share is being 

discussed currently by——

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you think the American people have a right 

to know? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Have a right to know about how we——

Mr. MEADOWS. Arrive at these horrific crimes and whether we 

trade with them, how it would be trade, do you think the American 

people have a right to know? It is an easy question. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I think it is very important to the American 

people how we address the issue. And I think that the facts speak 

for themselves in the reports themselves. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So will you supply the split memo to 

this committee? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I will have to consult with my colleagues back 

in the State Department what documentation we are able to provide. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you saying that you are prohibited? Because 

I don’t believe you are prohibited. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I am saying I don’t have the authority to decide 

what documentation the State Department can provide. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Mr. Carouso, are you willing to give us 

your split memos? 

Mr. CAROUSO. I agree with Dr. Johnstone, I would have to go 

back to my bosses and——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well you guys, I am sure you prepared for this 

hearing today. And as you were preparing for this hearing I believe 

that you would anticipate that this particular question would have 

come up. And so when you prepared what was the decision was 

made? Were you going to give that information to this committee 

or not, Mr. Carouso? 

Mr. CAROUSO. I never asked, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. All right. So let me ask you this. There 

were 17 different cases. Of the 17 cases, the initial recommendations were only adhered to, according to my information, in three 

times, three out of 17. That is a batting average of .175. Normally 

it wouldn’t put you on the Kansas City Royals with that kind of 

batting average. 

So if your recommendation was only followed and not overruled, 

that is the way that I view it, being overruled, by people up the 

line, only out of 17 times you were overruled 14 times, would you 

say that that is indicative of people up the line making a decision 

that may not be based on those closest to the information? 

24

Ms. JOHNSTONE. That would certainly not be how I would characterize it. I do believe that the entire State Department takes the 

issue very seriously and our obligation——

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not denying that. What I am, what I am getting at is it appears that Secretary Kerry and the Under Secretary 

made a decision in 6 of the 17 cases. Is that correct? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. We are not discussing the internal positions 

but——

Mr. MEADOWS. That is not an internal position. That is just saying how many times did they weigh in? Did they weigh in six times 

or not? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The internal discussion process and which countries who weighed in on them we are considering to be the internal 

deliberation process. And to maintain the——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I, I appreciate——

Ms. JOHNSTONE [continuing]. Reliability of the report——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. That. But you know what it appears 

is is that you’re coming here, we are asking very specific and not 

difficult questions and yet you seem to want to avoid those. Wendy 

Sherman, who I have a great deal of respect for, admire, weighed 

in on 11 countries; is that correct? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I am not able to comment on the internal deliberations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Not able to not willing? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Not able. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying by statute you are not allowed 

to tell this committee, who has oversight of this particular issue? 

Is that your testimony? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The way that the process goes within the State 

Department, we have expert-level discussions within our office 

and——

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you willing to have us review that when we 

are not in a public forum with just members of both the minority 

and the majority looking at those split memos? Are you willing to 

do that? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. That is certainly something that I will consult 

with my colleagues on. 

Mr. MEADOWS. When will you have an answer back to this committee? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As soon as we possibly can. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So within 7 days? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. That should be possible. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I will yield back. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM KARI JOHNSTONE, PH.D., TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE MARK MEADOWS

These types of documents requested are inherently deliberative in nature. 

In order to inform his tier ranking decisions, the Secretary draws upon the expertise of the entire State Department and considers different perspectives on the facts 

and criteria set forth in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). In the case 

of a few countries each year—as in 2015—senior Department officials may offer the 

Secretary their assessments of the totality of a government’s efforts measured 

against the minimum standards in the TVPA, thereby helping inform the Secretary’s decisions. 

25

As a matter of policy, the Department does not share internal documents that are 

part of the deliberative process. It is critical that Department officials are able to 

convey their views frankly during the deliberative process, which ultimately contributes to the integrity of the TIP Report and the strength of tier ranking decisions. 

If you would like to discuss further, we are happy to answer any remaining questions you may have.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just follow up and continue my questioning 

and then I will yield to Mr. Cicilline. We do have a break. We have 

five votes on the floor. Take about 20 minutes if we all make the 

last one, or the first one I should say. 

Just with regards to Vietnam, I have chaired hearings on Vietnam Human Rights Act that I have gotten passed four times in the 

House. I have been there. We know that labor trafficking is a huge 

problem. The first case that was prosecuted successfully was 

against Vietnamese leaders from Daiwa. And that was the first 

conviction that was gleaned from that law. 

Mark Lagon from Freedom House, also a former TIP Ambassador, makes an excellent point that the upgrade of Vietnam to 

Tier 2 is bewildering and claims that there is an utter absence of 

prosecutions for labor trafficking, as well as official complicity, 

which we know is a huge problem. And we have had hearings on 

just that: Vietnam’s complicity with human trafficking. 

And I am wondering why they even got an upgrade to Tier 2? 

Also if you could answer again on the Chinese issue. As I said 

in my opening comments, the reform through labor. I am probably 

the only member, along with Frank Wolf, who has ever been in a 

laogai, Beijing Number 1. Soon after the Tiananmen Square massacre we saw 40 Tiananmen Square, protesters we weren’t allowed 

to talk to, who had shaved heads and looked like concentration 

camp victims. The laogai has not been dismantled. It has morphed 

into something else. It is still utterly repressive. And, again, that 

was the pretext for upgrading China. 

China ought to be Tier 3. Whether or not you sanction them is 

all up to you. There is huge discretion there. But in terms of looking at the facts on the ground, whether it be sex trafficking or 

labor trafficking, China is a basket case. And it is in a race to the 

bottom with North Korea on these issues. And yet, superpower considerations maybe were mitigating factors there. 

And that is what Mr. Meadows and I and so many others are trying to get at. Were other issues involved, intervening issues, like 

opening an Embassy in both Havana and Washington, China being 

a superpower? This TIP Report is sacred. We have got to get it 

right and pull no punches, and say it exactly the way it is, assign 

tier rankings exactly the way they ought to be. And then what you 

do on sanctions is all up to you; the second shoe that needs to drop, 

which we seem to be late in hearing anyway when it comes to the 

sanctions part, which we thought would be in September. 

So if you could, on Vietnam, on China, and again answer on the 

record whether any intervening issues, not whether or not it was 

discussed, that could be plausible deniability, we never discussed 

it so we can say in front of a committee that there was never discussion on other issues—but if the elephant in the room was the 

TPP, well we have many members on both sides of the aisle, disproportionately Democrat, who feel that the system was gamed. I 

believe it was gamed on Malaysia. 

26

Again, if I were Thailand looking at those conviction numbers, 

China 35 convictions, Thailand 151, Malaysia 3. I mean that is a 

cruel joke. And so please if you could address that and as well as 

our distinguished DASes. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Do you have a preference for which country we 

take first? 

Mr. SMITH. In the order you would like to answer. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. One thing I just wanted to point out quickly, 

you mentioned the sanctions and waivers piece. The White House 

did in fact release that information in October. I was looking for 

the date but we can get you the exact date. That was indeed released already. 

And I think perhaps my colleague can talk about Vietnam. I am 

happy to talk about China. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Okay. I think what impressed us in Vietnam were 

the arrests of 685 suspected traffickers, and that they prosecuted 

472 and convicted 413. Most sentences ranged from 3 to 15 years 

imprisonment. More than 1,000 potential trafficking victims were 

identified and provided protection. And integrated support to another 668. 

U.S. participated in joint investigations and rescue operations in 

neighboring countries. In 2012 Vietnam’s anti-trafficking law expanded to specifically define and criminalize sex and labor trafficking with punishments from 2 to 20 years and 3 to 25 years imprisonment. It has also increased the number of officials who received anti-trafficking training. 

So all those factors weighed on the Tier 2 ranking. 

Part of the issue here is that the problems are horrific, as you 

point out. And when we are doing these rankings it is measuring 

a country against itself. Because if we try measuring countries 

against other countries then it gets really, really complicated, as 

you know, sir. So Vietnam made some progress. 

And even the miserable number of three convictions in Malaysia, 

yes, that was terrible. So now we are working with them to train 

officials on how you prosecute these cases and they welcome that. 

We are working with them on how to get the implementing regulations right on the amendments that you passed so that there can’t 

be loopholes which mean they can’t get the convictions later on. 

And again, getting to the bottom line, were are encouraged modestly by Malaysia’s apparent effort to address this issue with seriousness. And this report and your subcommittee’s passion about it, 

which we point out every chance we get, that this is being watched 

very, very carefully, that we have to answer to a higher authority, 

they know. Deputy Prime Minister Zahid of Malaysia was here just 

a couple weeks ago and Secretary Kerry pointed this out to him in 

very short, clear words and he promised how he would personally 

make sure these issues were addressed. 

Anyway, I just, I wanted to really emphasize that. 

And now you want to talk about China? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Sure. I can take over for China. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Please. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. If you would like. 

When I was there last week I reinforced the serious concern that 

I know you share and that Deputy Secretary Blinken raised when 

27

he was in China as well. We are deeply concerned about the situation of human trafficking in China. Particularly, they need to take 

robust steps to address forced labor, including in state facilities. 

We raised that quite directly. 

We are also concerned about women and children who may be 

trafficking victims that are not screened and identified as trafficking victims and may in fact be arrested and ultimately either 

prosecuted or deported if they are not Chinese citizens for crimes 

that they committed as a result of being victims rather than treated as victims. 

We are also concerned that the government has forcibly repatriated North Koreans, as you mentioned. We continue to raise these 

issues both in the report and in our engagement with the government. 

I must say that in my conversations last week with Chinese officials I was somewhat pleasantly surprised by their openness to 

share information with us, the efforts that they are taking to address particularly sex trafficking, and their expressed eagerness to 

continue to share best practices and even engage in joint training. 

Hopefully this can be a foundation that we can help them build 

better understanding of the crime. 

One of the things that I left the country with was a sense that 

the Chinese Government’s understanding of the crime of human 

trafficking is not the same as our own or as is outlined in the U.N. 

Palermo Protocol. In particular, they focus on issues in their laws 

as more expansive than our law or than Palermo. So we are trying 

to get a better understanding of their law enforcement data, how 

much of that actually is addressing what we would consider to be 

human trafficking as opposed to other horrible crimes that we just 

don’t call human trafficking, like organ harvesting and organ trafficking, illegal adoption. 

We talked a lot about the issue of forced marriage and trafficking 

amongst those women. As you yourself mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 

there is plenty to be concerned about in China. We do indeed measure the government’s efforts against its own efforts in previous 

years, which is why China remained on the Tier 2 Watch List 

based on its efforts in previous years and what we do believe to be 

increasing law enforcement efforts. 

We have serious concerns that we will continue to raise with 

them. And, hopefully, we will make some progress in the future. 

I think my colleague also wanted to answer some of your questions about Cuba if we may. 

Mr. SMITH. Please. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. And before I——

Mr. SMITH. And before we leave Asia, if I could very quickly. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. There is a Reuters report this morning that India has 

been preventing trafficking victims and their families who have 

been granted T visas by the U.S. from leaving India and starting 

their lives in the United States. India is a Tier 2 country. We don’t 

have numbers on convictions or victims identified as assisted. I am 

not sure why or how they could be a Tier 2 country. 

I have, we have had hearings on India as well in this subcommittee raising these issues. And so that is a bit baffling as well. 

28

We don’t give out T visas mindlessly. We do our due diligence. I 

applaud the administration for that. But now they are on their end 

showing a great reluctance, claiming that it is fraudulent. So and 

then Cuba too, if you could. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. If I could just mention. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. October 5th was when the Presidential determinations with respect to waivers and sanctions for the Tier 3 

countries were released. October 5th. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Chairman. 

You asked in your opening presentation whether a TIP upgrade 

was a subject of discussion in the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. And I can answer categorically that it was not. 

Mr. SMITH. And again, it was not part of the decision. Whether 

or not it was discussed, it just was completely separate and distinct? 

Mr. LEE. It was completely separate. And but I would like to 

make the observation that our constructive engagement with the 

Cubans, which was basically done prior to the normalization talks 

in the migration talks, which I participated in, we have been talking about TIP sets of issues. And there was a distinct change on 

the Cuban side after they acceded to the Palermo Protocol, the Palermo Convention in mid-2013. 

What happened after that was kind of an accelerated bilateral 

engagement on TIP in a way that had never occurred before. And 

so in a sense, our understanding of what the Cuban Government 

was doing, whether on prosecutions, protection, or prevention, 

greatly increased as a result of these exchanges. 

So, for example, we had in November 2013, a first videoconference of TIP experts at a very senior level on both countries. 

In March 2014 we had a joint J/TIP and WHA visit to Havana 

looking at what the Cuban Government was doing on the ground 

in a way that we had never had access to. 

In February 2015 Under Secretary Sewall had a meeting with 

the main Cuban Foreign Ministry official responsible for the 

United States, again to emphasize the importance of TIP in our bilateral relationship. 

A month later a technical-level group of TIP, Cuban TIP experts 

came to the United States for a series of technically focused meetings. And——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lee, if you could just suspend and we will come 

right back to you as soon as we can. We are on zero, we are out 

of time for voting. So we are going to run over and vote. We will 

be back in about 20 minutes. And I apologize for the interruption 

and for the inconvenience to all of you. 

Stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will resume its sitting. And again 

I apologize for that lengthy delay. 

You were, Mr. Lee, still in the process of answering. If you would 

continue. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you, Chairman. 

29

I was essentially going through a litany of engagements. But to 

make the larger point that our understanding of what the Cuban 

Government does and does not do has greatly increased in the past 

couple of years and in a sense has been a beneficiary of the more 

constructive engagement between the two governments in those 

areas both governments have decided to work on in a cooperative 

manner, of which trafficking in persons is one of those. 

So for all of the areas that we have reported and identified in 

the TIP Report on Cuba that we need to work on, we have established with the Cuban Government, an ongoing process of sharing 

information that allows us to make our points and also understand 

what they are doing and what they are not doing. And that is basically the point I wanted to make. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could, Mr. Carouso, speak to the India issue, 

if you would like. And really touch on the T visa report today, the 

Indian Government being very hostile toward that. But also, what 

do we have? I mean some of the earlier hearings that we had in 

this subcommittee were on very, very young Indian girls who were 

trafficked. I remember I was actually in Nigeria in between stops 

on a trip and I watched an unbelievably incisive CNN report that 

talked about in 1⁄2 hour what I had heard from a number of the 

witnesses from India for years about how the police were tipped off 

right before a brothel raid where underage girls, some as young as 

10, were quickly scooted out the building so that they could not be 

rescued because there was an informant within the police department. 

One of the things that our TIP minimum standards emphasizes 

is that police are part of the government. If there is complicity by 

the police, prosecutors, judges, or anyone else in law enforcement, 

that too constitutes a violation of minimum standards. 

So if you could speak to India, if you would, and then I will yield 

to Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CAROUSO. Actually, EAP does not cover India. So I am going 

to defer to Kari. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. So I will in fact speak about India. 

We do have serious concerns about the trafficking situation in 

India. We absolutely share your concern about such appalling stories that we, unfortunately, do hear coming out of India. The Government of India does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but it is making improvements in efforts to do so in our assessment. 

During the reporting period, the government continued to fund 

shelter and rehabilitation services for women and children throughout India. It trained prosecutors and judges. And upon order of the 

Supreme Court, several states launched searches to trace the 

whereabouts of thousands of lost and abandoned children, including, we believe, potential trafficking victims. 

The government’s law enforcement progress was unclear, however, as you stated, as the government did not provide adequate 

disaggregated anti-trafficking data. And official complicity remained a serious concern that we share with you as well, Mr. 

Chairman. We continue to be troubled that victims were sometimes 

penalized through arrests for crimes committed as a result of being 

30

subjected to human trafficking, and that many anti-human trafficking units which liaise with other agencies and refer victims to 

shelters were not functioning. 

NGOs assessed that government victim care services were inconsistent and inadequate for the scale of India’s trafficking problem. 

We, therefore, remain concerned about the serious human trafficking situation in India, including forced and bonded labor. 

On the T visa issue that you mentioned, I also would like to say 

that that is a concern that we share. We are deeply concerned by 

the reports that some Indian nationals holding U.S. T visa have experienced travel restrictions. As you noted, this is an important 

protection that the United States provides to trafficking victims, 

and we take that very seriously. 

The current status of the Indian policy, as even the Reuters story 

that came out today indicated, is unclear. We continue to ask the 

Indian Government both to fully repeal the policy and give us a 

better understanding of what they are doing. We have engaged repeatedly, both in Washington and within India through our mission 

at very high levels. Ambassador Susan Coppedge and I will be 

heading there again this month, and we will definitely raise the 

issue of the T visas as well as the other, these other concerns that 

we have about human trafficking. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again to our witnesses for your work and for your testimony today. I really want to focus my questions on Malaysia. 

I have looked carefully at the 2014 TIP Report. And when you 

compare the 2014 and 2015 TIP Reports, the bulk of the recommendations that the Department makes regarding Malaysia are 

substantially the same. For example, they both report the need to 

amend Malaysia’s anti-trafficking law, to provide protective services to all victims, to implement procedures to identify labor trafficking victims, to offer alternatives to deportation to countries 

where victims face oppression, to increase efforts to notify migrant 

workers of their rights, and to better cooperate with other governments in the region. They look like the same recommendations. 

And so my first question really is, if the Government of Malaysia 

had made a good faith effort to improve its anti-trafficking efforts, 

why did the government fulfill so few of the recommendations that 

were laid out in the 2014 TIP Report? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. If I may begin by noting that the recommendations in the TIP Report generally are quite broad and long-term. 

And they are usually meant to bring a government into full compliance with the minimum standards. So they are not short-term or 

small. 

And very frequently if you look at different countries as well, you 

would find that from year to year many of the recommendations 

are repeated, even if there is tier movement, because there may be 

some, some progress in one area of the recommendations but not 

others. So that is something that you would see in many countries. 

In the case of Malaysia——

Mr. CICILLINE. But again, the point is that they should do some 

of those before they change positions on the rankings, not just——

Ms. JOHNSTONE. And they may, indeed, be making significant efforts toward fulfilling those recommendations without completely 

31

fulfilling the recommendations, which I think you could say is the 

case with Malaysia in 2015. 

We had said, I mentioned earlier, for several years that our primary top recommendation, our biggest concern was how victims are 

treated in Malaysia. And with the adoption of amendments to their 

law we do believe that, if fully implemented, that the new law 

would fundamentally change the victim protection system. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But to be clear, those recommendations were not 

adopted at the time of the issuance of the TIP Report. In fact, it 

says specifically there were draft amendments that were made to 

existing anti-trafficking law. The cabinet approved the draft 

amendments and introduced them to Parliament, but Parliament 

had not passed the amendments at the end of the reporting period. 

So it seems to me the only significant difference is the creation 

of a pilot program for government workers to be out of detention. 

Is there anything in addition to that that distinguishes 2014 from 

2015? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. We certainly saw much increased government 

efforts and four cabinet level meetings throughout the year in 

which the government did ramp up and outline significant new efforts that it was taking, including drafting this law through new 

consultations with civil society which it had not done in the past. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. That was indeed progress and one of our top 

recommendations as well. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I am very concerned because when you take these 

two reports and put them side by side, while it identifies actions 

that Malaysia should take, which I think most countries would understand to mean you should do these things or some effort in a 

serious way to get these things done. And if you get some of them 

done you will presumably have some opportunity to move up in the 

rankings. They got none of them done other than this pilot program and they had a significant change in their status. 

So my next question is, did any staff in the Office to Monitor and 

Combat Trafficking in Persons recommend the upgrade from Tier 

3 to Tier 2 Watch List for Malaysia? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Well again, we do not discuss the internal deliberations and who had which position within the State Department. 

It is a fact-based deliberative process. And to maintain the credibility of the process itself we believe it is important that the expert 

opinions throughout the State Department are able to be expressed 

freely and candidly and that the credibility of the process is really 

important. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So is it the normal course that the Secretary of 

State’s recommendation, without telling what they are, that they 

mirror regularly the recommendations of your office? Or are departures from the recommendations of your office common? Does it 

happen once every ten countries? Does it happen once a year? How 

frequently is the Secretary of State’s determination at odds with 

the determination or the recommendation of the Department? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As I said earlier, the decision is ultimately the 

Secretary’s to make. Our——

32

Mr. CICILLINE. No, I know that. My question is, how often is his 

decision different from the recommendation of the staff of your office? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. In the vast majority of cases the recommendations reach consensus at the working level between the TIP office 

and the regional bureaus and our colleagues at our Embassies and 

consulates around the world. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So you say this determination is fact based. And 

obviously you can’t tell us what was in the Secretary’s head. But 

the facts that you rely on to make the recommendation, is one difference of circumstances this pilot program? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As well as the activity of the government 

throughout the year and in consulting with civil society and drafting the amendments. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So on April 17th, the U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia Joseph Yun said that Malaysia needed to show greater political 

will in prosecuting human traffickers and protecting their victims 

if the country hoped to improve its Tier 3 ranking. Given that the 

2015 TIP Report covers government efforts undertaken from April 

1, 2014 through March 31, 2015, meaning that all actions referenced in the report had already occurred before Ambassador 

Yun’s comments, can you explain why the Department disagreed 

with the Ambassador’s assessment? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Again, we are not free to discuss the internal 

deliberations and who had which position. The Ambassador did indeed convey accurately the concerns that the entire Department 

had, including the Secretary, about human trafficking in Malaysia 

and that the government needed to do more. Ultimately the Tier 

2 Watch List assessment makes it very clear that the government 

still has a lot of work to do. It is far from a good grade. It is equivalent of a D minus. It indicates in fact that they still have a lot of 

work to do. And we do have serious concerns that are to be addressed. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But, Dr. Johnstone, the fact is the Ambassador 

who is there on the ground makes this determination, says very 

clearly that they have much more work to do before they can improve its ranking. Your either recommendation or the Secretary of 

State’s determination is contrary to that. And I am wondering if 

you had a basis for why it is that either you concluded as a recommendation or the Secretary concluded that the Ambassador was 

wrong? Because you can’t both be right. It cannot be that Ambassador Yun is right and Secretary Kerry is right. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I wouldn’t characterize his quote as saying that 

Ambassador Yun made a recommendation on the tier ranking within that quote as well. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, but he did say that before they could move 

to Tier 3 they had to demonstrate greater political will in prosecuting human trafficking and protecting their victims if they 

hoped to improve from a Tier 3 ranking. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. And we did see increased prosecutions and investigations. Of course we are very concerned that we didn’t see 

progress and, in fact, saw a decline in the convictions. 

Mr. CICILLINE. In addition, Ambassador Yun noted that there 

had been a failure to engage in sufficient prosecutions of perpetraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:23 Aug 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\110415\97461 SHIRL
33

tors of trafficking. And although the TIP Report notes an increase 

in prosecutions, it also notes that there were only three trafficking 

convictions. That is a decline of two-thirds from last year’s report. 

And it also notes that ‘‘The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions or convictions of government officials 

complicit in trafficking, despite evidence that some government officials facilitated migrant smuggling.’’

Do you believe, again, that those facts represent a good faith effort to prosecute traffickers? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. We very much share the concern that you just 

voiced about the low number of convictions. And we have said that 

both publicly and privately. 

When I was just in Malaysia last month we made that point very 

clearly and indicated that we anticipate significant progress as we 

are making the decisions for the 2016 Report. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But with all due respect, that is comforting to 

hear. But in the face of an upgrade it sort of raises the question 

of why it is that a country would receive an upgrade with very little. In fact, other than that pilot program. I don’t see evidence. 

And I just want to ask you finally, Tenaganita, which is a Malaysian NGO that helps trafficking victims, claims that police have 

known about the north Malaysian trafficking trail and the existence of human trafficking camps for many, many years. And, in 

fact, the organization says that migrants have been reporting about 

the camps since 2007 and that no police action was taken when reports were made about the camps. 

Can you tell me, Dr. Johnstone, whether any officials at 

Tenaganita were interviewed during the compilation of the TIP Report? And does the State Department agree or disagree with those 

allegations, and if so, why? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. We do maintain a relationship both through our 

Embassy and our office here with Tenaganita. I met with them myself as well in Malaysia last month. Their information definitely is 

something that we take into account when we are compiling the report. 

We noted in the report and subsequently in our meetings with 

government officials the serious concern that we take about the allegations of trafficking in those areas and the camps and mass 

graves that were found. We understand that there is an ongoing 

investigation that has produced a report that is now with the Attorney General. We stressed the importance of accountability for 

everyone who is responsible for any human trafficking in those 

places, including government officials. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So you don’t disagree with the allegations that 

were made by that NGO? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. It is definitely a serious, serious issue that we 

have raised with the government, yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So let me just ask a final question. You said that 

this is a fact-based deliberative process. Can you tell me specifically what facts you relied upon to raise Malaysia’s standing in the 

TIP Report? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The facts that are outlined in the report itself, 

the ones that we just discussed, including the increase of prosecutions and investigations, noting that it is a mixed picture, that deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:23 Aug 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\110415\97461 SHIRL
34

clining convictions are still a cause of concern. The government efforts that were made to reform the victim protection system during 

the reporting period, which was our top recommendation for the 

last several years. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So no investigation or prosecutions of government 

officials; correct? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. There have been investigations of government 

officials. We don’t have the prosecutions or convictions. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No prosecution of government officials despite evidence of complicity of government officials. A decline in overall 

prosecutions by two-thirds. No enactment of any anti-trafficking 

laws, but some expectation they will, and the pilot program. Those 

are the facts. 

Have I missed any important ones? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I believe that you maybe misspoke about the 

prosecutions. The prosecution investigations did increase. The convictions decreased. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Convictions. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. So the law enforcement picture was actually a 

mixed one. There were increases in both prosecutions and investigations. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But a significant decline, and I think it was three 

convictions. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Three from nine, so. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But nine wasn’t——

Ms. JOHNSTONE. It is woefully inadequate. We completely agree 

with you on that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, this raises 

very serious concerns for me. I consider this report to be sacred and 

a very powerful international diplomatic tool. And I think the context in which this decision was made about Malaysia and that woeful lack of evidence to support it, and the context of the trade 

agreement, is something which will do permanent damage to this 

process. And I am disappointed, frankly, that nothing in this hearing has disabused me of that conclusion. 

For all the men and women who put so much work into this and 

for the mission it is designed to support, this is a very disappointing occurrence. 

And with that I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Cicilline. I will without 

objection go in a moment to Brad Sherman. 

Just so I am absolutely clear, no ambiguity whatsoever, because 

like Mr. Cicilline, I have read everything I could possibly get my 

hands on regarding Malaysia and I just want to have it established 

beyond any reasonable doubt that no other factor like trade, when 

it comes to Malaysia, opening an Embassy and new relationship 

with Cuba, or superpower relations or geopolitical considerations 

when it comes to China was involved, it was all exclusively on 

human trafficking, nothing but trafficking that decisions for each 

of the designations was made? Is that true? Is that your testimony? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As I said earlier, the decisions about the tier 

designations are made by the Secretary of State. I was not part of 

the final discussions in the decision-making that he made. To my 

knowledge, certainly at the level of the people that you have here 

35

today, all of our colleagues in the regional bureaus and our Embassies and posts around the world and within the TIP office, all of 

our discussions about the factors and criteria were specifically looking at the TVPA criteria and the minimum standards there and 

trafficking. 

Mr. SMITH. And did you disagree with the Secretary on any of 

these designations? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Again, on internal deliberation process we don’t 

discuss that publicly, who took which position when, and so that 

we can protect the credibility of the process. There are robust discussions, as there are on any policy issues. People have different 

perspectives on things. Ultimately the Secretary has to take into 

account views, perspectives, and the expertise of others. 

And if I may, I would also like to address that I think there is 

a misperception of some of our regional bureau colleagues and our 

Embassies and missions, and perhaps others in the State Department, who also bring expertise. It is not only the TIP office that 

are experts on the trafficking situation and the situation in their 

countries. But the discussions that we have with them inform both 

the tier designations, but even more importantly the report. 

It could not be as factual and as accurate and as objective as it 

is without the expertise and knowledge——

Mr. SMITH. Again, as I said earlier, I thought your reporting on 

Cuba was excellent, as well as some of the other countries that 

where there is a dispute but the designation didn’t match, in my 

opinion, the findings. And again, just to put an exclamation point 

behind it, Malaysia had three convictions. China had 35 and yet 

they are not a Tier 3 country as they ought to be. And Thailand 

had 151 convictions. Again, it is not the only minimum standard 

but it is a very, very important one. 151 convictions in Thailand 

and they remain Tier 3. 

If I was in the Thai Embassy I would say, What gives here? That 

is very, very discouraging. I think they ought to be Tier 3, but the 

others ought to be Tier 3 as well. 

Mark Lagon makes a number of important observations. One of 

them is about Uzbekistan. He notes that the report notes that child 

labor mobilization continues in some districts. And he points out 

that the government-compelled forced labor of adults remained endemic in the 2014 cotton harvest. And asks the $64,000 question: 

how can state-run trafficking earn anything but a Tier 3 ranking? 

What alleged U.S. strategic interests could motivate even a purely cynical upgrade? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. So on Uzbekistan, this is a country near and 

dear to my heart. As you mentioned in the beginning, I served as 

human rights officer there. And while I was there actually I was 

asked by the Embassy to focus on trafficking in persons as that 

was an issue that was of growing concern to the Department and 

the administration, even then in 2003 when I served there. 

The issues of forced labor, particularly child labor as well as 

adult labor, are of great concern to the Department. We have over 

the years in various roles that I have been in personally also engaged on this with the Uzbekistan Government in close collaboration with our NGO partners as well, who provide vital information 

36

in very difficult circumstances. It is definitely an issue that we remain very concerned about. 

And, again, I would point out that Uzbekistan was upgraded only 

to Tier 2 Watch List; that does indicate they are not meeting the 

minimum standards. They have a long way to go to improve their 

efforts on combating human trafficking. However, we do believe 

and did assess that in 2014 they did make significant efforts to 

dramatically reduce the use of forced child labor. 

We share your concerns about adult forced labor, both in the cotton harvest and other sectors. 

Mr. SMITH. And without objection, and I mentioned this earlier 

I believe, but if not I am doing it now, very incisive articles by Reuters reporters Jason Szep and Matt Spetalnick will be made a part 

of the record. 

And also a series of reports of commercial fishing, slavery in 

Papua New Guinea and Malaysia by Robin McDowell and Martha 

Mendoza from the Associated Press. Without objection I would like 

to make those a part of the record as well. 

Without objection too, I yield to my good friend and colleague for 

any comments he might have or questions. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Johnstone, you have an outstanding reputation. If you would 

actually tell us something, I would believe it. If you are just going 

to tell us that the decision was made by Secretary Kerry, you are 

not qualified to psychoanalyze him. If he made the decision, we 

ought to have him here and ask him. Because we asked you what 

your opinion is, and you won’t tell us. 

But let me go at this a different way. I tend to believe what Reuters reports. Pretty accurate service. More accurate than most. 

They report that Malaysia, Cuba, and China all got better ratings 

than your office wanted to give them. Can you give me any reason 

to disbelieve Reuters? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Well, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that human trafficking is an issue that not only the TIP office cares about, but our colleagues throughout——

Mr. SHERMAN. I know. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE [continuing]. The State Department. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know. Let us put, it is quite possible your office 

could make a mistake. It is quite possible you want to give some 

country a Tier 1, and due to factors and arguments made by others 

in the State Department they get a Tier 2. It is possible you give 

them a Tier 2——

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I think that is what happened. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And some, and for other reasons outside your office they are given a Tier 3. And all of a sudden our 

trade negotiations blow up. That is possible. Didn’t happen in this 

lifetime but it is possible. 

But I am asking about your office. And I, I have got a report here 

from Reuters that says your office wanted to give a lower rating 

to Malaysia, Cuba, and China than they ultimately got. Can you 

give me a reason to disbelieve Reuters? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I would reiterate that, again, the narratives 

themselves are accurate and objective and the product of——

37

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. You know, you could just say no, you are 

not going to give me a reason to disbelieve Reuters. Because telling 

me that you do a great job and that the other offices of the State 

Department do a great job is not answering, it is just telling me 

what, of course, the State Department believes, which is every office is doing a great job. 

Can you give me a reason to disbelieve Reuters’ report about 

what your office recommended? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I believe that the process through which we 

came to the both the tier determinations themselves as well as the 

reports was very much improved by the deliberative process and 

the robust discussions and debates within the Department. Of 

course people will have different perspectives. That is natural for 

any——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. So that is not a reason to disbelieve Reuters. That is just a reason to say maybe Reuters was right, and 

your office recommended a lower. And maybe, and but maybe the 

upgrade was justified. But you are not telling me in your answer 

that there wasn’t an upgrade from the position of your office. You 

are just telling me that there are other brilliant people at the State 

Department and they may have a good point. 

Is that the point you are making? Or are you—I will stipulate, 

other folks in the State Department are brilliant. They have input. 

They may have good reason. And it could very well be that the upgrade is called for, an upgrade beyond what your department or office would recommend. But I am just asking about your office. Can 

you give me any reason to disbelieve the sentence I quoted from 

Reuters? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Again I——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay, okay. We will go on. We will go on. 

Do you personally believe that Thailand deserves a worse grading than Malaysia? Your personal belief. Or do you simply choose 

not to give your personal belief? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. I am here representing the State Department, 

so I——

Mr. SHERMAN. Could you give us your personal belief? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. The Department’s views on that, Thailand’s rating——

Mr. SHERMAN. I didn’t ask for the Department’s views. If you 

refuse to give me your personal views, just say you refuse, and I 

will go on, on to the next question. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. If I could comment, I think that implicit in your 

question is maybe a misperception as well that we, I think the 

Reuters article also cast this as a winning and losing, and that the 

TIP office lost more often this year. And I don’t think that is how 

we——

Mr. SHERMAN. That is you are answering a question I—this is 

great, you won’t answer the questions I do ask and you are answering the questions I don’t ask. I realize that your office has got to 

fight with, argue with or at least discuss things with other bureaus 

and offices around the State Department. I am not asking what is 

the State Department’s view. I got that in writing. I am asking 

what your view is and what your department’s view is and you 

won’t tell us. 

38

And the fact that Secretary Kerry would send you here without 

instructing you or authorizing you to tell us what really happened 

gives me all the information I need. I have got a Reuters report 

that Secretary Kerry and the State Department is unwilling to 

deny. 

Now I am not a good enough lawyer to get you to admit it. Okay, 

you know, you don’t have to answer a question. But Reuters reports that your office wanted to give a lower grade, lower tier than 

these three countries ultimately got. You are not saying that is not 

the case. You are saying that the State Department is a brilliant 

organization with lots of brilliant people. Wouldn’t want you to say 

anything else. 

But if the State Department can’t deny this Reuters report, then 

I think we know who controls the ultimate decisions. And that is 

those who want this trade deal. And I think this report is an important part of our human rights efforts. I don’t think it is totally 

discredited. I think that it can be relied upon except when there 

are major diplomatic or economic reasons to go another way. And 

for 80, 90 percent of the countries there is no other reason, there 

is no strong other reason to go another way. 

But can you mention any respected human rights organization 

that says Malaysia is entitled to be treated, given a higher grade 

than Thailand? You know them all. You work with them all. We 

have got another one of them coming for the second panel. But you 

know that is just one. He can only invite one. You probably, if I 

asked you, could identify 40 organizations, some very well known, 

some very well respected, some less so. Can you name anybody who 

doesn’t get a paycheck from the State Department, who is involved 

in human rights who says that Malaysia deserves to be in a higher 

tier than Thailand? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. There are indeed a variety of opinions on Malaysia, which we did take into——

Mr. SHERMAN. You know them all. Can you name one? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. All I can tell you is that we have consulted with 

NGOs. We certainly take their views and information. They are 

very important——

Mr. SHERMAN. And every NGO I am aware of, and you know a 

lot more than I do, every NGO I am aware of says that Malaysia 

is not entitled to be in a higher tier than Thailand. And so I go 

to you, the expert, and I say, Hey, there may be some organizations 

I haven’t talked to or even heard of. And I ask you to name just 

one that thinks, you know, even if the community was 39 to 1 

against the position this report takes, at least there would be one. 

And you know the top 40. Is there one that agrees with the report’s 

decision to put Thailand in a lower category than Malaysia? 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. As I said, there are a variety of opinions on the 

human trafficking situation in Malaysia, as there are on Thailand. 

There are serious problems in both countries. The Tier 2 Watch 

List ranking indicates very clearly that Malaysia still has a long 

way to go and they are still serious——

Mr. SHERMAN. That is a nice answer but you didn’t name one. 

You didn’t name one because there isn’t one. If you knew one you 

would tell me, wouldn’t you? 

39

Ms. JOHNSTONE. At the end of the day the tier ranking is the decision that the Secretary of State makes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And that is why it is the Secretary of State who 

ought to have the whatevers to come before Congress and defend 

this decision. Because it puts you in a terrible position. The Secretary made these decisions. Only he can indicate why he made 

them. 

You don’t know why he made them. I know why. You don’t call 

me as a witness, but if I was called as a witness I would say he 

made them because he wants TPP to go forward and is willing to 

throw the Trafficking In Persons Report out the window. But I am 

not testifying to that because I am sitting up here. You haven’t 

asked me to sit down there. 

Look, you work very hard. For those of us who think that your 

work is very important this is a difficult situation. I respect your 

personal integrity. You have been put in a very difficult position. 

You have done as good a job as anyone could possibly due in justifying one of the worst decisions made by the Department this year. 

And you didn’t make it. 

And I will yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman. And any time 

you want to testify, you are more than welcome. 

Thank you again. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I fear some of my colleagues would be as tough 

on me as I am on so many witnesses. They have seen it. I don’t 

have anything good, I don’t have enough, enough in the karma 

bank to put myself through that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I do want to thank our distinguished witnesses for your testimony. As you can see, there is a great deal of bipartisan concern 

here, particularly these countries in question. And I would like, 

without objection, to put a letter that was sent to Secretary Kerry 

from the Cotton Campaign which lays out their very specific concerns about the ranking of Uzbekistan in this year’s TIP Report. 

Thank you again for your testimony. And we will look forward 

to working with you going forward. 

Ms. JOHNSTONE. Thank you. Likewise, we look forward to working with you. And thank you for your commitment to this issue. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Johnstone. 

I would like to now welcome our second panel which is Ambassador Mark Lagon, who is our third Ambassador-at-Large for 

Human Trafficking and the Director of the Office to Monitor and 

Combat Trafficking in Persons at the U.S. Department of State. 

Ambassador Lagon’s record of involvement in human rights is 

long and diverse, spanning from Deputy Assistant Secretary in the 

Bureau of International Organization Affairs, responsible for 

human rights, humanitarian issues and U.N. reform, to academia 

where he was the chair for Global Politics and Security at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program, 

and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights at the Council on 

Foreign Relations. He was also Executive Director and CEO of the 

anti-human trafficking non-profit Polaris. He currently serves as 

the President of Freedom House. 

40

Ambassador Lagon, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK P. LAGON, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM HOUSE (FORMER AMBASSADOR–AT–LARGE 

FOR TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE) 

Ambassador LAGON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you 

and the members of the subcommittee have invited me to testify 

on the TIP Report, as I have had occasion to do in the past. I would 

like to look at some of the key issues in the report. 

Of course, we are here to focus on specific countries, but it is 

worth remembering that while getting less attention, the report 

each year highlights themes as well, with the text that precedes 

the country narratives. And this year’s report highlights some very 

interesting and important things: Global supply chains and, in particular, offering cues to the private sector to fight the problem of 

human trafficking. 

The report highlights harmful cultural norms and, hence, doesn’t 

succumb to cultural relativism. Although I will note that the report 

would have done well to note a cultural tolerance for wide-scale sex 

buying in Latin America, Europe, Southeast Asia, Japan, as a driver of sex trafficking. 

And I commend the report for highlighting alternatives to testimony drawn from traumatized trafficking survivors as the means 

of evidence to hold tormentors to account because all too often relying on testimony of the victims solely propels law enforcement in 

countries around the world to leverage the properly unconditional 

protection services to elicit cooperation. 

Most important, I want to highlight in the global findings in the 

report, some percentages. I have pulled out my calculator, as I do 

every year, and to look at a chart on page 48 of the report. We see 

a 23.1 percent drop in convictions worldwide. And that was from 

an already modest 5,700 convictions the previous year. 

Prosecutions for labor, as opposed to sex trafficking, dropped 

from an already low 12.7 percent to 4.2 percent. 

And the convictions went from a low 8.1 percent the previous 

year to only 4.9 percent of convictions for human trafficking being 

for labor. So there is, in essence, global impunity for labor trafficking. 

With respect to country situations, many of which you have already raised, and I am happy that you even cited some things already in my testimony, China in the view of Freedom House is the 

largest governance problem in the world, both in terms of its internal treatment of human rights and as a pernicious model. Freedom 

House, of course, ranks China as not free in its own reports. 

Both the intrusive actions and its sins of omission are important 

in the human trafficking area. Intrusive actions of the state fuel 

trafficking, including a decades-long population policies that created a shortage of females, both as spouses and sexual partners. 

And I really want to highlight the report this year which says, 

‘‘The government converted some reform through labor facilities 

into different types of detention centers that continued to employ 

forced labor.’’

41

What the Chinese State neglects to do also matters in terms of 

human trafficking. And very importantly, the report calls for China 

to provide legal alternatives to foreign victims’ removal to countries 

where they would face hardship or retribution. Read: North Korea. 

Heinous punishment to people who would be returned to North 

Korea, which causes a human trafficking problem in China. 

There is a terrible arbitrary rule by law pattern, as opposed to 

rule of law pattern in China. And that is manifest in the failure 

to adopt legislation on all forms of human trafficking. 

Malaysia; much of the focus of your discussion today, and a 

major controversy. Well, Freedom House ranks Malaysia as partly 

free. And I will say for my own part, I have endorsed the TransPacific Partnership because generally speaking I think open rules 

and norms put the right pressure on illiberal regimes. But the upgrade seems quite clearly to coincide with the desires of the Department of State to make Malaysia eligible for the TPP, and not 

the merits. 

For instance, corruption is rampant. It is under-emphasized in 

the report. What the report does highlight seems inconsistent with 

an upgrade, especially merely four convictions for labor trafficking 

or passport retention. And screening mechanisms to identify and 

assist trafficking victims are truly thin. 

By comparison, the State Department sustained a Tier 3 ranking 

for Thailand because of things like victim protection remaining insufficient in its massive sex industry, in fishing and seafood, and 

in Thai citizens migrating to work elsewhere. 

I will repeat, as you noted, I believe that the upgrade of Vietnam 

to Tier 2 is bewildering, especially with the utter absence of prosecutions for labor trafficking and significant official complicity. 

Uzbekistan, being upgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List is striking. 

The report notes that child labor mobilization continues in some 

districts of the country and ‘‘Government-compelled forced labor of 

adults remained endemic in the 2014 cotton harvest.’’ This is one 

of the most heinous human rights abusers in the world, even 

among those countries that Freedom House rates as not free. 

As far as Cuba’s upgrade to the Tier 2 Watch List, well, Freedom 

House ranks Cuba as clearly not free. The grounds for an upgrade 

are really questionable. The report itself says the penal code does 

not criminalize all forms of human trafficking, much less are those 

problems a matter of enforcement. And the Cuban regime did not 

even claim efforts to prevent forced labor or any trafficking-specific 

shelters. 

So with cases like Cuba and Malaysia sparking observers to suggest the report is politicized, what are we to make of this? To say 

that no considerations besides the pure merits of human trafficking 

come into play in the Department is a bit like the claim of being 

shocked, shocked to find gambling going on at Rick’s joint in Casablanca. It shouldn’t surprise us. 

But what should be done to protect, to maximize the integrity of 

the TIP Report rankings? Some steps we could take would make 

the malady that you have been looking at in this hearing worse. 

A few years ago a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no longer there, concerned that Singapore and Malaysia 

were getting rather low rankings considering U.S. economic and 

42

strategic interests, proposed legislation to markedly increase the 

role of the regional bureaus. That was a lousy idea, in short. 

In the early life of the TIP office, former Deputy Secretary of 

State Richard Armitage, who no one could call a human rights 

idealist, came to the decision that the pen for the draft of the report and the proposed rankings should lie with the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. That needs to be protected. 

The most productive solution is for Congress to insist in its oversight role, and the Senate in focusing on appointments, that the 

Ambassador’s position is filled and it is filled with someone with 

strong experience, vision and bureaucratic chops, because there is 

bureaucratic infighting, as your hearing has focused on. Delays 

nominating and confirming an envoy lead to more disputed 

rankings, ending up rejecting the substantive expertise and recommendation of the TIP office. 

And I am really troubled how long it took to replace Ambassador 

Luis CdeBaca. A fellow human rights advocate in the area of women’s rights, who I won’t name out of respect for her, with deep experience in both civil society partnerships and multi-lateral institutions, was rejected as a finalist as I understand it because she was 

apparently too concerned about the commoditization of females for 

sex trafficking. I have said here before you when you have been 

kind enough to invite me to testify, we need a strong advocate for 

fighting both labor and sex trafficking. It is crucial. 

How can we best protect the strength and integrity of the report? 

Congress should insist that the leader of the office be someone who 

themselves reflects strength and integrity. There is going to be a 

deliberative process in the Department; we know it. But it will be 

much more likely to produce credible rankings that maximize the 

United States’ diplomatic leverage to get countries to pass better 

laws and, more importantly, to implement them, if there is a strong 

leader of the office. Then there will be fewer calls like Malaysia 

compared to Thailand. 

So thank you for inviting me, as ever, to testify. This is an issue 

in which dignity or enslavement lie in the balance. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lagon follows:]

43


97461b-1.eps
44


97461b-2.eps
45


97461b-3.eps
46


97461b-4.eps
47


97461b-5.eps
48


97461b-6.eps
49


97461b-7.eps
50

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Lagon, thank you so much for your testimony, for your life-long commitment to human rights. 

And when you served as Ambassador you were absolutely candid 

both on the record as well as off. And I think that made an enormous difference. I remember it was you who finally, despite the 

China hands who didn’t want, I’m sure, you to do it, pointed out 

the nexus between the coercive population control program of the 

PRC and the consequence, particularly of sex trafficking, because 

of the missing daughters in the People’s Republic of China as a result of sex-selection abortion. And you made that very clear. 

Your comments on Uzbekistan, and I did ask that question based 

on your testimony, and I thank you for it. I would agree with you 

that when we originally did this law the absolute intent was trafficking and only trafficking goes into the book. We want an honest 

assessment of friend and foe alike, allies around the world. No 

games, no brinkmanship. 

And again, as I have cited many times, the fact that Israel and 

South Korea during the previous administration’s watch were singled out, there was shock and dismay frankly among many quarters, but it actually led to an amelioration of the issue, victims 

were protected, and prevention strategies put into place. And now 

South Korea has very, very strong laws as does the State of Israel. 

We should never pull our punches. And you have made that 

clear. And I want to thank you because during your tenure you 

were always available to this subcommittee and to other Members 

of Congress, House and Senate, and you were always candid. And 

that is beyond refreshing. 

I will also say, any suggestions you have about strengthening the 

TIP office would be appreciated from you personally and from Freedom House. 

The one of the things that you point out in your written testimony is that the last trafficking reauthorization may have inadvertently increased the role of the regional bureaus. I believe that 

as well, reading the language. It was not my bill. It was an amendment attached to the reauthorization of the Violence Against 

Women Act, which I strongly support. But I ended up voting 

against the reauthorization of my own law that was proffered by 

Senator Leahy simply because it weakened the TIP office vis-a-vis 

the regional bureaus. If they have input, it ought to be to say, 

thank you for doing your due diligence, and we accept it because 

you are the experts. 

And then the second part of the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, the sanctions portion, was always left to the TIP Office, with 

all kinds of collaboration, but the belief was that reasonable men 

and women would look at how we can best advance the ball and 

protect victims and mitigate trafficking in the first place. You make 

decisions. It is not based on empirical data: How many convictions, 

what is country X, Y or Z doing? The book, the TIP Report was always meant to be where we would just say it in an unvarnished 

way. 

And so the disappointment that I and so many others feel about 

the artificial upgrades to Malaysia, to Vietnam, to China, 

Uzbekistan where, as you have been dogged in pointing out, and 

you did in one previous appearance here, the comparisons to the 

51

cotton that was picked by slaves. You know, you put it in that context and lights went off. Yes, that is what many of the slaves did 

in the United States and they are doing it in Uzbekistan. 

So any particular thoughts you might have, in addition to what 

you have already said, would be helpful. 

Your testimony notes that Vietnam does not prosecute labor trafficking at all and that there is a high level of official complicity in 

labor trafficking. Again that raises questions about a favored country where there are things on the table other than trafficking. And 

they ought to be, in my opinion, a Tier 3 country as well. 

So perhaps you can spend some time on those questions? 

Ambassador LAGON. Much to address, and I thank you. 

Let me note three things. First of all, you played a role in focusing on the question of official complicity. When a diplomat is involved in subjecting a domestic servant to human trafficking conditions, that should be seriously held to account in the report. 

You have raised the issue of peacekeepers of nations who have 

in fact added to human suffering in places that they have served, 

from the Balkans to places in Africa, as opposed to relieving it. 

Complicit as agents of their government. 

Think especially about a case where a government policy is in 

fact a source of human trafficking, this is the case in Uzbekistan. 

Sure, it has finally agreed to let the ILO come in and start looking 

at the problem of child labor. Okay, that is good. But if in fact it 

is a policy of the government to continue forced labor for adults, 

and it is not eliminating entirely the phenomenon of child labor, 

that is a special category. I can’t see how you could give an upgrade from Tier 3 for that. 

And I think that is something that is worth really driving home. 

If the government itself is doing it or its officials are complicit, that 

should be reported. In fact, it is my view that if officials of a government are involved, such as their diplomats, that that should be 

mentioned in the report; maybe not the names of the officials. 

It has been long, secondly, my view that both the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, with due respect to you as its author, and the 

Palermo Protocol are heavily focused on the prosecution and law 

enforcement precepts. There are more things in the minimum 

standards there. I think it is very important that you can see 

progress across the so-called three P’s. And in particular, I have 

been consistent in saying that the moral imperative lies with the 

protection of victims, or what I would call the re-empowerment of 

the survivors. 

I think if there is anything one does to look at revision of the legislation it should be to make sure that you are not giving an upgrade and failing to take account of an anemic record on victim 

protection. I think in some of the cases in question here in East 

Asia with Malaysia and Vietnam that is the case. 

The last thing I would say is that any fix in the process and 

wanting to protect the degree to which the pen is held by the TIP 

office, you shouldn’t seek a zero role for the regional bureaus or a 

zero role for the Embassies. They do raise considerations that 

should be looked at. I remember people from the South and Central 

Asia Bureau who had very different views from me as the TIP Ambassador on many countries saying, so, can we say that Sri Lanka 

52

has the capacity to take steps on fighting human trafficking when 

it has been facing an internal conflict? 

Those sorts of questions should be raised. What is inappropriate 

is if there is a tier upgrade based on issues that have nothing to 

do with human trafficking. 

Mr. SMITH. As I mentioned, is there anything that you heard in 

testimony by our three previous witnesses that you would like to 

respond to? 

Ambassador LAGON. Well, I think it is an interesting argument 

with regard to Cuba that by our having more dialog with Cuba we 

found out more. I mean this was always an issue with North 

Korea, Iran, and Cuba. We don’t have diplomatic relations with 

those countries so they are not about to hand over the statistics 

that we ask of host governments through our Embassies. 

I think it is a more credible argument that Cuba may have taken 

some steps following ratification of the Palermo Protocol then to 

suggest, well, now we know because we are in dialog with them. 

I still kind it kind of farfetched that what remains one of the Marxist-Leninist governments of the world does not have a problem with 

its state enterprises or its political prisons of forced labor. 

With regard to Malaysia, I heard nothing in the testimony that 

would lead me to believe that the TIP office did not, as Reuters reported it, recommend the Tier 3 ranking. One cannot take the evidence raised for the upgrade and see it as a tangible reason for 

this. 

I will say I am sympathetic to the position that Dr. Johnstone 

is in. And I would caution that we can explore what happened, 

what went awry here, but ultimately if you want to keep pressure 

on other governments, maybe it isn’t best for the specific different 

recommendations of the TIP office and regional bureaus, whoever 

wins out, to be known globally. In general, the vast majority of 

cases do come out where they ought to be and where the TIP office 

recommends. 

Some are howlers, as I described to the press in this report, as 

mistakes. But I think we should take care about revealing that 

there were different opinions too much, because after all, the bill 

that you helped make a law and the office that you helped create 

puts its pressure on by credible focused leverage on other nations. 

Mr. SMITH. I agree with that. But we still have to get it right 

for that credibility to be warranted. 

Ambassador LAGON. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. And let me just ask you about India. It is a country 

that we have focused on in this subcommittee on a number of 

fronts when it comes to human rights, religious freedom, or the 

lack of it, and the issue of abducted children. The new Sean and 

David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act makes it very clear that India has a serious problem with 

parental child abduction. 

And the Tier 2 ranking for India doesn’t appear to be deserved 

at all. And I would really appreciate your thoughts on that. India 

has a huge child sex trafficking problem, other kinds of trafficking 

as well, but it is huge. And I am not sure we get the kind of data 

back from the government,——

Ambassador LAGON. Right. 

53

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Their government that would warrant 

such a designation. 

Ambassador LAGON. I agree with you entirely. I think that the 

Tier 2 ranking is suspect. 

You may have noticed in part of my written testimony that I did 

not deliver orally that we should take care. There are some very 

serious human rights issues or serious global issues that aren’t precisely human trafficking. They should raise doubts about a country’s overall human rights record. And that is true of India as well. 

You have been at the heart of every reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The only place in the legislation 

where the scale of the problem is mentioned is in the Tier 2 Watch 

List. That is, that is the one place where there could be a justification for a nation not being on Tier 2 but being on the Tier 2 Watch 

List because the scale is so large. 

And it is true in India, it remains the demographic epicenter of 

human trafficking in the world. And while there have been improvements that might merit India no longer being a country that 

anyone, that the TIP office would propose be Tier 3 because of 

some, finally some actions, in the states in the federal system in 

India, the scale is so large and the implementation so spotty that 

it is really hard to suggest that Tier 2 is merited. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you one final question and then any concluding comments you might want to make. 

Last week I chaired a hearing of the Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe on the Syrian refugees. One of our witnesses was the regional representative for the UNHCR, his name 

is Pitterman. He said that the trigger for this massive move into 

Europe was a 30 percent cut in World Food Programme funding. 

People are so desperate now for such basics as food that they finally gave flight and now they are moving in large numbers. 

We are talking about 7.5 million IDPs, 4 million refugees who 

are scattered everywhere. Are you convinced—and I should have 

asked this of the previous panel as well—that the concerns of trafficking in persons are being incorporated, integrated into our efforts to assist refugees, particularly in that part of the world? 

Ambassador LAGON. I am very glad you asked that for multiple 

reasons. One, I noticed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Ambassador-at-Large CdeBaca emphasized that we 

need to look at humanitarian situations and refugee situations and 

worry about the impact on human trafficking. At least on a thought 

leader level they were, they were focused on that earlier in this administration. 

I don’t think we are doing enough with respect to the refugees. 

It is clearly a vulnerability for human trafficking with the enormous desperation. Those who are seeking a better life when they 

are in hardship are ones who are going to be vulnerable. 

I will say two things, however. We should not, as I say in my 

written testimony, forget the heart of human trafficking being exploitation rather than the movement of people. I noticed earlier 

that people suddenly discovered a human trafficking problem with 

Haiti when there was natural disaster. There has been a human 

trafficking problem with Haiti with restaveks for a long time. And 

54

so, too, we should not discover a human trafficking problem when 

there have been some endemic problems. 

But I must say with my Freedom House hat on, the situation 

here is a governance problem. This is a human rights calamity that 

has been left to fester in Syria. It is amazing how the United 

States and the West has not taken action to deal with the cause 

of the problem which is the mass atrocities from Assad. And these 

predated the atrocities of ISIS, which only make the situation 

worse and, hence, create a human trafficking vulnerability. 

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Lagon, thank you so very much for your 

testimony. And without objection your full written statement will 

be made part of the record. 

Ambassador LAGON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. And please continue to provide counsel and insight 

to the committee, as you have done so effectively for many, many 

years. 

Ambassador LAGON. Well, as a former Capitol Hill staffer who 

was around at the time of the conference on the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act, I consider myself an honorary Hill staffer. So I always will think about how the oversight and the further refinement of the legislation are things I could play my small part in 

helping on. 

Thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. SMITH. Make that large part. 

And thank you so very much, Mr. Ambassador. The hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

56

f


97461n.eps
57

f


97461m.eps
58


97461c-1.eps
59


97461c-2.eps
60


97461c-3.eps
61


97461c-4.eps
62

f


97461c-5.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97461d.eps
64

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97461e-1.eps
65


97461e-2.eps
66


97461e-3.eps
67


97461e-4.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97461f-1.eps
69


97461f-2.eps
70


97461f-3.eps
71


97461f-4.eps
72

Æ


97461f-5.eps