U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–126 PDF 2012

LABOR ABUSES, HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: IS THE 

GOVIERNMENT DOING ENOUGH TO PROTECT 

VULNERABLE WORKERS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION 

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND 

PROCUREMENT REFORM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2012 

Serial No. 112–137 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT REFORM

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 27, 2012 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Richard Blumenthal, A U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Rob Portman, A U.S Senator from the State of Ohio 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Ambassador Luis Cdebaca, Ambassador at Large, U.S. Department of State 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 9 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 11 

Cathy J. Read, Director, Office of Acquisitions Management, U.S. Department 

of State 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 13 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 15 

Evelyn R. Klemstine, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, U.S. Department of State 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 18 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 20 

Richard T. Ginman, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 29 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 30 

Sharon Cooper, Director, Defense Human Resources Activity, U.S. Department of Defense 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 34 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 36 

Ambassador Kenneth P. Moorefield, Deputy Inspector General, Special Plans 

and Operations, U.S. Department of Defense 

Oral statement ........................................................................................... 38 

Written statement ..................................................................................... 40 

(1) 

LABOR ABUSES, HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND 

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING ENOUGH TO PROTECT 

VULNERABLE WORKERS? 

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT

REFORM, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James 

Lankford [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lankford, Chaffetz, Kelly, Issa (ex officio) and Connolly. 

Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Majority Staff Assistant; Kurt 

Bardella, Majority Senior Policy Advisor; Richard A. Beutel, Majority Senior Counsel; Molly Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Gwen 

D’Luzansky, Majority Assistant Clerk; Adam P. Fromm, Majority 

Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Justin 

LoFranco, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Mark D. 

Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Peter Warren, Majority Legislative Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Devon Hill, Minority Staff Assistant; Rory Sheehan, Minority New Media Press Secretary; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority 

Counsel. 

Mr. LANKFORD. The Committee will come to order. 

Just a quick housekeeping piece on the order on how we’re going 

to go. We are grateful to have the two Senators here to speak on 

this same topic that is happening over in the Senate and the good 

work that is already happening there. 

I am going to open this up with a brief statement, just the overarching feel of what we are trying to accomplish today. I will ask 

the two Senators to make a statement and then Mr. Connolly, 

Chairman Issa and I will make a quick opening statement after the 

Senators have spoken. Then we will set up for the next panel. 

The Senators are welcome to stay. You probably have a few 

things to do as well today. If you would like to be dismissed, you 

could, whatever is your pleasure. I am sure our opening statements 

will be riveting to you, so I assume you want to be able to stay as 

well. 

2 

This hearing is on Labor Abuses, Human Trafficking and Government Contracts: Is the Government Doing Enough to Protect 

Vulnerable Workers? 

We are a part of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have the right to know that the money Washington takes 

from them is well spent. Second, Americans deserve an efficient 

and effective government that works for them. 

Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right 

to know what they are getting from the government. 

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to 

deliver the facts to the American people and bring them genuine 

reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and obviously, this subcommittee as well. 

With that, Senator Blumenthal, we would be pleased to receive 

a statement from you on your work. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Chairman Lankford, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Connolly, for your leadership and 

your staffs, and for your very helpful work on this issue. I want to 

particularly thank my very distinguished colleague, Senator 

Portman, for joining me today and for his leadership in helping to 

craft this very, very important initiative. 

I also want to say that this effort on the Senate side is really a 

very bipartisan one as it is here. We have been joined by Senators 

Franken, Rubio, Lieberman and Collins in introducing the End 

Trafficking Government in Contracting Act in 2012. 

I have a statement which I will submit for the record and it will 

condense the remarks I have to make this morning. 

This Senate bill is a companion to your legislation and it is the 

conclusion of months of bipartisan work between our members and 

our staff across the ideological spectrum as it should be because 

this problem really is not a partisan one in any sense of the word. 

It basically is to say to the American public and the world that we 

will no longer tolerate the stain of human trafficking to taint federal grants and contracts overseas. 

You will hear this morning from witnesses who will tell you 

about this problem firsthand, what is happening on the ground and 

also indicate that our government has zero tolerance for human 

trafficking, but in practice, on the ground, in the real world, it is 

happening. It is prevalent, pervasive, insidious, a serious problem 

across the globe. 

The Bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting recently 

completed an exhaustive review of contracting practices in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and bluntly concluded ‘‘Existing prohibitions on trafficking have failed to suppress it.’’ That is a searing indictment of 

our contracting and our contractors. We need to take strong action 

to stop it. 

This conclusion was echoed last October in hearing testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when the DOD CompVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74126.TXT APRIL
3 

troller, Dov Zakheim, said that it was quite clear in his words, that 

fixing this problem ‘‘will require legislation’’ and that is why we are 

here. 

This activity is unconscionable and intolerable and to the observations that you will hear this morning, and that have been made 

already, I would just add my own ongoing human trafficking on 

federal contracts is fraudulent, it is immoral and it is a particular 

threat to the security and welfare of our deployed service members. 

We can’t guarantee that people interacting with them every day, 

and I know you have been on the bases as I have in Afghanistan 

and seen how close and intimate the contact is between those people working on the bases on contracting, whether it is construction 

or anything else, and the security of the members of our Armed 

Services really depends on this kind of effort. 

Our military relies heavily on foreign contractors to provide 

logistical support on those bases and I would suggest that this objective ought to be pursued as quickly as possible. The objective is 

really threefold: prevention, accountability and enforcement. The 

legislation accomplishes those goals with a number of strong steps 

that begin at their core with making clear that this activity is 

criminal and is punishable criminally. 

I say that as an Attorney General who was a law enforcer for 20 

years. Clear, strong penalties are at the heart of this effort, but so 

is prevention. By expanding the scope of current language that requires plans and practices specified in advance, stopping the kind 

of related fraudulent activity, whether it is destruction of documents or misuse of credentials and so forth, misrepresenting wages 

on work location, using labor brokers who charge exorbitant recruiting fees, the procurement of commercial sex acts, all of those 

related acts also ought to be prevented. 

The bill improves accountability by requiring contractors to notify the Inspector General of any credible evidence of trafficking occurring on the contract or any subcontracts. The Inspector General 

has to investigate such instances and report any findings to the 

contract administrators to consider swift, remedial action against 

the contractor. That can include throwing them off the job, debarment and other measures that have real meaning to a contractor 

who wishes to do business with the Federal Government. 

Those are the important measures and again, there are others 

that are part of the bill. I would just emphasize how important my 

colleagues and I regard this measure and how grateful we are for 

your prompt and very constructive work. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Senator Portman. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROB PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Chairman Lankford. 

Thanks for your personal commitment to this issue and your 

leadership on it. 

It is great to be here with my colleague, Senator Blumenthal. I 

appreciate his leadership on this in the Senate. 

It is always good to be with my friend, Darrell Issa, Senator 

Chaffetz and Ranking Member Connolly. We have a number of 

House members who have done great work on this including the 

4 

members here today, and of course Ranking Member Cummings 

and Congressman Chris Smith. It seems to me this is a great opportunity in a bipartisan way for us to make progress on a critical 

issue. 

In the Senate, we also have a great team. Senators Rubio, 

Franken, Collins, McCaskill and Joe Lieberman have all signed on 

to the bill. We have other colleagues who are very interested in 

pursuing this. Even in times when it seems difficult to achieve reasonable and commonsense objectives, this seems to be one we can 

move forward on. 

I appreciate the leadership you have shown. This cuts across all 

party lines and philosophical lines because it is really about something much more fundamental and that is who we are as a people. 

It is about respecting and protecting human dignity. I think this 

legislation, as my colleague talked about, is designed to ensure that 

the contracting dollars that come from our taxpayers after all are 

spent in a manner that is consistent with our deeply held values 

as a Nation. 

It is a lot of money, over $20 billion a year in Afghanistan and 

Iraq alone. Those contracting dollars are significant and it requires 

clear rules and oversight. 

Despite the existing protections including the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act of 2000, reports have made it very clear that human 

trafficking practices in connection with U.S. overseas contracts remains a very significant problem. To put this in some context, 

there are over 70,000 third country nationals who now work for 

contractors and subcontractors of the U.S. military again in Iraq 

and Afghanistan alone. 

In most cases, this work provides valued job opportunities, but 

it is not hard to see also how these workers recruited for low wage 

jobs often thousands of miles from their home country can find 

themselves vulnerable to illegal or fraudulent employment practices. We have heard this most recently from the Wartime Contracting Commission. I know you all looked at that report and also 

the Inspectors General of the State Department and the Defense 

Department, each of which have reported the trafficking remains 

an issue and that existing protections in connection with such trafficking are insufficient. 

Broadly defined, as Senator Blumenthal said, it means forced 

labor and severely coercive labor practices including the practice of 

recruiting workers who leave home based on fraudulent promises 

about working conditions or wages and including confiscating passports, charging workers recruitment fees that consume more than 

a month’s salary, and creating indentured, servitude type conditions. 

It includes unlawful restrictions on the ability of workers to return home and sometimes failure to assist in the repatriation when 

jobs are over. 

The oversight is limited. The Wartime Contracting Commission, 

for example, reported that ‘‘Some prime contractors, although not 

themselves knowingly violate the prohibitions on trafficking, have 

not proactively used all their capacities to supervise their labor 

brokers or subs.’’ The State Department Inspector General’s Report 

similarly stated ‘‘Since contracting regulations do not specify how 

5 

to monitor contractors for trafficking in persons, the IG could not 

conclude that trafficking of persons monitoring is effective.’’ The Inspector General likewise observed that ‘‘Contracting-initiated reporting was the only means by which DOD could obtain timely and 

relevant information regarding actual or alleged violations.’’ That 

is what we are providing for in this legislation. 

I think we should be clear here today that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. contractors and subcontractors are honorable, 

they are law-abiding and have made it a priority to ensure that 

abusive labor practices play no role in the very challenging work 

they are doing for all of us in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere 

around the world, but there are problems obviously. 

Many of the contractors we consulted with already have in place 

some internal policies designed to prevent, detect and stop human 

trafficking in connection with their own operations and some of 

their subcontractors. I think our proposal basically is to ensure 

that those best practices are adopted by other contractors and they 

become the standard practices on all significant U.S. contracts 

broad. 

Senator Blumenthal has done a great job laying out the legislation. I think he is right to put it into three categories: prevention, 

accountability and enforcement. It strengthens current legal safeguards requiring contractors to have these proactive prevention 

plans. It is a compliance plan to ensure that there is no activity 

that directly supports human trafficking. 

It also gives contracting officers the ability to impose appropriate 

penalties, very important, including referring a contractor for disbarment for the most serious violations. It beefs up reporting and 

monitoring requirements to ensure that federal evidence of human 

trafficking immediately triggers an investigation to uncover the 

facts. Again, that comes right out of these reports. 

The bill closes a loophole in federal criminal law by extending to 

overseas contracts the same prohibition against fraudulent employment practices they would have here in the United States. 

Again, I think these common sense reforms will ensure that the 

performance of overseas contracts paid for by our constituents, 

American taxpayers, are consistent with the values that we all hold 

dear as Americans. 

Gentlemen, I look forward to working with you all and my colleagues in the Senate. This Committee will play a central role, of 

course, to make progress on this important reform effort this year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Senators, thank you for being here. Thanks for 

your work. 

Mr. ISSA. Briefly, if I could, just for one second? 

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely. Without objection. 

Mr. ISSA. I want to thank you for coming here. The fact is that 

when we show people that we are bipartisan and bicameral, we 

show people that legislation is possible even in an election year. 

Both your legislation, the Data Act and some of the other tools that 

are going to allow us to more efficiently track and inform people 

when there is, in fact, the possibility of an honest day’s pay and 

an honest day’s work not being linked together, which certainly is 

6 

often the case where we pay the full dollar and much of it never 

gets to the recipient who is supposed to get it for doing the work. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for what you are doing, but Senators, 

I am particularly thankful for your coming here and showing the 

world that this is an important enough issue to get it done and get 

it done this year. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Hopefully, this will grease 

the wheels for a transportation bill and the budget yet to come. We 

will get all these things worked out between us. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Hope springs eternal. 

Mr. LANKFORD. It does. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

With that, we will take a short recess to reset the panel. I would 

like our witness to come and have a seat. Then we will do opening 

statements and begin the second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. On November 2, this same Subcommittee and the 

same panel held a hearing entitled Are Government Contractors 

Exploiting Workers Overseas. Examining Enforcement of the Trafficking in Victims Protection Act. 

At the hearing, we were distressed to learn that several U.S. government contracts had used specific labor practices that can only 

be characterized as involuntary servitude. I said in that hearing, 

as a Nation, we have certain values that characterize us. We believe that each person has been endowed by their Creator with certain rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

These are not rights given by men or confined to our national 

boundary. They are unique to each person. They are God given 

rights. 

The passion for freedom and our national security has taken us 

across the globe and in the process of doing the right thing, we 

must also be careful to do it the right way. Our November hearing 

determined that within the confusing maize of contractors and subcontractors who support our operations, as already stated, many of 

them are ethically doing an excellent job. 

There appear to be some with a less than reputable job, foreign 

companies sometimes that engage in labor brokers who apparently, 

accountable to no one, exploit unskilled workers from impoverished 

backgrounds, called Third Country Nationals or TCNs. These are 

the workers who tend the gardens, wash the dishes, prepare fast 

food meals, do the laundry for American embassy workers, military 

personnel and others stationed in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

They come from countries such as India, Nepal, Bosnia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lank, the Philippines, and others. We heard 

testimony that established that some of these workers have been 

robbed of wages, injured without compensation, subjected to sexual 

assaults or held in deplorable conditions resembling indentured 

servitude by their subcontractor bosses. 

Some have paid illegal job broker fees equal to or greater than 

their final pay. Reports have suggested they are deceived about 

their work location or conditions when they are recruited. These 

7 

unsavory labor practices, collectively called trafficking in persons, 

is immoral, it is inappropriate and un-American. 

The purpose of this hearing is to follow up on our November 

hearing, to explore whether we are doing enough to stop this abhorrent practice. There are numerous laws and policies already in 

place but they have not fully stopped trafficking in persons through 

our contracts. 

I asked the witnesses to send us their best ideas about how to 

address this problem and they have done so. Thank you. We will 

ask them further to describe these ideas and action plans they intend to follow in the weeks and months ahead and so will we. 

In addition, I am pleased to announce that yesterday in a rare 

display of both bipartisanship and bicameral cooperation, similar 

legislation was released in both the House and the Senate that 

should significantly curtail human trafficking in U.S. Government 

contracting. Our goal in this legislation is to deploy unprecedented 

economic and purchasing power of the United States Government, 

the single largest consumer of goods and services in the world, to 

drive accountability, to establish a higher labor standard than exists in many parts of the world. 

We are still the beacon of liberty in the world. We should shine 

through every relationship worldwide. Our End Trafficking and 

Government Contracting Act addresses the problem of enhancing 

prevention, accountability and enforcement. Our proposal prevents 

trafficking abuses by requiring contractors with contracts over $1 

million to implement compliance plans to prevent trafficking, including destroying or confiscating passports, misrepresenting 

wages or work locations or using labor brokers who charge exorbitant recruiting fees. 

The bill improves accountability by requiring that a contractor 

notify the Inspector General if he or she receives credible evidence 

that a subcontractor has engaged in prohibitive conduct, requiring 

the Inspector General to investigate such instances and requiring 

the Inspector General to investigate all those instances and with 

that require swift remedial action against the contractor. The bill 

improves enforcement of anti-trafficking requirements by extending 

the criminal prohibitions that prevent fraudulent labor practices 

typically associated with trafficking. 

To examine these issues and discuss our legislation, we have two 

panels today, obviously the Senators who have already spoken, the 

first panel; and our second panel seated now from the State Department consists of program contracting oversight experts along 

with programming, contracting and oversight experts from the Department of Defense. 

I do look forward to receiving answers on this issue. There is no 

good explanation of why we would still have contractors using illegal recruiting fees, providing inadequate living conditions for TCNs 

or violating a multitude of other clear human dignity issues. Ranking Member Connolly and I have worked closely from the start on 

this. This is truly a bipartisan piece on which we have absolute cooperation and we look forward to a chance to work together all the 

way through to the end on this and finding resolution. 

Mr. LANKFORD. With that, I would like to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Connolly, for his opening statement. 

8 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me echo what you just said. This is a bipartisan effort. This 

is not going to be an issue that is going to divide us along party 

lines at all. I have very much appreciated working with the Chairman of the subcommittee and his staff. 

When we had this hearing in November, I think our reaction 

honestly was utter shock at the reality we are talking about. We 

had a witness who had responsibility for this subject, I believe at 

the Pentagon, who had never been to Iraq and Afghanistan. It was 

an academic subject sitting on the desk in Washington in terms of 

what the nature of the problem in terms of contractors. 

We noted that there virtually had never been a prosecution on 

this charge even though it was a widespread practice in both Iraq 

and Afghanistan with contractors or subcontractors. Very few 

debarments or suspensions of contractors even though it was again 

well known as a widespread practice. 

I think that is what prompted the legislation. This is unacceptable. If America is about anything, it is about a value system. At 

the very essence of that value system is the enshrinement of 

human autonomy. We haven’t always lived that goal. We fought a 

Civil War to make sure that goal proceeded, but it is a value we 

assert. It is certainly not a value we can ever sit back and accept 

to be compromised, especially by somebody in our employ. 

I just want to say to all the panelists today, we must show utter 

and complete passion for this subject. We must stamp it out so that 

it never even comes close to an association with an American enterprise at a contractor level, subcontractor level or, God forbid, a federal agency. It is unacceptable and must be snuffed out with all of 

the passion and all of the ability we have. That is what is behind 

this legislation in both the Senate and the House. 

This is not just any housekeeping matter. This is about the preservation of human autonomy, about making sure the people in our 

employ follow American norms. Otherwise, why are we in places 

like Iraq and Afghanistan. I just wanted to share that with you because I wouldn’t want anyone to think this is just routine legislation. It is not. It has brought us together on a bicameral basis, as 

the Chairman said, and on a bipartisan basis, fiercely. 

We need your help to make sure that the passion we feel and we 

experience and the disgust and shock we felt at our first hearing 

you share and that you will go back to the State Department, to 

the Pentagon and other federal agencies understanding that is 

what drives and hopefully sharing in the mission to make sure we 

put an end to this practice as soon as possible. 

Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and your bipartisan cooperation. I am privileged to join you as an original cosponsor in this legislation. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

All the members will have seven days to submit opening statements and extraneous materials for the record. 

Let me welcome our panel of witnesses. We look forward to hearing the conversation from them. 

The Honorable Luis CdeBaca is the Ambassador at Large at the 

U.S. Department of State. Ms. Cathy Read is Director, Office of AcVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Jun 21, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74126.TXT APRIL
9 

quisitions Management at the Department of State. Ms. Evelyn 

Klemstine is Assistant Inspector General for Audits at the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Richard Ginman is the Director of Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy at DOD. Ms. Sharon Cooper is 

Director, Defense Human Resources Activity at DOD. The Honorable Kenneth Moorefield is Deputy Inspector General for Special 

Plans & Operations at the U.S. Department of Defense. Thank you 

all for being here. 

Pursuant to Committee rules, all witnesses are sworn before they 

testify. Please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. LANKFORD. May the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, I would like you to limit 

your testimony to five minutes. We will not be absolutely rigid on 

that, but as close as you can. Your entire written statement will 

be made a part of the record. Thank you for working hard to pull 

that written statement together for all of you. 

I would like to recognize Ambassador CdeBaca to begin with five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LUIS CDEBACA 

Ambassador CDEBACA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Connolly. It is an honor to be here today. 

I appreciate the series of hearings as an important part of the 

fight against trafficking in persons. 

As we know, the bipartisan Trafficking in Victims Protection of 

Act of 2000 and its subsequent reauthorizations continue to serve 

as a touchstone for all of our efforts to combat this crime both here 

and around the world. 

One of the tools that Congress gave us through the TVPA is the 

annual Trafficking in Persons Report. That report rigorously researched by my office and colleagues in the embassies and regional 

bureaus has become an unparalleled resource for determining how 

well governments are responding to modern slavery. It plays a critical role in our diplomacy and development priorities. 

Through the years, Congress has sharpened its analysis by adding several different things including an analysis of to what degree 

peacekeeping operations are driven by human trafficking. 

Today, we come together for another issue which is very similar. 

Reflected in what we have seen in the report over the last ten 

years, we have come to understand that the role of government 

need not be limited solely to law enforcement and victim services. 

As the report reflects, over the last decade we now know more 

about the market forces that drive modern slavery. 

The forced labor taints the supply chain of products that consumers rely on every day. The labor recruiters profit through the 

use of unscrupulous and non-transparent practices that saddle 

workers with debts that they will never be able to repay. We know 

that a global market for cheap goods and commercial sex fuels the 

demand that the traffickers exploit. Concerned consumers are 

10 

pushing more and more companies to do something about modern 

slavery in their corporate policies. 

As Secretary Clinton said earlier this month to her colleagues in 

the Cabinet, that knowledge becomes particularly important when 

you think about the government as a consumer, the government 

buying power. We conduct business on a global scale with a massive roster of suppliers and subcontractors and supply chain monitoring is not simply something for the business community. 

What we have learned about supply chain company responsible 

labor recruitment practices and honorable conduct, if we apply 

those lessons to government procurement, we feel there would be 

a ripple effect far and wide out into the private sector as well. 

Using government’s reach as consumers as a tool to combat modern slavery has been, for far too long, the missing link in this fight. 

All governments must do more to arrest traffickers and assist victims. When governments take up the cause of fighting modern 

slavery, their credibility is undermined if their own policies, procurement and personnel practices are inadvertently making the 

problem worse. 

Today’s hearing comes at a critical time. At the recent Cabinet 

meeting, Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough perhaps said it best, ‘‘We recognize that across the government, there 

is still an awful lot to do to improve on this in terms of procurement of goods and labor, and the President is demanding that we 

do more in exactly this area.’’ Indeed, the President that day issued 

a challenge to all of us to ‘‘find ways to strengthen our current 

work.’’ 

We take his call to action very seriously at the State Department. For instance, to demonstrate our commitment, we are putting place new prohibitions on our contractors that will no longer 

allow them to charge recruitment fees to the workers. You will 

hear about that from my colleague Cathy Read from the Bureau of 

Administration. 

Through a subcommittee of the Senior Policy Operating Group, 

the interagency anti-trafficking organization, we are driving out 

anti-trafficking training for the federal acquisitions workforce. This 

is the sort of innovation that will be critical to the future of this 

struggle and as in some many other aspects of this important work, 

we must work with you, our partners in Congress, to keep delivering on the promise of freedom. 

I have been blessed to be able to help victims as they come out 

of trafficking when I was a federal prosecutor. I was lucky enough 

to be able to work on the Judiciary Committee in 2008 when we 

reauthorized the Trafficking Victims Act, and now have the opportunity to help deliver on your work. 

During the Civil War, making it to the lines of the U.S. Army 

meant freedom for so many. We need to make sure that remains 

the case. 

Thank you and I am happy to take questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ambassador CdeBaca follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 1 here 74126.001
12 


Insert offset folio 2 here 74126.002
13 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Ms. Read. 

STATEMENT OF CATHY J. READ 

Ms. READ. Good morning, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member 

Connolly and distinguished members. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Department of 

State’s continued efforts to combat human trafficking and abusive 

labor practices involving third country nationals hired to perform 

services overseas and under contracts. 

My shop is responsible for 98 percent of the dollars that are obligated by the Department of State and I have approximately 200 acquisition professionals, both in Washington, Florida, Frankfurt and 

Antwerp who help support that. 

Embassies, as you well know, have limited authority to procure 

supplies and local services. Generally, our most complex and largest contracts are issued from Washington, D.C. and monitored formally by our trained Contracting Officer Representatives who are 

actually on the ground. 

The subject of today’s hearing is central to the Department of 

State’s mission and also as a steward to the taxpayer. The Department has been vigorous in its efforts to ensure none of the contracts written by the Department are with contractors that would 

abuse their employees. We have identified programs which may result in the hiring of unskilled or semi-skilled labor from third world 

countries and TIP focus is on construction and renovation contracts 

for new embassy compounds for our Overseas Buildings Offices and 

Diplomatic Security Programs. 

I would like to focus on some of the major initiatives and approaches we have undertaken at State to address the issues. 

Training, which is a big thing for us, we have implemented training on trafficking in persons in several areas at the Foreign Service 

Institute and in the training of our professional acquisition workforce. I have dedicated a senior contracting officer at FSI to help 

with the day to day COR training and TIP is part of that training. 

In fact, we utilize the DHS video which has been very successful 

and every graduating corps gets the ICE card to carry with them 

which notes indications that could happen under TIP. 

Our classroom COR training has a module on managing contracts in the difficult environments. CORs are instructed to work 

with both political and economic sections at post to learn labor 

practices and TIP and how they apply at their post. Other FSI 

training includes regional studies, political and counselor training. 

We have implemented many of the CWC recommendations for 

oversight in Iraq and Afghanistan in our program. We developed 

a clear working relationship with the program offices, we have contracting officers embedded with our program managers at some of 

our senior program offices. 

We travel consistently all the time to Iraq and Afghanistan at 

various levels. When a CO goes out, they stay longer and they look 

at every program, not just their particular line of business. We 

have a direct hire project manager at many of the difficult posts 

with instruction or security staff to oversee housing areas. We have 

14 

unannounced diplomatic security Diplomatic Security Regional Security Officers visits to compounds for all our local guards. 

Our Procurement Information Bulletin issued by our Procurement Executive, as you well know, came out last March 2011 and 

just yesterday, our Procurement Executive initiated an released the 

new Procurement Information Bulletin which addresses housing 

and recruitment fees and is mandated. That is set for implementation now that it has been issued. 

In closing, I would like to note that our experience in recent 

years has reconfirmed the importance of hiring an updated, well 

trained, on the ground acquisition workforce in adequate numbers 

and ensuring that everyone is trained to the highest levels and 

that we have total collaboration among the members. 

Contract administration, worldwide and especially in conflictedaffected states can be strengthened only through the hiring of personnel to provide additional governmental oversight of contractors 

and more importantly, their subcontractors. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity and we welcome your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Read follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 3 here 74126.003
16 


Insert offset folio 4 here 74126.004
17 


Insert offset folio 5 here 74126.005
18 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Ms. Read. 

Ms. Klemstine. 

STATEMENT OF EVELYN R. KLEMSTINE 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. Thank you, Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly and members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss our views on strengthening enforcement of traffic 

in persons or TIP in government contracts. 

Our Office of Inspector General or OIG commends the subcommittee for its leadership in developing critical legislation on 

TIP enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, OIG believes that TIP compliance can be better 

monitored by strengthening the legal framework for enforcing TIP 

compliance and prosecuting TIP violators by establishing requirements in future contracts and the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

or FAR and by holding Contracting Officers and Contracting Officer Representatives accountable for TIP compliance. In addition, 

the OIG will continue to vigorously perform its oversight role on 

this important issue. 

First, strengthen the legal framework. OIG supports a robust 

and comprehensive Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act CEJA 

also the proposed Blumenthal Amendment to 18 U.S.C. Section 

1351. CEJA would provide clear jurisdiction to prosecute non-Department of Defense employees and contractors for a broad range 

of overseas misconduct, some of which are TIP violations. 

We do, however, suggest CEJA use the same approach as the 

Military Extraterritorial Act and provide jurisdiction over all 18 

U.S.C. felony offenses. This provides the greatest flexibility for 

fighting crime associated with U.S. overseas activities. 

Second, establish specific requirements in future contracts. OIG 

supports the proposed amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, Section 111, which would mandate the 

inclusion of certain TIP related provisions and contracts. 

In addition, future contracts solicitations, which include third 

country nationals, at a minimum, should require the following provisions: one, the contractor shall provide the agency a detailed description of housing accommodations it intends to provide for its 

foreign workers; two, provide workers with standard contracts in 

English and their native languages and include policies on wages, 

overtime rates, allowances and other personnel matters; three, provide workers with written information about labor laws, including 

the U.S. Government’s zero tolerance policy about TIP in English 

and their native languages; four, provide written assurance that it 

violates no U.S., host country or third country labor laws; and five, 

provide the contracting agency a repatriation plan 120 days prior 

to completion of the contract. 

All future contracts that use third country nationals should include penalties for TIP noncompliance. In addition, incentives 

should be used in the contracts that motivate contractors to police 

themselves and their subcontractors. 

In addition, we believe that modifying the FAR so that Combating Trafficking in Persons clause includes the same language 

found in the Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct 

19 

clause. This would require timely reporting of possible TIP violations to the OIG which is not currently required. 

Third, hold COs and CORs responsible for TIP oversight. COs 

and CORs are at the front lines around the world and must effectively monitor and enforce standards as well as report violations. 

The quality, quantity and location of the federal agency CORs are 

key to combating TIP. 

At all federal agencies, COR experience should be made as a desirable and sought after qualification. CORs should be made aware 

of the importance of their role and they should receive specific, regularly updated training on TIP. 

In March 2011, the Department issued Procurement Information 

Bulletin 2011–09 which provides COs and CORs with suggested actions to minimize the risk of TIP violations in government contracts. 

Although the PIB is a good starting point, much of the content 

of the guidance is not mandated within the Department and is not 

applicable to other federal agencies. Federal agencies should require their CORs to make at least semi-annual, unannounced visits 

to the contractor-provided housing site and interview contract employees to ensure they have been briefed on the TIP clause and obtain copies of TIP-related training materials. 

The agency should also require that COs and CORs document 

TIP monitoring programs in their contract files. 

OIG will continue to perform audits, inspections and investigations in areas vulnerable to TIP abuses. Since the November 2011 

hearing, OIG is conducting a follow-up review of its January 2011 

report on TIP for the Arab States of the Gulf. OIG inspections will 

continue to review TIP-related contract provisions and oversight in 

the course of post inspections. 

Our Office of Investigations has been engaging other federal investigative organizations on ways to broaden involvement in combating TIP abroad. Since November 2011, Investigations has received two TIP-related allegations and one TIP-related investigation remains open. 

Once again, thank you and I am pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Klemstine follows:] 

20 


Insert offset folio 6 here 74126.006
21 


Insert offset folio 7 here 74126.007
22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 74126.008
23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 74126.009
24 


Insert offset folio 10 here 74126.010
25 


Insert offset folio 11 here 74126.011
26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 74126.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 74126.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 74126.014
29 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Ginman. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. GINMAN 

Mr. GINMAN. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

our efforts to combat trafficking in persons. 

I commend the Subcommittee for the work that it has done to 

identify trafficking in persons issues affecting government contracts and in searching for solutions to these issues. A commitment 

to combating trafficking in persons is an essential requirement in 

any U.S. Government contract. 

At the end of the 1990s, the Department of Defense implemented 

a deliberate strategy to reduce reliance on organic forces for combating service support in favor of contracted support. During Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, the rate of 

growth of contracted support challenged DOD to put a framework 

necessary to properly manage and control contractors in forward 

contingency areas, including aspects related to the personnel on the 

battlefield. 

The growth of contracted combat service support resulted in an 

expansion of contractor personnel working and residing on forward 

operating bases including many personnel from third country nations and local nationals. Department policies and doctrine associated with managing these contractor personnel continues to evolve. 

The Department takes seriously its responsibilities in combating 

trafficking in persons and we need to ensure we properly manage 

and oversee all contractor personnel authorized to accompany the 

force regardless of origin. 

Like the Committee, Defense is committed to finding solutions 

that improve our ability to eliminate trafficking in persons. As the 

Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, I am responsible for promulgating contracting guidance to the Department’s entire contracting workforce. 

With regard to trafficking in persons, my top priority is supporting the Federal Government’s and Defense Department’s zero 

tolerance policy. We support the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel Readiness and their efforts to manage the DOD 

Trafficking in Persons Program required by the Traffic and Victims 

Protection Act of 2000 and subsequent reauthorization. 

The Department is determined to identify, correct and prevent 

contracting efforts not in consonance with our government’s and 

Department’s zero tolerance policy and to work to identify and implement new policies and procedures that will reduce and/or eliminate trafficking in persons. We will continue to aggressively pursue 

addressing trafficking in persons challenges associated with the 

Department’s contracts executed worldwide. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the Trafficking in Persons Program at the Department. This concludes my 

remarks and I ask that my statement be inserted in the record. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ginman follows:] 

30 


Insert offset folio 15 here 74126.015
31 


Insert offset folio 16 here 74126.016
32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 74126.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 74126.018
34 

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely, without objection. 

Ms. Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON COOPER 

Ms. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Connolly. 

My name is Sharon Cooper and I am Director of the Defense 

Human Resources Activity. It is a field activity in the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 

It is an honor to be with you this morning to discuss the Department of Defense Combating Trafficking in Persons policy, procedures and the way ahead. Trafficking in persons is a violation of 

human rights. It is both dehumanizing and cruel and has no place 

in the defense environment. The Department of Defense has been 

working to bring an end to this injustice since 2002 through training, education and regulation. 

The Department requires all personnel to receive training on 

combating trafficking in persons. In 2011, over 1.2 million Defense 

personnel were trained. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ash 

Carter, just last week announced that we will begin training all 

contractors. The Program Office will begin working with AT&L, 

Mr. Ginman’s office and also the Defense Acquisition University to 

start this training immediately. 

The training is also supplemented through anti-traffic public 

service announcements over the Department’s television/radio spots 

and the most recently designed mobile applications through 

iPhones and Blackberrys. 

The Department’s TIP Program office is manned by two dedicated personnel supported by 53 service and agency contacts with 

administrative support from the field activity. I am pleased to report that in the coming weeks, a Defense Contract Management 

Agency representative will be onboard to assist the Program Office 

in its outreach to all personnel to include contractor employees. 

The Department is in the beginning stages of a strategic plan designed to implement practices to ensure contractor compliance and 

measures to protect workers under appropriate law. The details of 

this plan, which is a working document, were sent to the subcommittee last month. To work on the plan and to ensure its relevancy, a multiagency, multidisciplinary CONUS and OCONUS 

Task Force has been established. This task force will provide recommendations for improving the Department’s current TIP practices to include more robust data collection, increased oversight and 

strengthen contract procedures. The first meeting of the task force 

is schedule for next week on April 4. 

I have had the opportunity to read the legislation recently introduced, the End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012. 

To the best of my knowledge, the bill has not been reviewed by the 

Department. My view, however, is that many of these areas we are 

targeting in the strategic plan and that Mr. Ginman and I have 

been discussing can be found in the legislation. I am certainly supportive of all efforts to strengthen our ability to hold appropriately 

accountable all who allow or engage in TIP-related offenses and 

conduct. 

35 

In addition to the Strategic Plan, the TIP Program Office is 

working with DCMA to facilitate a visit to overseas locations to discuss with contractors and contractor employees. DCMA is our responsible body that is on the ground to oversee the Department’s 

contract compliance. 

There is more to do. I look forward to continuing to work with 

my partners in the Department of Defense and throughout the Federal Government to strengthen the Department’s oversight and enforcement mechanism in support of the U.S. Government’s zero tolerance policy against trafficking in persons. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to update you on this important issue. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:] 

36 


Insert offset folio 19 here 74126.019
37 


Insert offset folio 20 here 74126.020
38 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. 

Ambassador Moorefield. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR KENNETH P. MOOREFIELD 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. Good morning, Chairman Lankford, 

Ranking Member Connolly and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to again discuss oversight reporting on combating trafficking in persons by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, a goal to which we all are vigorously committed. 

Previous DOD IG assessment reports have resulted in the Secretary of Defense Policy Instructions that set forth clear DOD opposition to any activities promoting, supporting or sanctioning human 

trafficking and also provided guidance that assigned CTIP Program 

responsibilities across the Department. In addition, CTIP awareness training, which remains an annual requirement, was established for all service members and DOD civilians. 

Most recently, in January 2012, DOD IG issued the last of three 

annual reports requested by the Congress on a sample of contracts 

or subcontracts under which there is a heightened risk the contractor may engage in acts related to trafficking in persons. These 

assessments covered, in annual sequence, the Pacific, Central and 

European and Africa Commands, areas of contracting operations. 

One key observation from these reports was that the most current FAR clause was not properly included in a significant number 

of the contracts reviewed. Although some form of the CTIP clause 

was present in most contracts. We also observed the contract quality assurance plans did not always include reviews of contractor 

CTIP compliance, although the Defense Contract Management 

Agency had included CTIP in quality assurance inspections of contracts in the Central Command theater of operations. 

Finally, we reported that DOD contracting officers were not 

being advised about TIP related criminal investigations once they 

were concluded by DOD law enforcement organizations, thus precluding subsequent consideration of administrative contractual 

remedies. The Department has taken or is taking corrective actions 

in each of these areas. 

During this latter review, we identified best practices as well, 

such as the post contract award orientation reviews of FAR, CTIP 

clause requirements held by European Command contracting personnel. 

In addition to the combat and command contract reviews, DOD 

has initiated an assessment of CTIP Program compliance and performance by DOD components. This review will also incorporate 

best practices and lessons learned for application by DOD worldwide, especially as they would apply to contingency contracting environments. We expect to issue that report in the April time frame. 

Also, DOD IG has been conducting an assessment of the DOD 

CTIP Program in Afghanistan. Our team has examined 240 contracts administered by Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense agencies performed in Afghanistan. It found the current mandatory 

CTIP clause in 93 percent of the contracts reviewed, a significant 

improvement when compared to previous assessments. 

39 

During its Afghanistan field work this February, the team visited 

nine separate military installations, conducted 110 interviews with 

military commanders and contracting personnel, met with representatives from 10 U.S. and foreign contracting firms, and with 

145 contractor employees, both Afghan and third country nationals. 

The team learned of several incidents of alleged or confirmed 

contractor TIP violations. A DOD criminal investigation into a report of DOD contractor abuse is still ongoing. The team also was 

informed that an Afghan company under DOD contract had committed trafficking violations and as a result, the U.S. military contracting officer has recommended debarment. 

Additionally, the team received information from third country 

nationals working on a DOD contract at a U.S. military base alleging they were living there in unsanitary conditions. The complaint 

was referred to DOD contracting authorities and the military base 

commander who initiated an immediate investigation. 

The team also found that third country national personnel value 

the pocket-sized workers rights cards recently issued by DOD in 

their own languages and the public service announcements on TIP 

were regularly transmitted to DOD personnel by the Armed Forces 

Network and via social networking sites. However, the CTIP oversight challenge continues, particularly given the extent of reliance 

on contractors and TCN labor in Iraq and Afghanistan and even as 

that reliance begins to diminish. 

The House and Senate CTIP legislation proposed recently will, I 

believe, enhance oversight, investigative capability and sanctions of 

violations. 

In closing this morning, let me emphasize that the DOD Office 

of Inspector General remains committed to providing oversight support of the U.S. Government’s zero tolerance policy against trafficking in persons. In this regard, we will continue to evaluate 

DOD’s CTIP performance and compliance and report the results to 

the Congress and the Department of Defense. 

I thank you again for this opportunity to discuss DOD IG CTIP 

oversight work. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ambassador Moorefield follows:] 

40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 74126.021
41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 74126.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 74126.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 74126.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 74126.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 74126.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 74126.027
47 

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank all of you for the work and the focus on 

this. In our conversation before this hearing started, I told you this 

is not combative, this is trying to get all our heads together to figure out how to solve this. There are 19 different policies and procedures that previously exist and in our hearing in November, the 

conversation was though we have many policies in place, it continued still. We are still discovering it and where it is popping up. 

Though we have zero tolerance, it has been a rare moment to see 

a suspension or debarment. I am glad to hear about that already 

moving forward at this point. It has been rare to get a chance to 

see the actual engagement. We seem to be zero tolerance in word 

but not always in action as we go through it. 

Let me ask a quick question. The legislation that is being proposed, some of these ideas that came directly from some of you, 

things you saw to be strengthened. Where the gaps are is one of 

the thing we asked before with 19 different policies and procedures, 

what are we missing? Let me run through some of these things 

quickly and see if there is any one that would say there is an issue 

with this. 

I understand you are not speaking somewhat in your official capacity though you are in a hearing because the agencies haven’t 

made any official statement on this one way or the other, but just 

your personal perspective on it: certification for contractors, they 

have to certify they do have a process in place to prevent trafficking in persons; IG reporting, clarity of defining what trafficking 

includes instead of a broad definition, trying to get some specifics 

in it; penalty options and laying those out in greater clarity; and 

also extending legal protections to overseas contracts as it would be 

in the United States, extending that to the United States operations overseas. 

Does anyone have a problem with any of those? That is the core 

of this piece of legislation. Do you want to make a comment on any 

of those? 

Mr. Ginman? 

Mr. GINMAN. I have no issues at all with the legislation that I 

read. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Any questions, observations or anything on it? 

Ms. COOPER. I would just like to reiterate that we welcome the 

legislation and that it seems like it will strengthen our ability to 

hold accountable those who engage in these acts. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Accountability seems to be a big issue. As we discussed in the previous hearing as well, we are sending third country nationals back to their home country bitter at America rather 

than speaking of American values. That is the exact opposite of 

what we want to occur. We want goodwill spread across the world 

that they know if they come and work for Americans, they will be 

treated fairly, treated with honor and will take that same passion 

for liberty back into countries that struggle with the issues we can 

provide to them as a beacon of light. This is a very big issue for 

all of us and how we are going to take this on. 

Mr. Ginman, let me comment on the zero tolerance connection 

because this is a common statement that everyone has mentioned. 

There as been a historic issue on that. Ambassador Moorefield 

mentioned that we have a debarment that is in process that has 

48 

been recommended. Do we know of other debarments for trafficking 

in persons that have existed? This has been something we have 

tried to investigate. How many suspensions and debarments are 

out there based on trafficking in persons that we know of, even in 

the last several years? 

Mr. GINMAN. We have identified two referred to the suspension 

an debarment official in the Army. One was dropped for lack of evidence, so it was not substantiated, I think is the correct phrase. 

The other, the company was, in fact, debarred. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That was recently? 

Mr. GINMAN. I want to say it was in 2011. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Ambassador Moorefield, this is another one you 

are discussing that is even more recent than that? 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. Yes, it is. Because it is an Afghan 

company, regardless whether or not it is an Afghan company, there 

is an appeals process which is apparently going to be triggered, so 

that is why we don’t have a final determination. Frankly, the evidence seemed pretty clear to our team on the ground. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That is a positive thing for us because one of the 

frustrations that Mr. Connolly and I both mentioned as we went 

through the previous hearing was there was a lot of conversation 

about it, there was a lot of sense of this is occurring, but we are 

not taking the next step to say, what do we do on just the very low 

threshold of suspension and debarment and start moving on that. 

The training you mentioned as well, especially on the DOD side 

and State, let me again bring up something. I spoke with a United 

States Marine MP coming back from Afghanistan in October of last 

year. I asked them specifically about trafficking in persons and 

third country nationals, living conditions, and some of the dynamics. They spoke very frankly and honestly about the things happening in Afghanistan at their particular base. This was an MP 

who know what was happening, that knew the dynamics on the 

ground, who was very aware that many of these people had been 

trafficked. 

My question to them was do you know where to report this? That 

MP said no. He was aware of it happening, but an MP on the 

ground in Afghanistan at one of our bases did not know where to 

report that. While training does need to accelerate, finding the people like the MPs, people who will notice it and see it so it is not 

just a broad brush of all employees and of all staff, people have a 

sense of feeling responsibility for that, to say it is my responsibility 

if I see to turn that in, not just I see, I don’t know what to do about 

it, but that is still ongoing in that work. Ms. Cooper? 

Ms. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, on training, we do have 

specific law enforcement training we are updating now to do exactly that. It is something we hope to get out very, very quickly. 

There are three types of training: the general training, a supervisor 

leadership training which is supplemental to the general training,; 

and then there is the law enforcement training that we are working on and now we will be having contractor training. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That is terrific. Obviously that is an area we can 

get a chance to step up on then. 

You also mentioned the task force that is meeting April 4. Ms. 

Cooper, can you give me more detail on that? 

49 

Ms. COOPER. The task force with the Strategic Plan, we decided 

rather than created something in a vacuum, we would have something that would be made up of different parts from the Department: AT&L, Policy, PNR and DCMA. We would also be working 

with the other people in the Federal Government to work both 

overseas and CONUS in the United States to look at contract policies, to look at best practices, to look at is what is in the DOD regulations now. 

I have been working with Mr. Ginman and his staff to decide 

what it is and this task force will actually look at the thing we are 

doing. It really is a blueprint of what we want to do, it is a working 

document. Just since we sent the information to you in February, 

I have decided that data collection is something. I was reading 

what the IG said and the data collection is something we really 

need to focus on more so that we not only collect it but actually 

take the data we know and the cases we know and put them out 

to the law enforcement agencies and to the contracting offices so 

they know what is out there. 

We are going to get a subcommittee working on the Defense 

Manpower Data Center that holds all of this data and how has the 

overseas contracting data which was just transferred to them earlier this year and they will be working with us on that. That is 

what we are trying to do with the Strategic Plan. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I would like to recognize Mr. Connolly for questions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. 

Listening to the testimony, it sounds like we have made a lot of 

progress on getting the policies in place that are right, upgrading 

the training so that the awareness is hopefully universal, and helping people understand what constitutes compliance. 

I am still focused on implementation because frankly, if the message doesn’t get out on the field, if people kind of turn a blind eye 

and it is enforcement by complaint rather than proactive enforcement, if people knew the United States Government is going to be 

the scourge of God, the one thing you don’t want to do ever, is even 

look like there could be an instance of human trafficking because 

we will come down on you, like I don’t sense that is yet the standard. 

That has to do with implementation. It also, of course, is a function of resources. For example, are we randomly and routinely 

checking housing for people who have been hired by contractors 

and subcontractors in our overseas operations to satisfy ourselves 

that bad things are not going on, that it is not substandard housing, but also oh, by the way, the more pernicious aspects particularly of this subject are not occurring? Let me start with you, Ambassador Moorefield. 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. The Defense Contract Management 

Agency has included housing inspections as part of their regular, 

periodic inspections of third country national living conditions. We 

are reasonably confident that it is, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

getting an overview. 

One of the things we noted in the recent Afghanistan assessment 

is you have an estimated 35,000 employees spread across a very 

50 

large country in many different sites. Moreover, there is regular 

turnover of those employees, so I think one of the things we deduced from this is that you need to step up probably the periodicity 

of that oversight because things may be kosher right now and six 

months from now, the situation may have changed, contractors 

change and turnover. 

You have Afghan contractors also now in the mix using third 

country national employees, so the challenge has not diminished. 

If anything it has slightly stepped up, so we will make sure we 

share anything we have learned that could be of constructive value 

to the Department in this respect. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. These are unannounced inspections? 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. Frankly, I don’t know the answer to 

that question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Wouldn’t you agree that sort of would be important so that we are all on our toes? 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. Yes, I would agree. They are unannounced. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay, they are unannounced. What about the 

State Department in this respect? 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. I can address that on two points. First of all, our 

recent follow up of last year’s 2011 report where we had indications 

of TIP violations, we have gone back to those Arab States and we 

found that in some cases, the housing had improved, but in other 

cases, the housing got worse. We are going to report on that and 

expect to issue a report in May, but we were kind of dismayed to 

find out that conditions in some places had, in fact deteriorated. 

In addition to that, we have an ongoing effort where we are 

doing what we call surprise spot checks. This has also been agreed 

to by the Ambassador in Afghanistan and he wholeheartedly has 

supported this idea. We have run into some roadblocks lately because of travel restrictions within the country but our plan is to go 

and do spot checks. We have a list of contractors and as soon as 

we have clearance to get to some of the sites, we plan on doing 

that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Let me ask both of you while I have a little time, 

both the Pentagon and the State Department, you can decide who 

wants to answer, in our previous hearing, the inference was drawn 

that when look you at metrics, how many cases have been referred 

for criminal prosecution? I think the State Department was zero 

and not much better for the Defense Department. 

When you look at the recommendations for debarment or suspension, we are celebrating one. We have thousands, tens of thousands 

of contractors and subcontractors. I don’t want an arbitrary metric, 

make sure your number is up, but the fact it would be close to zero 

suggests we are not taking implementation and enforcement as seriously as we could because that is the ultimate hammer we control, prosecution and status of ability to affect contract or subcontract with the Federal Government. 

In the brief period we have, I would be interested in hearing 

from this panel what can we, what must we do to toughen up that 

enforcement and to have more rigorous metrics so the word gets 

out that we mean what we are saying? 

51 

Mr. GINMAN. On Ambassador Moorefield’s comment, in the theater, they are done on an unannounced basis. On our LOGCAP 

contracts, it is done bimonthly and on our other contracts, it is 

done monthly. DCMA, in fact, looks at all contractors and all subcontractors if they are within what we call the wire, inside the 

bounds, of a FOB. 

In February of last year, DCMA expanded their costs to expressly go ask the questions and take a look at what is the housing 

and where it is. It is the Department’s preference that when we 

find issues, we want them corrected. They have a process within 

the Contract Management Agency called Corrective Action Reports 

that if something is identified rather than to immediately throw it 

into prosecution, we would much prefer whatever the issue is be 

corrected and move on as opposed to looking to do that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Ginman, if I could just interrupt, if the Chair 

will indulge. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I understand that as a modus operandi and it is 

a preferable modus operandi, of course, but when you are talking 

about human trafficking, if you stumble upon a situation where a 

contractor or subcontractor working for us is running a brothel and 

has lured women from a third country under false pretenses and, 

by the way, made them pay for the privilege of it, that to me isn’t 

corrective action, that is you are out of here. We are going to help 

liberate these women and we are going to make sure you can never 

do business with or for the United States Government again. 

Mr. GINMAN. In every circumstance, it would be as you just described, I would absolutely agree it should be passed to the Criminal Investigative Division. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Has it been? 

Mr. GINMAN. To my knowledge, when things are found that are, 

in fact, illegal, they are passed to the investigative groups, either 

NCIS to CID, to the Air Force or to the Defense Criminal Investigative Division. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just remind you that in our previous 

hearing in November, the undisputed testimony we received undisputed was that almost never happens. 

Mr. GINMAN. What I don’t have insight to, to Ms. Cooper’s comment on collecting of data, how many have been referred. That is 

not data we do have. I don’t have insight into the investigative 

arms as to the outcome, did they investigate, did they find something or not. On the policy side, we don’t have insight to what goes 

on. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right, but I hope you understand where I am 

coming from. I am all for getting the policy right and it sounds like 

we are doing that but it has to be backed up top enforcement. Otherwise, it is meaningless. 

Mr. GINMAN. I agree with that. The Chairman asked me before 

the hearing started about things we looked at recently that were 

not addressed before. The certification requirement you have in 

your legislation I think goes a long way to have certification. In 

looking at what was our first opportunity, at least from a contracts 

perspective, to determine where the hiring practice is inappropriate 

to start with. 

52 

We have a requirement before U.S. contract personnel or TCM 

contract personnel go into theater to go through what we call a reception center. We have not been asking the question at the reception centers specifically as third country nationals are coming in, 

how were they hired and where were they and ensuring they are 

given the brochure we filled out, ensuring they have a labor contract. 

In talking with DCMA, we are going to look to now make that 

a requirement so we have a better opportunity but I don’t have insight, and what we haven’t been able to think through as an approach, is if somebody is hiring in India, in Malaysia or in an overseas environment, how do we look at that hiring practice and how 

that is done? Our first real opportunity to touch will be when the 

third country national shows up at a reception center and asks at 

that point in time. We intend to go down and add that to our bag 

of tricks to be able to do that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 

indulgence. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely. 

Let me just ask a couple questions of State as well. 

One of the things we have pursued, and we talked about it at 

length in the November hearing, was the recruiter fees. That seems 

to be where we are running into people in debt bondage. Basically, 

no matter what you ask when they arrive, they know they have to 

stay here, they have to work this off because they have a tremendous debt back home and can’t afford to mess up because they are 

trapped at this point. 

State is recommending, if I am picking up from your recommendations, no recruiter fees at all. Several countries allow 

some minimal amount of recruiter fee in their law or maybe up to 

one month of their salary. You are recommending a no recruiter fee 

at all at that point, did I hear that correctly? 

Ms. READ. Yes, and in the procurement PIB that just came out 

yesterday from our procurement executive, he notes that contractor 

and subcontractors shall only use bona fide, licensed recruitment 

companies. All that has to be submitted in writing and it would 

state in the offer, this would be the recruited employee, would not 

be charged recruitment or any similar fee. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Licensed by the country of origin or licensed by 

us? 

Ms. READ. It must be by the country of origin. We just got this 

yesterday, so we are just going through this. Any contract exceeding $150,000 where performance will require the recruitment of 

non-professional, third country nationals, any offeror is required to 

submit a recruitment plan as part of the proposal. This isn’t suggested, this is a shall, which we are very pleased about, and also 

a housing plan which is also one of the difficult areas. 

Mr. LANKFORD. The housing plan, basic stipulation for space or 

for availability? What is the basic criteria on the housing plan? 

Ms. READ. Submitting acceptable plans as appropriate and living 

conditions, we are going to our overseas building operations inspection protocol for inspection of temporary labor camps. Inspections 

shall be coordinated with the RSO, should include a commonsense 

53 

living evaluation into conditions taking into account local standards. 

Mr. LANKFORD. What about the contracts and rights in their native language as well as English? 

Ms. READ. That is there as well. There is the whole housing plan. 

Contractors shall provide all employees with a ‘‘Know Your Rights’’ 

brochure and document that employees have been briefed, here is 

the English version and contractor shall provide employees with 

signed copies of their employment contracts in English and the employee’s native language. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That is new as well? 

Ms. READ. That is brand new. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Because there was some consideration, DOD has 

tried to take that on as well; State seems to be fairly recent in trying to add that, in their native language as well as in English. 

That is good to hear. 

Tell me about the role of the course and the follow up. That came 

from everyone at this point, to try to do the follow up on that because I agree with Mr. Connolly, it is great to have the policy on 

that, it goes back to our zero tolerance policy, but it doesn’t matter 

if we actually never prosecute and go through the process, if we 

don’t have someone to follow up on it. 

Again, when I was in Afghanistan back in December, I asked 

some contract officers on the ground, who is following up on this 

to try to get the process and see what is happening with it for the 

CORs who were there, how is this happening in real life? 

Ms. READ. I will take that one. For State, it is a three-prong approach. It is the contracting officer at the COR, then we also consider it a management initiative. The contracting officers travel frequently all the time to Iraq and Afghanistan. For Iraq specifically, 

for the Diplomatic Security Corps and also the overseas building 

operations, we have the COR, before they go out in theater, meet 

with the respective contracting officer and also at a higher level, 

one of my division directors. 

Before they are ever nominated for COR, these are our top notch 

CORs that go in the field, they all meet together. We go over trafficking in persons, we assist whatever questions they may have. 

They also are updated with COR training if they so need it, they 

may actually be up to date and don’t need a refresher, and they 

actually live on the man camps, both in the Afghanistan diplomatic 

security end and also in the Iraq man camps. 

We implemented all contracts, we double check, they all have the 

TIP clause in them and then when my contracting officers go on 

travel, which there are no real announcements but everyone knows 

with the country clearance they are coming in, they hit all of those 

posts, all those places in Iraq, so Diplomatic Security CO can visit 

an OBO man camp and in fact, that is how we discovered the one 

problem in Iraq that we had. COR came back, said we have substandard living conditions, not necessarily a TIP but substandard 

living conditions. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Klemstine, is this the one you are referring 

to or a different one? 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. No, the one I am referring to is in neither Afghanistan nor Iraq, it is another Middle East country. 

54 

Mr. LANKFORD. We will come back to that. I am going to let you 

finish. 

Ms. READ. The COR came back to the one of my COs and said, 

we have a living condition issue here, it is substandard. We 

reached out to the vendor, who was an American prime who had 

a subcontract in-theater, and we said, fix it now. My CO was having to travel two days later. The CO got on the ground, it wasn’t 

fixed and we shut down the man camp. We referred it and right 

now, it is pending with our suspension and debarment official. 

They can revisit it to look at contingencies there. 

Unrelated to that but somewhat similarly related, we ended up 

TforD’ing that prime contract because they could not proceed. They 

had failure to make any sort of forward movement. That one is not 

suspended or in debarment yet. We issued the note from the procurement shop and that one is ongoing. 

What I believe is only because the COR knew what to look for 

and related back immediately to the CO back here and then that 

CO traveled out, that was our two prong. What I do at my level, 

and I think it is very important, is we bring in all the vendors, all 

of our IDIQ contractors for diplomatic security, we did this a month 

ago, at the highest levels, they are CEOs and COOs, and we discussed issues. 

We discussed how often they have compliance officers come into 

their corporation and they are visiting, so they come in quarterly; 

we talked about TIP on the field and we warned them in a nice, 

firm manner that if there are any issues, they will not be around. 

Mr. LANKFORD. We would appreciate that in a nice, kind manner 

as well, that you would pass that on because this is not something 

we need to export, people bitter at the United States of America 

back to their third world countries. It just doesn’t share our values. 

Ms. Klemstine, you mentioned and I want you to give more detail, you said it is not in our contingency theater at all. 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. No. During our follow up review, one of the 

countries we went to was Saudi Arabia. Previously reported on living conditions in Riyadh and time, we found the conditions had improved in Riyadh but had deteriorated in Dammam. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Are there things you would want to be able to 

respond to from your report, give us an advance on it? 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. I would rather wait a little bit because the report is still in the process of being reviewed. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, so you are going to leave us out there in 

suspense? 

Ms. KLEMSTINE. Yes. 

Mr. LANKFORD. We will take that. Are there other comments 

from other folks here? 

Ambassador MOOREFIELD. I would just add one thing, Mr. Chairman. We looked at some recent statistics regarding investigations 

conducted by our Defense Criminal Investigative Service, which is 

part of DOD IG, and out of 21 investigations they have conducted, 

16 were in OCO countries. Of those 16, 3 were presented to the Department of Justice. 

I can’t respond to what happened to them at Justice, that is of 

course, internal to them, but 16 cases investigated in OCO countries out of 21 and 3 referred to the Department of Justice. 

55 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am just going to ask one question but Mr. Chairman, we are 

going to work up some questions about metrics and I would like to 

do it jointly with you, if you like, and would ask the witnesses to 

get back to the Committee in writing or by email with respect to 

those questions with a little more depth on metrics so we are creating a baseline. 

Ambassador CdeBaca, other than your testimony, you have not 

said anything in this panel. Your portfolio is in human trafficking? 

Ambassador CDEBACA. It is, sir, although I think since our contracting professionals are carrying a lot of the weight, I am content 

to wait to be called on. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I am calling on you. My one and only question is to give you an opportunity to share your insights with us 

in light of what you have heard and the questions coming from us 

in terms of the nature of the concerns we, in Congress, have and 

I am very gratified at the testimony today in terms of we clearly 

share common objectives and that is good but I want to give you 

an opportunity and that is my one and only question, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador CDEBACA. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

One of the things that struck me as I was listening to the other 

panelists was in last year’s trafficking report, we actually had a 

sidebar on optimal regulatory approaches for labor recruiting, not 

specific to government contracting, but labor recruiting in general. 

That can be the folks that are building those high rises in the Gulf, 

those could be folks coming to work for folks as a nanny in another 

country. 

Ticking those off, not only do I hear a lot of that from the other 

panelists in reviewing the draft legislation, with the caveat that we 

don’t have official positions on it, that notion of the recruitment 

fees being dealt with, that there is actual competition among the 

recruitment agencies so that it has better services offered to the 

workers, enacting criminal laws that penalize fraudulent recruitment, imposing sanctions on private recruitment agencies that 

break the law, have compensation mechanisms for the workers, 

vigorous investigation, and adequate complaint procedures to actually identify and examine allegations of violations. 

That is not only the optimal approach we are suggesting for the 

rest of the world, but in the legislation that has now been introduced, I think it is something hopefully will bring the United 

States to the level we are suggesting to other countries. We very 

much appreciate that. 

As a former prosecutor that did human trafficking cases, I think 

the expansion of the exterritorial jurisdiction to make it clear that 

the fraud and labor recruiting provision of the 2008 Trafficking 

Act, which was such an important addition to the arsenal of the 

federal prosecutors, making sure that is available because it does 

get a bit murky when you are talking about the TCNs, especially 

if they are on a military base in a place where there are restrictions of movement applied to everyone. Things we would normally 

use as evidence of enslavement, were that to happen in the United 

56 

States, may be present for everyone on that base, as far as not 

being able to come and go. 

This opportunity to also use the fraudulent recruiting and take 

that step back and really have the protections in there seems to be 

a good one. I will defer our colleagues at the Department of Justice 

as to what their official response is to that provision, but I would 

have very much appreciated having that when I was a prosecutor. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Kelly is recognized. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really would just like to take this opportunity, first of all, to 

thank you for H.R. 4259. I think one of the things in being elected 

and coming to Congress is that you start to find out about things 

you never would have known about in your private life. I thank the 

panel for being here today too. 

These hearings really give us an opportunity to present a picture 

that most of our fellow citizens have absolutely no idea even exists, 

almost to a point that we have become naive or believe that the 

rest of the world really operates at a much higher level of decency 

than what I have come to know. I know we share a lot of these 

same concerns. 

I–90 in the upper part of the district that I represent is one of 

the areas where a lot of this trafficking takes place. I know we are 

talking now about DOD and labor people being brought in but the 

frequency and the overwhelming number of people involved in this 

is so appalling to me and the fact that it has become such a huge 

part of a business model where people are used as chattel property 

throughout the world is appalling, appalling to most of us as Americans and yet it happens with such great frequency and has such 

a cost in the human condition. 

I applaud you for what you are doing, I thank you for having this 

hearing and Mr. Connolly, these are the things that we really can 

make a difference in, and what you are doing really makes a difference to the rest of the world. Those the United States is taking 

a lead in, we are starting to talk about these things in such an 

open forum and from a platform that really needs to be spoken 

from much more often. 

Again, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your piece of legislation and Mr. Connolly, thank 

you, and to say this is something that keeps you up at night. It is 

one of those things where you get really tired and fall asleep but 

you wake up in the middle of the night and say, we have to be able 

to fix this, we have to be able to do something. It is not just something we need to do, it is something we absolutely have to do. 

I thank you all for being here and for being on the panel and 

making more Americans aware of what is going on. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. 

It is a reminder that the American value is not the same as the 

rest of the world so when we hire a foreign contractor or subcontractor to be able to come in and provide labor, we have to be diligent to make sure they share our values and how they bring in a 

workforce. I do appreciate that. 

Talk is cheap and we have had multiple moments of discussing 

it to death. I am glad to be able to hear the actions you all have 

57 

already taken and will continue to take. We are looking for a partnership from you to say you are going on the ground working on 

this all the time, you are face to face with the people and have the 

accountability for it. I appreciate your diligence and focus on it. 

We need to know what we can do to help to continue to send the 

message and also provide legislation that says we do want to help 

support this and make sure we are exporting our values around the 

world when we interact with people from around the world who 

work with us. 

With that, thank you very much for your testimony and your 

time. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ