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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i

33–587 2007

[H.A.S.C. No. 109–90]

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

MEETING JOINTLY WITH

AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

[Serial No. 109–244]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD

JUNE 21, 2006

(II)

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED

SERVICES

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York, Chairman

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JIM RYUN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia

KEVIN COUGHLIN, Professional Staff Member

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member

MARGEE MECKSTROTH, Staff Assistant

AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,

Vice Chairman

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

DIANE E. WATSON, California

BETTY MCCOLLUM, MINNESOTA

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director

GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2006

Page

HEARING:

Wednesday, June 21, 2006, Trafficking in Persons .............................................. 1

APPENDIX:

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 ...................................................................................... 45

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2006

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Chairman, Military

Personnel Subcommittee ..................................................................................... 1

Payne, Hon. Donald M., a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking Member,

Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations Subcommittee . 12

Smith, Hon. Christopher H., a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman,

Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations Subcommittee . 2

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Ranking Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 5

WITNESSES

Boyles, Col. Robert K., Former Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting, Forces Joint Contracting Command—Iraq/Afghanistan, U.S. Air Force . 11

Gimble, Thomas F., Principal Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 9

McGinn, Gail H., Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) ......................................................................................... 8

Miller, Ambassador John R., Director, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Department of State .................................................................. 6

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Boyles, Col. Robert K. ...................................................................................... 75

Gimble, Thomas F. ........................................................................................... 63

McGinn, Gail H. ................................................................................................ 58

Miller, Ambassador John R. ............................................................................ 53

Snyder, Dr. Vic ................................................................................................. 49

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Chicago Tribune, October 9, 2005, Tribune Investigation: Pipeline to

Peril, Desperate for Work, Lured Into Danger ........................................... 81

Chicago Tribune, October 10, 2005, Tribune Investigation: Pipeline to

Peril, Into a War Zone, on a Deadly Road, Worker’s Chilling Call

Home: ‘I am done for’ .................................................................................... 87

Page

IV

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—CONTINUED

Chicago Tribune, October 10, 2005, Tribune Investigation: Pipeline to

Peril, Rescue Spares Some Workers, ‘They told us that we had to

go to Iraq’ ....................................................................................................... 95

Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense, General

Counsel of the Department of Defense, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Directors

of Defense Agencies, dated January 30, 2004 ............................................ 97

Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense, General

Counsel of the Department of Defense, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Directors

of Defense Agencies, dated September 16, 2004 ........................................ 98

Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense, General

Counsel of the Department of Defense, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Directors

of Defense Agencies, dated November 17, 2004 ......................................... 99

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Ms. Davis of California .................................................................................... 104

Mrs. Drake ........................................................................................................ 107

Mr. McHugh ...................................................................................................... 103

Mr. Smith .......................................................................................................... 107

(1)

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED

SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, MEETING JOINTLY WITH COMMITTEE ON INTER- NATIONAL RELATIONS, AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS,

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE,

Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 21, 2006.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in room

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John McHugh (chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. MCHUGH. The hearing will come to order.

As always, I want to welcome you all here this afternoon, which

I think promises to be a very interesting session. First of all, it will

be interesting because of the topic matter, an important topic because of timeliness, but also because it is a joint hearing.

And I want to start by welcoming our distinguished colleagues of

the International Relations Committee, particularly my good friend

from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and another friend from New Jersey, the ranking member, who I hope will join us soon, Mr. Payne,

to discuss the issues with respect to human trafficking.

And it is a pleasure for us to join with the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations to hear testimony on the Department of Defense efforts to implement a zero

tolerance policy for human trafficking.

Let me just very briefly, I hope, say that as a way of background,

in December 2002, President Bush issued a national security Presidential directive which established a zero tolerance policy for

United States government employees and contractor personnel representing the United States overseas who engage in trafficking of

human persons.

Subsequently, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued policy directives that make it clear that human trafficking will not be facilitated in any way by members of the military, by DOD civilian employees or by DOD contract personnel.

Further, the directives clearly state DOD’s opposition to prostitution and outline specific objectives of DOD efforts to combat trafficking. And I strongly commend the Department of Defense for

seizing the momentum set by the President, and I am encouraged

by the aggressive approach the department has taken to combat

trafficking.

2

At the same time, I believe there is more work, and frankly probably much more work, to be done and this has been communicated

to the department by report language included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

And during this hearing today, I hope we can focus on, first, the

implementation by the Department of Defense and the individual

military services of the guidance that was given by then-Deputy

Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld regarding trafficking

in persons; second, the investigation and prosecution of crimes of

human trafficking by the military services; third, the DOD response to human trafficking violations by contractors and subcontractors in Iraq; and, last, the coordination between the DOD

and the State Department to ensure that we are doing everything

we can to combat human trafficking.

And before I introduce our panel who have joined us here today,

let me offer my good friend, Chairman Chris Smith, an opportunity

to make his opening remarks.

Just as a preface, although for most, if not all, in this audience,

it probably does not require saying there are few, if any, people in

this Congress, either today or in recent memory, that have taken

a more bold stance and a more compassioned position on issues like

human trafficking than Chairman Smith, and it is an honor to

share the dais with him.

So, Chris, with that, our attention is yours.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, AFRICA, GLOBAL

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman McHugh. And, first of all, let

me just say how grateful I am that you have agreed and are

hosting this important hearing, especially as chairman of the Military Personnel Committee.

In one of my former jobs as chairman of the Veterans Committee,

I just want to note for the record how grateful I was and how well

we worked together. You did a tremendous job on a number of the

issues where there was joint concerns, like DOD-Veterans Affairs

(V.A.) sharing agreements, issues dealing with personnel as they

transitioned into V.A. status. And so I want to applaud you for that

outstanding work that you have done.

Let me just say also how glad I am, and you mentioned it a moment ago, that we worked together to include language in this

year’s committee report for the National Defense Authorization Act

for 2007, which I think will make even more of a difference going

forward.

Just by way of background, in September of 2004, Chairman

Hunter and I co-chaired a briefing to examine DOD’s enforcement

of U.S. policies against trafficking in persons. At that time, DOD

and individual commanders had just begun to address the issue,

primarily for the issuance of high-level directives from the secretary and deputy secretary of defense but had little yet to say for

its implementation or the efficacy of its efforts.

The one exception was in South Korea where General LaPorte

was already taking strong and decisive action to curb the involveVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
3

ment of U.S. service members in creating a demand for prostitution

that fuels trafficking. And General LaPorte came and testified and

provided some useful insights as to how he did it, and those recommendations, I know, have been well-incorporated in what we are

doing around the globe now.

Our need to examine this problem in the context of DOD arises

from the fact that prostitution has historically coexisted alongside

large populations of military forces. This is a problem for all militaries, not just the American military.

In recent years, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and

the press have reported women being forced into prostitution for a

clientele consisting of military service members, government contractors, and international peacekeepers.

Over the past half-dozen years, such evils have been documented

in South Korea, Southeastern Europe, the Congo and Sudan. There

have also been horrific accounts of international peacekeepers from

several countries, thankfully not including the United States, who

have purchased sex from hungry children in exchange for a piece

of bread.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I was the prime sponsor of three

landmark laws to end trafficking, here and abroad: the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the 2003 act as well as the 2005

act. For years, I and members of our committee have focused attention on the problem of human trafficking through legislation and

congressional hearings and overseas trips.

My focus on the U.S. military began in 2002 when a Fox News

reporter named Tom Merriman showed me a hidden camera investigation of U.S. troops in South Korea patronizing bars and other

establishments where women from the Philippines and the former

Soviet states, including Russia, were trafficked and forced to prostitute themselves.

The investigation regrettably captured U.S. soldiers on ‘‘courtesy

patrol,’’ patrolling these establishments at which U.S. soldiers are

the primary customers. I have no doubt that the vast majority of

U.S. service members would never engage in such reprehensible

conduct, but I was outraged to learn that some were indeed creating a demand for trafficking of women into prostitution.

At my request, the DOD inspector general undertook investigations in South Korea and in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Kosovo.

The two resulting reports identified institutional weaknesses in our

military’s understanding and response to trafficking and made concrete recommendations for action.

For DOD, these issues do not end with the demand side of the

equation and are not limited to sex trafficking. In testimony before

the Armed Services Committee and the Commission on Security

and Cooperation in Europe in 2004, Martina Vandenberg, a former

researcher for Human Rights Watch, described eight cases in which

U.S. Government contractors, including four DOD contractors, allegedly purchased trafficked women and girls in Bosnia.

More recently, in October 2005, the Chicago Tribune reported on

U.S. Government subcontractors trafficking Nepalese laborers

through Jordan and into Iraq to work on U.S. military bases. Subsequently, the U.S. Multi-National Force-Iraq conducted an invesVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
4

tigation, an inspection of contracting activities in Iraq which confirmed the tribune’s report.

In April, General George Casey issued labor guidelines to all defense contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the intention of

protecting employees from abuse.

I look forward to hearing today about the investigations that

DOD conducted, and how DOD will create a policy that affects all

U.S. installations and operations.

It is reprehensible that any person with a responsibility to protect civilians in a destabilized region or to promote the rule of law

would participate in prostitution or otherwise encourage human

trafficking.

Speaking before the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly in

2003, President Bush stated eloquently that, ‘‘There is a special

evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable. The victims of the sex trade see little of life before they see

the very worst of life—an underground of brutality and lonely fear.

Those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must

be severely punished. Those who patronize this industry debase

themselves and deepen the misery of others.’’

U.S. military or contractor involvement in trafficking, besides exploiting the individual girls or young boys, even, weakens the rule

of law, strengthens criminal networks and undermines DOD’s own

mission. If a U.S. Government representative, or even a contractor

paid by U.S. taxpayer funds, engages in actions that allow prostitution and human trafficking to prosper, the efforts of our President,

the State Department, and Congress to combat this criminal

scourge are thwarted.

Only when DOD and the U.S. military take an uncompromising

position on the issues of prostitution and trafficking will we be in

a position to effectively push international organizations and other

countries to do likewise.

I continue to be deeply troubled by the slow pace of reform at the

United Nations and have conducted two hearings on the sexual exploitation and abuse of the U.N. peacekeepers’ operation in the

Congo. I am sad to say that since early 2004, the U.N., in conducting its investigation, found that there were some 296 personnel involved in that exploitation, which has resulted in the repatriation

of 137 military personnel, including 6 commanders, and the dismissal of 17 civilians and 16 police.

Most of these cases occurred at U.N. missions in Africa, but according to the State Department’s 2006 Theory Into Practice (TIP)

report, ‘‘It may take months or even years before an effective measure is put into practice at the U.N.’’

Ladies and Gentlemen, women and children cannot wait months

or even years to be safe from abuse. Bureaucracy is no excuse for

tolerating exploitation, and the U.S. and all countries of goodwill

must redouble our efforts at the United Nations to move forward

on these issues.

Finally, now that sound policies are for the most part set, DOD

has the difficult task of ensuring their implementation. DOD’s antitrafficking initiatives must rise above individual personalities who

themselves understand why we need to prevent trafficking. Antitrafficking efforts must become part of DOD’s organizational culVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
5

ture and infrastructure. Despite some progress, I do have some

concerns about implementation.

But, again, since we do have a vote, I do yield back, and I thank

my good friend for calling this hearing.

Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman.

And the unwritten rule of Congress, if you have a hearing, votes

will happen no matter when it is. The good news is, there are only

two, so why don’t we press on and see if we can get through some

opening comments.

Good point. That is a 15-minute warning before what we expect

will be the vote, so we do have a little bit more time, and I would

be happy in that time to yield to my partner on the Personnel Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder, for any comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM

ARKANSAS, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you

and Chairman Smith for holding this hearing today.

And, Mr. Smith, it is good to be back and have you as chairman

again, Chris.

I was honored to be on the Veterans Committee when he was

chairman, and he did a great job there.

I have an opening statement, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit it for the record.

Mr. MCHUGH. Without objection, so ordered.

Dr. SNYDER. I will be brief in my opening comments.

I don’t think there is any American that has any honor at all

that would ever knowingly participate in human trafficking, and

yet the more we get into this, the more we learn there are things

that we can do and that young people can do, whether as contractors or in the service, that contribute to the demand that fosters

this terrible evil in the world.

It is also one of the things we keep thinking the world is making

progress, and yet with regard to human trafficking, there seems to

be a tremendous activity going on around the world now, and it

may well be going in the wrong direction.

So until we deal with the issue of poverty and the discrimination

against women in the world, it is going to be with us.

And I commend you, Mr. Chairman, both of you, chairmen, for

bringing this hearing today so that we can try to chip away at this

problem in the ways that we can in our jurisdiction.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 49.]

Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman.

Let us press on to the most important part of the afternoon, that

of course our distinguished panelists, and let me on behalf of all

the members here today from both committees extend our warmest

words of welcome.

We have four witnesses, and we would like to give each of you

the opportunity to present your testimony in the fullest possible

way.

6

I would note that we do have, I believe, all of your testimony now

in its written form, and, without objection, it will be, each and

every one of them, entered into the record without change. Hearing

no objection, so ordered.

So to the extent you possibly can, we would respectfully ask that

perhaps you could summarize the high points of your written testimony, and I know there are many, to the shortest timeframe possible.

Let me now introduce the distinguished panel.

First of all, Ambassador John R. Miller, who is director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, United States

Department of State.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here.

Ms. Gail H. McGinn, who is performing the duties as Principal

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

for the Department of Defense.

Welcome.

Mr. Thomas F. Gimble, Principal Deputy Inspector General, acting agency head, the Department of Defense.

Mr. Inspector General (IG), welcome.

And also Colonel Robert K. Boyles, United States Air Force,

former principal assistant responsible for contracting, Forces Joint

Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan.

Colonel, welcome. And I also, if I might, add that thank you particularly for being here. I know you just recently returned from

Iraq, and under the leave policies of our great military would probably be off doing other things as returning, but you have chosen—

I hope voluntarily, but I won’t probe you on that—to be here, and

we are very, very much appreciative for that effort, as we are to

all of you.

And just by a little housekeeping for the members’ edification, although we don’t always do it, today, given the fact we do have a

joint hearing and I would expect members will be coming in and

out, we will operate under the five-minute rule with the normal exception for the two chairs and the two ranking members and recognize those folks in the order of seniority, alternating committees,

alternating sides who were here at the gavel and then as they presented themselves after the gavel.

So with all of that having been said, Mr. Ambassador, Ambassador Miller, welcome again, and we look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN R. MILLER, DIRECTOR,

OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, members of the two committees. I see many of you who have

taken a personal interest in abolishing modern-day slavery, and I

thank you for your efforts.

I am here really as a stage setter. I am the warm-up. The heavy

lifting is going to be done by the Department of Defense, but I

think I have been called to testify because I wear two hats: One,

I am an ambassador-at-large for the president on modern-day slavery around the world, and in that capacity, I have looked at modVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
7

ern-day slavery around the globe and the efforts that governments,

including their militaries, undertake.

The second capacity I am here in is that I am chairman of the

Senior Policy Operating Group on Trafficking in Persons that you

created that includes all the major United States agencies, including the Department of Defense.

You are all aware of the tremendous challenge that we face in

the 21st century, the human rights challenge, the national security

challenge, the health challenge that comes from millions in modern-day slavery. And I think let’s be realistic, if you look at trafficking in persons, particularly sex trafficking, there is a long history of the militaries in the world, including ours, being connected

to this phenomena. That is the reality.

In the past couple of years, I have had the privilege of working

with the Department of Defense and I have seen some very diligent

and determined efforts to change the culture. This is going to be

described in more detail but first came a no tolerance on trafficking

policy.

Then when discussions were held as to how could soldiers and

sailors know whether somebody was a trafficking victim when they

visited a brothel—are you going to ask, ‘‘Are you a victim,’’ and

they are going to give you a straight answer—when that issue was

raised, the Department of Defense moved further and they changed

the military code of justice to make not only trafficking but the patronizing the prostitute an offense.

And then they went further and revised their training, and our

office worked with them on that and worked with what you referred to in Korea, Mr. Co-Chairman, to see that soldiers, sailors,

airmen understand the policy and their commanders do.

Now, has everything been done? No. Is there more to do? Yes.

We are awaiting an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report

this August where defense has taken the initiative in surveying

what is happening or are these efforts in place.

But that is mainly in the area of sex trafficking.

In the last several months, we have worked with the Department

of Defense on an issue relating to forced labor trafficking, which

the co-chairman mentioned and which is included in our annual report on page 19, and that is with regard to that story in the Chicago Tribune about Nepalese laborers being lured by phony recruiting agencies, then being shipped off to Jordan thinking they were

going to work in 5-star hotels and then going against their will into

Iraq.

And the Department of Defense undertook a very thorough investigation of this and not only investigated and, as the co-chairman

basically corroborated the major points of the article, but through

the efforts of Colonel Boyles and others came up with some very

specific recommendations that showed to me an understanding of

the trafficking issue—directions to contractors that passports are

not to be withheld from workers, directions on working conditions,

directions on recruiters. And a new regulation going through the

process that is going to make it easier to hold contractors and subcontractors responsible.

So, again, has everything been resolved? No, but efforts have

been undertaken.

8

And that leads me to my conclusion, because you want me to just

summarize. I go around the world and I see what happens with

militaries and I see what you described, the disturbing evidence regarding the militaries of many countries acting through the United

Nations peacekeepers.

Trafficking goes on in every country in the world, and to some

extent every military in the world comes in contact with it. But I

can truly say that in my opinion the U.S. military, Department of

Defense, is the leader in the world today when it comes to undertaking efforts to combat trafficking in persons and abolishing slavery.

And we are looking, and rightly so, you are looking, you helped

start this process with that hearing a couple of years ago. I was

at the hearing in 2004. You have been pushing this issue, but I

think the Department of Defense has responded, and what we are

really concerned with is effort, and the effort has truly been there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Miller can be found in

the Appendix on page 53.]

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

Ms. McGinn, welcome again. Look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND READINESS)

Ms. MCGINN. Thank you.

Chairman McHugh, Chairman Smith, members of the committees, I want to thank you for this opportunity to address you concerning the Department of Defense’s role in combating trafficking

in persons (TIP).

Our efforts continue to be focused on two primary areas of concerns, which Ambassador Miller so alluded to. The first concern

continues to be the sex exploitation industry overseas in and near

our areas of operations. The second concern is with the employment practices by civilian contractors supporting DOD operations

overseas. Our ongoing actions are aimed at addressing these two

major areas of concern.

The department’s major effort has been in trafficking in persons

awareness training. We have deployed an awareness training module required to be taken by all military and civilian DOD personnel

serving overseas.

The emphasis of the training is to educate individuals to not support trafficking, even indirectly, by frequenting businesses or enterprises that could involve trafficking in persons. I would add that

I have reviewed that training in preparation for this hearing. I

found it very well done and very engaging, and that is important

for people to be interested in it and to learn from it.

Our next important training release will be for commanders.

This module is nearing completion and should be fielded in August.

Our overseas operations also highlight our second concern—labor

trafficking. As recently in the actions taken by the commander of

Multi-National Force-Iraq against labor practices of supporting contractors, this concern is well founded. Our Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation trafficking in persons rule will give overseas comVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
9

manders the contract management tools necessary to hold contractors accountable for their labor practices and their employees’ actions.

We have modified our rule to include those labor areas we feel

are vulnerable to trafficking practices outside the United States,

which are not covered in a broader rule published in April of this

year. Those are, for example, supply and construction. We returned

our rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance this month, with a publication targeted for August of this

year.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is central to enforcing the department’s anti-trafficking in persons program. On

October 18, 2005, the President signed Executive Order 13387–

2005, Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United

States. The executive order added the specific offense of ‘‘patronizing a prostitute’’ to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Early this year, we conducted a targeted media program to specifically get the word out on the new offense and generally promote

our anti-trafficking in persons policy and program.

In the broader scope of the UCMJ, we have reviewed the code

in its ability to proscribe trafficking in persons. We believe that the

UCMJ is fully adequate to the task of addressing the crime and

any of its associated wrongful acts should the jurisdiction fall to

the department to do so.

These steps we are taking reflect our strong commitment to address combating trafficking in persons within the scope of DOD’s

responsibilities.

Thank you again for scheduling this important hearing, and I

look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn can be found in the Appendix on page 58.]

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much.

Next, Mr. Thomas Gimble, principal deputy inspector general.

Mr. Gimble, welcome.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. GIMBLE, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. GIMBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you for the opportunity to discuss past and ongoing efforts

by my office in the area of combating trafficking in persons.

Previously, on September 21, 2004, the former inspector general

presented testimony regarding TIP in a joint hearing report to

Chairman Hunter and the Helsinki Commission. OIG initiatives in

the area of human trafficking were triggered when 13 Members of

Congress wrote to the secretary of defense on May 31, 2002 to request a thorough, global and extensive investigation into the publicized allegation that U.S. military leadership in Korea had been

implicitly condoning sex slavery.

In response to those concerns, OIG initiated a human trafficking

assessment project. The first phase focused on United States

Forces-Korea. IG teams visited in Korea in December of 2002 and

March of 2003.

The second phase focused on the European theater, specifically

Bosnia and Kosovo, and IG teams visited Balkans in June of 2003.

10

The results of the assessment project indicated that awareness

training along with leader focus were important tools in the effort

to combat human trafficking. Our specific findings are included in

my written statement that was submitted for the record.

As a follow-on to our earlier efforts, my office announced on November 18, 2005 the evaluation of DOD efforts to combat trafficking in persons. To date, we have accomplished the field work and

are now coordinating the draft report. The evaluation examines

TIP policies, programs and actions at the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD) level and program execution at the combatant command and installation levels.

The objectives are to determine if DOD directives, implementing

instructions, organizations, metrics and resources are adequate for

the DOD components to develop implementing programs and objectives; determine if the TIP training is effective in promoting awareness of applicable laws and restrictions and fostering behavioral

changes among all DOD employees—service members, civilians and

contractor personnel; determine if current laws and international

agreements are sufficient to give commanders the requisite authority outside the gate.

In addition to our ongoing evaluation, we continue to collaborate

with various TIP stakeholders across the Department of Defense.

For example, on April 19, 2006, the Civilian Agency Acquisition

Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council published

an interim rule, ‘‘Combating Trafficking in Persons,’’ which prohibits severe forms of trafficking in persons, procurement of commercial sex acts and use of forced labor.

On April 14, 2006 the OIG responded to a request from the

under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness into alleged

TIP practices by DOD contractors and subcontractors in Iraq, as reported in a series of Chicago Tribune articles regarding the circumstances leading to the death of 12 Nepalese workers inside Iraq

on August 31, 2004. The allegations concerned involuntary servitude occurring under the auspices of DOD contractors in Iraq.

The DOD IG made the following recommendations to the under

secretary, which where provided later to Ambassador Miller on

May 18, 2006, which included DOD should continue to prosecute

military members who become involved in TIP or TIP-related activities in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

DOD should ensure that all contracts incorporate the language of

the anti-TIP Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR)

clause, once it is approved; DOD should evaluate rewriting existing

contracts to incorporate the language of the anti-TIP DFAR clause,

once it is approved; military department and combatant command

inspectors general continue their involvement in the DOD efforts to

combat TIP within the limits of their authority to do so.

We have also worked with U.S. Central Command and the intheater IGs on issues related to labor or debt bondage. In April

2006, as has been noted before, the commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, published the Fragmentary Order 06–188, ‘‘Prevention of Trafficking in Persons in Multi National Forces Iraq.’’

In conclusion, we remain committed to support DOD’s zero tolerance policy against trafficking in persons, and we will continue to

11

evaluate programs and compliance to the policies. And I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gimble can be found in the Appendix on page 63.]

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gimble.

I have been remiss over the last two or three witnesses to fail

to note that we have, as I commented in my opening remarks, been

joined by the distinguished ranking member of the International

Relations Subcommittee, Mr. Payne.

I would propose to my colleagues, because I have seen the testimony by Colonel Boyles and unless he is going to expand on that,

which would be really unusual, he has a two-page militarily concise

statement, perhaps we could do that, and then when we reconvene,

Mr. Payne, if you have any opening remarks, I would be happy to

yield to you.

Does that meet with your approval?

Colonel, again, thank you for being here, particularly given your

just-back-from-Iraq status, and we look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF COL. ROBERT K. BOYLES, FORMER PRINCIPAL

ASSISTANT RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTRACTING, FORCES

JOINT CONTRACTING COMMAND—IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN, U.S.

AIR FORCE

Colonel BOYLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman McHugh, Representative Snyder, Chairman Smith,

Representative Payne——

Mr. MCHUGH. Colonel, yes, get that a little closer.

Colonel BOYLES. Okay.

Mr. MCHUGH. We are all old and deaf.

Colonel BOYLES. I am there with you, sir.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.

Colonel BOYLES. You have this for the record, sir, so I won’t read

it verbatim for you. I will summarize, as you requested.

When I got to Iraq in January, as any good leader would do, I

went and met with the Multi-National Force (MNF)–I chief of staff.

The only thing that General Donovan mentioned to me during that

interview was trafficking in persons, quality of life for third country nationalists, making sure that everybody who supported MNF–

I had a quality of life that would be as good as any troop that we

had.

I took that to heart and when first notified in February of certain

contractors withholding passports, I immediately called those two

contractors in. At that point in time, there were only two that we

knew about. Called them in, talked to them, let them know that

their behavior was offensive to the United States government and

directed them to return passports by, I believe it was, the end of

the 28th of February. Both started complying, both identified concerns.

Subsequently, the investigation was complete. I haven’t seen the

whole investigation, but the inspector general, who I will tell you

in Iraq is a pit bull on this topic, identified to me more contractors

that were withholding passports, so I went out with a blanket letter to all contractors in Iraq of whom my organization wrote the

contracts for and let them know that I expected them to return all

12

passports by the first of May and outlined to them certain actions

I would take as a contracting officer were that not to be accomplished.

For the most part, that happened relatively fast. Some of the

larger contractors wanted to talk about some of their concerns, but

we didn’t drag it on, and I can tell you that right now pretty much

every contractor has returned passports.

There are some individuals who have worked in the office from

the Philippines and I would routinely ask them, ‘‘Have you got

your passports? Do your friends have their passports?’’ And ultimately that came back and we get a lot of data back talking about

how this was successful.

General Casey, through the inspector general, outlined a Fragmentary Order (FRAGO), which is an order to the military, that

basically outlines what his expectations are and directs certain activities. In that it also laid out those types of things that I had laid

out in my letter.

In addition to making sure that all new contracts that we wrote

had that language in there, we took the step of also modifying all

of our existing contracts, and I gave my folks until, at that point

in time, it was the 31st of May to make sure all of our existing contracts were modified.

That activity competes with the day-to-day contract award in

support of our troops, so I would say when I left at the end of the

month, end of May, we were about 80 percent complete. I would

venture to guess 100 percent of those contracts are awarded right

now.

I just wanted to say, sir, that I appreciate the opportunity to

come here. My few comments are as a matter of record, and I am

ready for your comments.

[The prepared statement of Colonel Boyles can be found in the

Appendix on page 75.]

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Colonel.

And thank you all.

As I noted, two votes. I regret that we are going to have to interrupt, but that is an unavoidable reality of the Hill. So if you could

stand in recess until we return, hopefully immediately after the

second vote.

[Recess.]

Mrs. DRAKE [presiding]. Call the meeting back to order.

When Mr. Payne—here is Mr. Payne.

Mr. Payne, we would like to ask you if you have a statement.

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. As a matter of fact, I thought you would be asking that.

Mrs. DRAKE. We are going to yield to you for your statement.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW JERSEY, RANKING MEMBER, AFRICA, GLOBAL

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Timing, I guess, is important,

and I will be very brief, though I would like to, of course, welcome

the witnesses who have already been greeted by our committee.

13

I would like to thank the chairpersons of the two committees for

calling this very important hearing about military zero tolerance

policy with the armed services.

Chairpersons, thank you for calling this important hearing concerning the Department of Defense’s implementation of zero tolerance for human trafficking.

As we know, the trafficking of persons is regarded to be one of

the dominating criminal enterprises of the early 21st century. Trafficking of persons perpetrates poverty, war, crisis and ignorance,

and the International Labor Organization estimates that there are

some 12.3 million forced laborers at any time.

The Department of Defense has worked to implement a zero tolerance stand against any actions by defense personnel that contributes to human trafficking and instituting a service-wide mandatory

training program, as we have already heard described. The trafficking issue has been a policy priority of the United States for a

number of years.

The hard work of officials has begun to show results. In the State

Department’s fifth annual report on human trafficking and which

had highlighted how the U.S. and international campaigns against

human trafficking has begun to slow the results and show that the

programs are paying off. The zero tolerance policy has contributed

to the slow decay of the horrors of human trafficking, as well as

spreading a message to the world that human trafficking must end.

We will no longer tolerate this.

As we know, there have been many challenges to this policy, like

in Iraq, South Korea, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo; recently

revealed top U.S. commanders in Iraq had ordered sweeping

changes for private military support operations after confirming

violations of human trafficking laws and other abuses by contractors involving possibly thousands of foreign workers on American

bases. This is just a particular disturbing example of how human

trafficking can be right under our own very noses, and we must

continue to be vigilant about wiping it out.

Continuing to strengthen the zero tolerance policy is in the nation’s best interest concerning the human rights abuses as well as

for our national security. Hopefully, the Department of Defense will

meet the complex challenges in strengthening policies in the horrors of human trafficking.

And, once again, I thank all of the witnesses for being here and

look forward to the questioning period.

Thank you, Ms. Chairperson.

Mrs. DRAKE. I would also like to join my colleagues in thanking

all of you for being here today. And certainly very impressive to

me. It is my first hearing in a joint panel to hear what Department

of Defense is doing, and I am impressed by what I have heard.

Colonel, I would like to ask you, in my experience of going to Europe and looking at some of the countries, we visited two receiver

countries and we visited two supply countries, but the question

that stood out in our minds is, how do the authorities there determine that this is someone who is a victim and not someone who

is a criminal?

So from the standpoint with Department of Defense and with our

contractors that are there on the issue of prostitution—I am sure

14

with laborers that would be more apparent that these are people

who have been trafficked in—but is it clear or are your men and

women trained in trying to identify is this someone who is engaging in this activity in a criminal manner or is this someone who

is actually a victim of trafficking?

Colonel BOYLES. I would say first, ma’am, that training is something we identified as being needed in Iraq, and to be honest with

you, I really need to kind of limit my comments to what I really

know from Iraq and what I did.

In terms of how you identify criminal activity versus a victim, I

really couldn’t tell you there. I don’t know if training covers that

or if training is anticipating to cover that. I would have to defer

that to someone who is in the training room.

Ms. MCGINN. I can take a shot. Having just done the training

myself——

Mrs. DRAKE. Yes, please.

Ms. MCGINN [continuing]. I was very impressed because it does

tell our service members what signs people would exhibit if they

were being held illegally, things like not knowing where they were,

not being able to answer questions about directions, not being able

to speak the language, body demeanor and the like. It was very impressive the way they taught. The training teaches to parse that.

Mrs. DRAKE. All right. Thank you.

I would, before I turn the chair over to the chairman, would just

like to take a moment and thank all of you, though, for adding that

prostitution is an offense and our military members cannot engage

in that at all. Because I think from their standpoint, and Ambassador Miller made the point, that they are not going to walk in and

say, ‘‘Are you a victim or are you someone who is truly engaging

in this behavior?’’

And I think from our standpoint here at home that our communities—I wasn’t aware that you had done that until you said it

today, but that will make a difference in our communities too.

So I wanted to thank you and turn the chair back over to our

chairman.

Mr. MCHUGH [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady.

I apologize for jumping in and out, and unfortunately it is going

to be occurring through most of the afternoon. Fortunately, we

have great leaders on this issue, such as the gentleman who I am

proud to yield to right now, Chairman Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman McHugh.

And I, too, want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for

the work you are doing. It is proactive, it is effective, but obviously

more always has to be done, and I say that for the Congress as

well.

We found in writing our first law in 2000 we missed a number

of areas. In some cases, we couldn’t get a consensus with the Senate on some of those areas, which we came back and got in 2003

and 2005.

In one of those areas in 2003, when we held hearings and found

out that some of our contractors in Bosnia, for example, were accused of engaging in trafficking, that was the genesis, frankly, of

the language that in 2003 was directed just at the foreign affairs

account, the 150 Account, but in the 2003 act signed by the PresiVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
15

dent, it was expanded to be all Federal contracting that can be revoked if the contractor is engaging in trafficking.

And my question is, and I heard a moment ago, and I am glad

to hear it, that you have been modifying, Colonel, the contracts.

And I wonder if you might amplify on what those modifications are.

Have you gotten to the point where you will pull a contract from

an offending company in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I mean, you mentioned that their returning passports, but, as

you know, there are a number of other concerns, deep concerns

about how many of this labor force finally go through Iraq.

The stories that were mentioned early, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a series of articles by Cam

Simpson from the Chicago Tribune be made a part of the record.

Mr. MCHUGH. Without objection, they are entered.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on

pages 81, 87, 95.]

Mr. SMITH. These are decisive articles that speak to the exploitation of a labor workforce that has been recruited by very morally

bankrupt labor brokers who abused, put many of these people at

grave risk, including those who have died along the road while en

route. I am just wondering, what are we doing to ensure that that

workforce is not exploited at any part?

If you note, if you recall, the definition of trafficking is very clear.

It has to do with recruitment, right on through to end use exploitation, whether it be in a house of prostitution or whether it be a

labor trafficker, and we are dealing with, obviously, people who are

being defrauded and then at some point even coerced, and, certainly, their desperate situation is being exploited.

So if you could—I mean, the law is very explicit. You have the

power, you have the authority to revoke those contracts.

And let me just say parenthetically, one of the concerns that

many of us have had, and I am sure you have it on this committee,

we have it in New Jersey and elsewhere, is that we have found

that a number of illegals were working on our military bases,

which begged the question about who was vetting the security risk

that they might pose? And I remember meeting frequently at

McGuire Air Force Base and others along with Jim Saxton and

some of my other colleagues to make that case, who is it that is

on our bases.

Well, a similar issue, I think, could be raised as to who it is,

what kind of vetting is actually being done. One, we want to protect laborers, but, second, we want to know who is working on our

bases.

And I think the key question is about the subcontractors. You

know, it is one thing to get an okay from Halliburton or someone

that they are on the up and up about, but it has to go down to the

200 or so subcontractors that they might have under the employ,

what are they doing with regards to this?

And so, Colonel, if you could begin with that question.

Colonel BOYLES. I will try, sir. That is a mouthful, but let me try

to talk to some of that.

Modifying contracts, we have in our new contracts requirements

for a number of things. Those exact same things are being modified

into our existing contracts. Let me lay these out for you.

16

The requirement that all passports return by the first of May,

well, that was a directive I put out; ensuring all contracts include

a termination without penalty clause; requiring prime and subcontractors to provide employees with a signed copy of their employment contract that defines the terms of their employment and

compensation; the prohibition of the use of unlicensed recruiting

firms or firms that charge illegal fees; and this is where we went

a little bit beyond, establishing 50 square feet as a minimum acceptable living standard for living space; and then a requirement

in the contract that all contractors comply with host station entry

and exit requirements.

So what I did was let all of the—in Joint Contracting Command,

we had 12 buying activities in Iraq, and I laid out and said, ‘‘By

the 31st of May, guys, you need to have all your existing contracts

modified to put all this language in there.’’ Like I said earlier, that

competes with the day-to-day awarding contracts, so I believe we

are about 100 percent but about this time, instead of 31 May, probably about 15 June-ish.

So it was a dual approach. It was everything forward but also

everything that was in existence. Now, there was some reasonableness there. If a contract was going to expire in a month, for example, we didn’t modify it.

One thing that is important to understand is that there are

many contracting activities doing business in Iraq. Joint Contracting Command writes—in 2005, I believe we had about 20,000 contracts for about $1.6 billion. But there are other agencies that write

contracts. So when I take action it is against those contracts for

which my organization has written them, and I warranted people

to do that.

When we were getting a little bit of recalcitrance from one of the

larger contractors to passing back passports, I took a couple of

their contracts and I laid it in front of them and said, ‘‘Okay, we

are getting ready to terminate these,’’ and they came around.

And so to answer your question specifically, sir, we didn’t terminate anything, but it got to the point where we identified the ones

we were going to terminate, we identified those contractors, made

it known, and they turned around with some leverage from that

end, because they are a sub to Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR).

KBR provided some leverage also, and this contractor then returned all the passports.

First, I believe it is putting the requirements in the contract. The

other part, I think, talks to enforcement, how do you enforce it?

You have to inspect and in about 90 days from July, I believe, the

IG is going to go back out and do some inspection. You have got

training that needs to take place for all contracting officer representatives. There are so many contracts out there that a contracting guy is not going to be able to go out and do everything.

Each unit has a COR, a contracting officer’s representative, and

as part of their training, we need to incorporate some training on

TIP, what things to look for, and then when something is identified, the contracting people need to take the enforcement actions in

terms of the termination, debarring a contractor or suspending

them for receiving more government contracts. We have worked

with the legal community at Camp Victory, for example, about

17

when and where we would bar a contractor from entry to the facility.

All those types of actions have been identified to the contractor,

and we continue to have ongoing dialogue with the legal community and the force protection community on these.

I really can’t answer the vetting of security contractors. I understand that on Mr. Simpson’s article, for example, a young man

coming from a different country, who would vet them security requirements, those types of things, to what extent does a company

go through? It didn’t sound like much.

I do know that there is a security concern at Camp Victory and

other camps in Iraq because once Third Country Nationals (TCNs)

come in and they opt to leave a contract for employ somewhere

else, oftentimes they don’t get rebadged, they may not get another

job right away, they are kind of footloose and fancy free, homeless,

if you will, and if that lasts too long, it is a security risk because

we have concern that they are then ripe for the anti-Iraqi forces,

the insurgency, to come and try to get them to do some bad things.

So security is of interest to us.

Sir, how they are vetted, I couldn’t tell you.

Mr. MCHUGH. Is that something you could get back to us on?

It would seem to me, and I would ask the ambassador as well,

my understanding is that there is some $600 million being let for

the new embassy. About 1,000 foreign nationals are working on

that project, and I could be off on that number, and correct me if

I am wrong.

And I am wondering, you know, I remember when we went

through the debacle in our Soviet embassy, it had to do with a different threat and that was the bugging of the embassy. It seems

to me that if we don’t properly vet who it is that is in and around

U.S. military and Foreign Service officers and the like, we put

them at risk. I mean, this is a deep concern of mine, and I think

many of my colleagues, that they be properly vetted.

And, you know, there are contractors, I know that Bisharat and

Partners Group, which didn’t provide any significant security for

the overland trip, according to Mr. Gimble’s statement, and they,

as we all know, lost their lives.

And I would ask you, in addition to those questions, Mr. Gimble,

what your take would be on this and also on the fact that any shipment of goods that are brought in get significant protection. The

other side of that, labor capital, people, apparently don’t get protection, and I am wondering what we are doing to try to rectify that

very serious problem. One is a trafficking problem, another is that,

even if somebody is voluntarily or involuntarily en route.

And if one of you could tell us, if you would, how many foreign

nationals are working in Iraq.

So all of those questions. And I do have more, but I will wait.

Mr. GIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, when I talked about the 12 Nepalese

workers being killed, what we actually were able to do with that,

because there was no provision in the contracts, we actually, the

DOD IG had no authority to do any investigation. We did our data

searches through the U.S. military and the DOD contacts that we

had.

18

Short of that, I think that is actually what caused General Casey

to go ahead and do the extensive work that he did in ensuring

these clauses are in there.

So I think my answer to you would have to be that we really

weren’t able to do much, because it got outside the scope of what

we had the authority to do.

Ms. MCGINN. Mr. Chairman, on the subject of vetting the security of the third country nationals, I will take that and get back

to you instead of Colonel Boyles. I would probably be more appropriate, if that is okay.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 103.]

Ambassador MILLER. And I will get back to you with the issue

raised with the embassy. We have started inquiring on that in our

office, but our inquiry was not on the vetting of security; it was on

the fear of trafficking and the regulations that applied, so we will

expand our inquiry and get back to you.

If I could add just one comment that occurred to me. We are sitting here and there has been a lot of attention focused on trafficking into Iraq. And of course we have a special responsibility there,

but I think the members of the committee should understand also

the broader background.

This takes place against the background of the massive migration of literally millions of South Asians to the Gulf. There are a

million Filipinos in Saudi Arabia today, a million Indonesians, proportional numbers in all the Gulf states. They are there as construction workers or domestic workers.

And, as you will know in our report, many of the countries in the

Gulf got very low ratings. One last year, Saudi Arabia, United

Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Kuwait, I believe, all were tier

three. Several have moved up to tier two. Actually, Saudi Arabia

is still tier three. So there is a massive problem there, which

underlies the issue of to what extent there is forced labor in Iraq.

But as I said, of course, there is a special responsibility that the

United States has in Iraq.

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me just ask a question with regards to the

World Cup, which just brought a highlight to the fact that many

of us have been raising the issues with German parliamentarians

for years about legalized prostitution and the fact that to meet demand many Russians and Slavic women are being trafficked into

Germany.

Well, obviously, we have a large deployment of U.S. military deployed to Germany, and I am wondering, I mean, when we originally did our letter back in 2001, I remember arguing—not arguing, but having a conversation with Joseph Schmitz at the OIG, because we put in the word that we wanted the assessment to be

global. At first, the thought was limit it to South Korea and then

it was expanded under a dialogue between us that BosniaHerzegovina and Kosovo be included.

But Germany, it seems to me, has a very serious problem of trafficking plus prostitution, which now under the Uniform Code of

Military Justice, clearly, there is no fuzziness about the issue, is

an actionable offense.

19

And I am wondering, and I know that this report will be coming

out in August, I believe, what is the state, Mr. Gimble, of investigation as to how well or poorly we are implementing this zero tolerance in Germany, vis-a-vis our own military?

Mr. GIMBLE. Well, as we said earlier, the results are not final in

our latest evaluation; however, we did address those problems, as

it applies to the DOD operations over there. We interviewed numerous people, looked at other training plans and programs. There

are some plans and programs in place, training is over there. To

the extent that it is probably not as far along, as an example, as

Korea; however, I think I would like to get back to you with some

really specific data on that, but it is going to be when we issue that

report.

Mr. MCHUGH. Would anyone else like to take that, what is the

status of our military response on zero tolerance in Germany?

Ms. MCGINN. I think that Mr. Gimble is probably the most qualified person to answer that. Of course, our military forces in Germany are subject to the same direction as the rest of our forces,

the direction that the secretary and the deputy secretary gave, and

are subject to the same rules as our military forces elsewhere in

the world.

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Gimble, if I could, in your memo, dated April

14, you point out that there are no privities of contract between

DOD and the foreign companies allegedly guilty of these trafficking

practices. Therefore, the U.S. has no jurisdiction over the persons

or the offenses even if there are violations of U.S. or foreign law.

My question is, why can’t the foreign subcontractors be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA),

and why are you focusing on contract law rather than on criminal

law? Because it is my understanding that they can be prosecuted.

Mr. GIMBLE. You are talking about the memo we did for Dr.

Chu——

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes.

Mr. GIMBLE [continuing]. And when we did the 12 Nepalese.

What we were tasked to look at in that was what could we look—

there was no clauses in the contract, and these were not U.S. contracts. So we didn’t think we had the authority to go down into

those.

So far as prosecution, that probably should go back into the

local—the Iraqi government should be the one prosecuting the murders on that.

And it is kind of the same thing, as you recall, back in the Bosnia issue where they had the prostitution ring back in 2002 that

we had reported. Kind of the same issue there. We referred that

back to the local jurisdictions over there, and I am not sure whether they ever investigated or prosecuted or not, but those were—the

12 Nepalese we thought were a crime in the host country.

Had there been a connection to DOD contractor, then what we

might have been able to do is debar the contractor.

Mr. MCHUGH. But, again, one of the reasons why we, when we

originally wrote the law, had significant penalties up to life imprisonment, and of course there is always prosecutorial discretion. And

in this continental United States, U.S. attorneys have a checkered

record as to how well they are implementing the law. Some U.S.

20

attorneys have racked up one condition after another of traffickers.

My own U.S. attorney, Christopher Christie, has nailed a number

of traffickers and sent them away to prison for 15 to 20 years. If

we choose not to use the criminal side, it seems to me we are letting lie sallow a very, very important tool in prosecuting this effort.

So I would ask you, if you could, maybe, Ms. McGinn, you could

get back to us on that as well.

Mr. GIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to that?

Mr. MCHUGH. Sure.

Mr. GIMBLE. I believe what you are referring to refers to U.S.

citizens, and I don’t believe the people that they killed, the 12 Nepalese, were U.S. citizens; I believe they were Iraqi insurgents. I

could be wrong. But that is the reason we believe that in that particular instance we didn’t have any jurisdiction to look at it.

Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman.

Let me broaden the question my colleague asked. I heard your

response about Germany. Let me just put it generically, and I

would refer to Ms. McGinn.

Under the UCMJ provision, how many prosecutions for facilitation or access to prostitution have been undertaken?

Ms. MCGINN. I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr. MCHUGH. I am sorry?

Ms. MCGINN. I don’t know the answer to that. We don’t——

Mr. MCHUGH. Do you know of any?

Ms. MCGINN [continuing]. We don’t have a system right now to

collect that information specifically. That is something that we

want to put in place. And of course that took effect in October

2005, so it has been in effect for a limited time.

I do understand that there have been prosecutions in Korea

under the umbrella of trafficking in persons. I don’t know how

many of those would be prosecutions for patronizing a prostitution

or other kinds of offenses that would come under that umbrella.

But as of now, we don’t have a system where we can routinely collect the information, the prosecutions, or our Article 15 actions that

might be associated with the new UCMJ code.

Mr. MCHUGH. You looked at your colleague. I didn’t know if he

wanted to add or not.

Let me ask what I hope is the obvious: Are you working on that

system?

Ms. MCGINN. We will be putting that system in place, yes.

Mr. MCHUGH. When would you expect it to be in place?

Ms. MCGINN. I would expect that what we would want to do

would be to collect that data on an annual basis. And I am

hypothesizing now, sitting here, but it would seem like an annual

report. It would have to be a special report that the military services would send to us. And we would do it on an annual basis, either on a fiscal year or calendar year basis.

Mr. MCHUGH. Let me tell you why I am concerned about that,

again, perhaps to state the obvious. Several of you in responses,

and I don’t believe anybody took objection to this, talked to the

rather historical aspect of the nexus between prostitution and militaries throughout history, and I think we would be naive to suggest

that there isn’t some nexus historically with the United States

military in those kinds of activities.

21

If a very strong message of prosecution is not sent, I am concerned it will have the tree falls in the forest syndrome: If no one

is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If no one is prosecuted,

does anybody care? And to the rank and file military, if they are

not hearing about that, and I don’t see how they effectively do on

a service-wide basis without some kind of tracking that is effective

and disseminated, and that is why I would certainly encourage it.

Because there are two parts to this equation, it seems to me, and

the first part, listening to Ambassador Miller and others and doing

some of the background work, I think—I won’t speak for my colleagues—I think you have done a very, very good job. Whether it

is the UCMJ provisions, whether it is the provisions of prosecution

on contracting and the good colonel’s efforts that without getting

determination have had the correct outcome, that is great.

But the second part is the prosecutorial part of that that I think

is equally important, and a database, it seems to me, is essential.

So from my personal perspective, I certainly hope you would act

as expeditiously as possible in doing that. And I appreciate the forbearance of my colleagues, because I missed my turn as I was out

of the room, but I wanted to pose that.

And I would be happy to yield to the Personnel Subcommittee

distinguished ranking member, Dr. Snyder.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, if it is all right with you, I would

like to have Ms. Sanchez lead off the questioning on our side.

Mr. MCHUGH. The gentleman is perfectly within our rules and

practice to yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to the ranking member for allowing me to ask my

questions.

Ambassador Miller and others, the reality is that many of us

have been working on the issue of sex trafficking and human trafficking for quite a while now, and I congratulate in particular my

colleague from New Jersey who was very instrumental in putting

some of the laws in effect.

I have seen, as I have gone around to different countries, I have

seen the effect of them, whether it is when we were with Turkey

and the Turkish government brought up the issue and said, ‘‘This

is very important, we understand. We get graded on it now because

of the law that we passed in the year 2000.’’

Just recently, I was in Bosnia and Kosovo and I think it was

General Weber who went through a whole detailed report about

what they are doing with respect to really being a transit country

from the former Eastern Bloc and Soviet countries through to western Europe and what our armed forces are actually doing to help

in the civilian world, if you will, to stop some of this.

So I think we have seen some very positive effects because of the

interests that many of us have had.

There are just a couple of things that always continue to bother

me. One is something that was brought up in the June 6, 2006, article, again, by the Chicago Tribune, basically talking about the

trafficking in persons report and suggesting somehow that Iran

was among the 12 nations that we were singling out as worst on

the list. Also included in that Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela.

And that some strategically important nations that the White

22

House in particular are trying to work with, including India, Mexico, Russia and China, escape the roll call of being on the bad list,

even though there are indications, growing indications that they

have problems.

And I guess I have the largest Vietnamese population outside of

Vietnam in the world in Orange County, California. We have a

project, actually, a person trafficking project, domestic project

through State Department monies right in Orange County because

of what we see happening domestically.

And we are just worried, some of us, that if we were trying to

get Vietnam, or some are, through the World Trade Organization

(WTO) program, we are trying to open up. I read in the New York

Times or The Washington Post the last couple of days about how

some think we are trying to use Vietnam to, sort of, offset the importance of China in the region, et cetera.

I mean, how do we not know that you, State Department, really

are not focusing in places where the trafficking is really terrible,

given some of the White House concerns of trying to make strategic

allies? In other words, how do you counter what this story, and I

know that you have read it, says?

And in particular I think of all the work that we have been doing

with respect to the Vietnamese women being trafficked to Taiwan

and the work that Father Hung is doing and just the incredible

amount of trafficking for sex that we see out of that country, for

example.

Ambassador MILLER. Well, if you will look at our report on Vietnam, we go into the issues that you have cited, and we point out

where Vietnam has to do more, and we specifically mentioned the

bride selling and the sex trafficking. They have made some improvements in their export labor regulations, which we gave them

credit for, but they have to do more.

I think the other part of your question refers to the fact that

major countries in the world, I mean, some you might call allies,

some, I don’t know whether you call them allies or not, but major

countries in the world, Russia, China, India, Mexico, are in tier two

watch list, which is just above tier three, and they are there for—

all those countries I have mentioned they are there for at least the

second year. In some cases, it may be three years.

Ms. SANCHEZ. So what is the ramification of being second tier?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, that is the——

Ms. SANCHEZ. The true impact.

Ambassador MILLER. Well, the impact, I think what Congress intended, you created the tier two watch list, and I think that you

created the tier two watch list as a warning that a country, while

they were making some efforts and therefore they were in tier two,

they were in the very bottom of tier two, and that if they didn’t

increase their efforts and show appreciable progress, that they

would fall to tier three. That is what I interpret the meaning to be,

and Congressman Smith may want to elaborate more, as one of the

authors of that provision.

This is a serious concern. Those countries I have mentioned, and

some others, I believe this coming year have to take many more

significant steps than they have if they are going to avoid tier

three. We have put allies on tier three. We put Greece and Turkey

23

on tier three a couple of years ago. It had a very salutary effect.

In the four months after they were put on tier three, they did

amazing work, and as a result they could be raised without sanctions.

I did want to come back to Iran. People have speculated in articles, well, we have been at odds with Iran or we are negotiating

with Iran over nuclear issues. Our office, when we looked at Iran,

the thing that put Iran in tier three had nothing to do with what

I have just mentioned. It had to do with the fact that there were

credible reports that Iran was executing the victims of trafficking,

and the law that you have passed puts an emphasis on prosecution

and victim protection and specifically states that victims are not

supposed to be punished for acts they committed because they were

trafficked.

In the case of Iran, these were sex trafficking victims who then

were executed or imprisoned because they committed acts which

the Iranian government considered a violation of other laws,

whether it be prostitution, adultery or whatever.

I can’t think of another country in the world where there were

such reports of executing the victims. I think this is a perfectly justifiable and reasonable position to place Iran in tier three. I hope

this changes.

The purpose of this report, the purpose of the law you passed is

not to sanction; it is to get progress, I think, in throwing traffickers

in jail, in freeing and helping the victims. And that applies whether

it is in countries that are allies or enemies or friends or neutrals

or however you describe it. That is what I believe the purpose of

the law is.

It is a fact that countries that are undemocratic are more likely

than democratic countries to have huge challenges or to make less

efforts. I mean, it is not a shock that we find North Korea in tier

three. Yes, we have been at odds with North Korea, but this is a

country, this is a government that has had a massive problem not

only with slave labor within the country but the exporting of mainly women for sex trafficking purposes.

Ms. SANCHEZ. You have the same thing in Vietnam, and, you

know, we have a speaker who went to Vietnam and said, ‘‘Let’s

bring them into the WTO.’’

I mean, I guess I am asking——

Ambassador MILLER. Well, I don’t——

Ms. SANCHEZ. What is it that—if we care about this and we want

it to stop, aside from making them feel bad that they are put on

the list, what would you suggest would be the step? What is the

Congress—what could we be doing that we are not doing? Are we

missing something, not putting more keys to the lock?

Ambassador MILLER. No. I think the Congress’s role is to be vigilant, as you are now being vigilant in seeing that the law is applied

without fear or favor. If you believe Vietnam has been inaccurately

rated, bring this to our attention.

I don’t think whatever the problems are in Vietnam you can say

that they are the equivalent of North Korea’s. And the reason you

can’t say it is because in the law you very properly did not put the

emphasis just on the nature of the problem. You put the emphasis

on what governments are doing about it.

24

North Korea does zero about it. Vietnam does some things.

I think that was a legitimate decision on your part to put it on,

but what you can do about it, if you disagree with the ratings, you

bring this to our attention.

I was present at a meeting, it was after our report went to the

printer, and I think you may have been there, of Vietnamese refugee groups here on the Hill. We are trying to collect further information from them.

Second thing you can do, I think when you visit with government

officials, other government officials, whether it is in those countries

or their officials here, if you raise the issue of trafficking, this is

a tremendous help. Then they just don’t think, ‘‘Oh, this is something that the State Department Office on Trafficking or Ambassador Miller is concerned about.’’

And we would be happy, if you were meeting with officials of a

specific country or going there, to provide background or briefing

papers of specific issues that we want to see progress on. Because

all these countries that are in tier two watch lists and tier three

and even some that are in tier two, we are preparing right now

mini action plans so there is no misunderstanding next spring

about what we are looking at. In other words, ‘‘Here is what we

think we recommend you should be doing.’’

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Thank you for the time.

Mrs. DRAKE [presiding]. I would like to recognize the gentleman

from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I want to say, I don’t have the background of Mr. Smith or Ms.

Sanchez or anyone else. I am on the Armed Services Committee,

I am from North Carolina, and it is an area that I wish that I had

had more exposure to from the standpoint of learning. But thanks

to my friend, Mr. Smith and others, who have taken the lead on

this for a number of this. I voted with them.

To be a man of faith or even no matter what your faith is, this

is just absolutely deplorable and unacceptable, and I want to thank

each and every one of you at the table for what you bring to the

cause, if I can use the word ‘‘cause.’’

This is, in a way, as distressing as it might be, when I look at

what has been done by the Congress, again, Mr. Smith as well as

others, and what the administration is trying to do and previous

administrations, maybe there is hope in the world. We will never

see the end of it, but maybe we can make progress.

Colonel Boyles, I want to ask you, because before the bells, I

think, and I made some notes, and I hope I am correct, but the

question is this: When passports are being held by these contractors, do they lose the contract?

Is there anything in the contract, let’s say if it is in Iraq or some

old country, and these are foreign contractors, I would assume, the

majority of them, when you said that they hold the workers’ passports, what is the next step? When you are told or when the proper

person is told that this individual their passports are being held so

they are becoming slaves, so to speak, what is the next step by the

military, say, in an Iraq situation?

Colonel BOYLES. Yes, sir. Two things: One, we look at it this way,

it is an illegal act. It is not just a contract violation in terms of perVerDate 22-MAR-2001 07:57 Jun 15, 2007 Jkt 033587 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\109-90\172020.000 HNS1 PsN: HNS1
25

formance of a contract or something. There is legal basis to say

that, ‘‘You have now violated the law.’’ And so when you have that

situation, you can say, well, you can terminate a contract because

you are performing it illegally. Or what you can do is you can talk

to the base commander who has the authority then to bar people

or entities from a base because they are performing an illegal act.

So if for some reason you didn’t want to terminate or felt you

didn’t have an ability to terminate, you would work with the law

enforcement side to bar access to that contractor specifically if it

is an individual and maybe the remainder of the entity or the company is still performing but maybe they had the individual and

that person could be barred. Or you can terminate.

And we came close to terminating twice, sir.

Mr. JONES. Do you find when you meet with the contractor, the

proper authorities for the military, that there is a sincere willingness to try to change or is that just something that you cannot

read, that it does vary or there is a willingness to say, ‘‘I regret

what I have done and it will not happen’’—I mean, I am trying to

get a feel because I haven’t been there and I won’t be there, quite

frankly, but I am trying to get a feel for that contractor, because

he or she is making money. If they are being paid by the Federal

Government, they are being paid by the taxpayers.

Do you find that, generally speaking, when it is brought to their

attention, that is the end of it or do you still have to stay on top

of the situation because it is probably going to happen again?

Colonel BOYLES. You have to constantly stay on top of it, Congressman. You make a very good point. When I called a couple of

them into my office the first time, and the first time I heard there

were two contractors by name, I gave them a call and said, ‘‘Come

in,’’ they were, ‘‘Yes, yes, yes, we can understand,’’ but it was kind

of like pulling teeth to get them to give things back.

They had big concerns, they wanted to address them, and so we

took a two-pronged approach. It was, ‘‘You will return them,’’ and

‘‘Oh, we will talk.’’ Because some of the things they wanted to talk

about did raise valid issues for us—security situations, those types

of things.

This has been a practice—and I am like you, I got over there in

January where I started getting indoctrinated to this a little bit.

This has been a common, standard practice throughout the world

and the business community for a long time.

They are not changing because they think it is the right thing

to do right now, they are not changing because they have had an

epiphany that this is now something special. They are changing because they are being held accountable to it, because we have

threatened and they know that we will take action.

The voices that matter in Iraq have been very unequivocal in the

message they have gotten out in terms of—you know, when MNF–

I leadership basically says, cost is a factor, we know there could potentially be some impact to forces, but this is such a magnitude,

such an issue that we are willing to do that. These contractors then

finally get the message and they comply.

But, you know, if a guy is off doing business in, I don’t know,

pick a country, somewhere else, the chances are he is probably still

26

doing that as a method because that is kind of the way it is done,

in my opinion, sir.

Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, can I just ask one more question?

I will be quick.

I don’t want to dwell on this but I would like to know, and maybe

this would be anybody at the table, the training for our troops that

go into a foreign country and knowing that there are brothels, did

you say that in the training that those soldiers that would go into

a brothel at some point in time are told to ask questions about the

age of the individual? I misunderstood that?

Ambassador MILLER. No. What I was trying to say, and this is

where I think the Defense Department made a major step forward,

Congressman Jones, initially, the policy was zero tolerance on trafficking and the question was raised, is this enough, because how

does the soldier or sailor know in the brothel whether it is a trafficking victim?

There has been research done that shows the vast majority of

adults engaged in prostitution are not there of their free will; they

are trafficking victims. And all children under our law, under international protocol that are in prostitution are trafficking victims.

But it didn’t seem realistic to say the soldier or sailor should find

out whether they are—you know, that is just—and, of course, the

brothel owner and the pimp, they will have the ready answer.

And so the Defense Department addressed that issue by saying,

‘‘No, you don’t have to ask these questions. We are going to establish a policy that our forces, our troops, just don’t go into these

brothels and patronize prostitution. We are going to change the

military code of justice so that is punished.’’

So, I am sorry, I may have misspoken there.

Mr. JONES. No, you did not. I think I was so overwhelmed by the

information that was being given to us, I think probably I was just

really—I thank you for the clarification. I would imagine and was

hoping that what you shared with me was the fact that I misunderstood, and I am very pleased that you are doing this for the world,

I really am.

And God bless you and Chairman Smith at the same time and

all those in Congress who support your position and we will continue to support, and may God bless this world.

Ambassador MILLER. Congressman, I just want to say, if you go

abroad or even in the United States, I recommend, and I know

some members of this committee have already done this, but I recommend spending some time visiting with some survivors of trafficking, whether it is sex trafficking or labor trafficking, in a foreign country or this country.

I have had the opportunity to visit with people, survivors all over

the world. These are very moving experiences and it is very powerful, and I think you grasp what it is that somebody has suffered

physically and spiritually and mentally by being a victim, by being

imprisoned in a brothel or being, in essence, imprisoned in a factory or on a farm or as a child soldier or in a home.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

And thank you, Madam Chairman, for the time.

Mrs. DRAKE. The gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

27

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am on a fiveminute clock, folks, so I will ask quick questions and if you could

get right to the point on the answers.

I wanted to pursue this about the holding the passports, Colonel

Boyles, and, Mr. Gimble, if you want to join in.

I have worked overseas several times as a doctor and have

worked for folks, nonprofits, that held my passport while I was

there; I did not have it on me. And I think there are a couple reasons: Because theft was pretty high and sometimes we would lose

stuff, and it could be difficult to get a replacement in a timely way,

plus when it came time to arrange flights to go home, they had the

passport, it made it easier for them. That was all a good faith effort.

I assume that what is going on with these contractors is that if

a person does not have their own passport, they can’t go out and

go shop a little bit and find places with higher wages and say,

‘‘Hey, I am here in country and I am looking for a better job or I

am experienced at cooking at this place, so why don’t you hire me.’’

What does this whole issue of the holding of the passports say

about the people with whom we are contracting is my question? We

are talking about enforcing the contracts, but are we saying we are

dealing with a bunch of bad actors? I mean, should we be contracting with these people at all? What you are implying is that if they

comply with this aspect of the contract, they are good actors, but

is this a warning sign about the people we are dealing with, that

they are holding the passports?

Colonel BOYLES. You want to take that?

Ambassador MILLER. The colonel can give his perspective on

Iraq. This holding of the passports goes on all over the world. It

doesn’t mean that every employer that holds a passport is a trafficker. However, one can say that a common device of traffickers

that is almost used by traffickers is to hold the passport.

This gives them control. You are in a foreign country and your

papers are taken from you, you don’t know the language, it is very

potent. It can be a threat. We have your papers.

Dr. SNYDER. So, Mr. Ambassador, what does that say then about

the people we are dealing with? Are they bad actors? Are we dealing with bad actors?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, as I say, I can’t say that every employer that holds a passport is a trafficker, because they can come

up with all sorts of rationalization. But I can say that the overwhelming majority of traffickers use this technique.

Did you want to comment on this in Iraq?

Colonel BOYLES. You know, I would say that, again, it has been

a standard. From talking to the people that I have talked to, it is

a standard practice. It is the way to try to keep people from jumping their contract.

I would also say that, and I am sitting here trying to think of

the conversations I have had, because you make a good point about

some probably do hold for safety, but I never had a conversation

where holding for safety was the only reason. There was always—

I mean, I am trying to think of this, I have had conversations

where control was the only reason, but I have never had a conversation where, ‘‘I am holding it because the guy might lose it. Oh,

28

by the way, the doggone guy might jump over to Tamimi from Gulf

Coast, Incorporated.’’

Dr. SNYDER. So if I am hearing you all right, what you are saying

is, this practice is so common, while the purpose may be to hold

for control of the person so they won’t violate the contract, you

don’t consider the holding of the passport to be such a violation of

human standards as to warrant on its own canceling the contract.

Colonel BOYLES. I think that if there was a level of comfort that

you knew a contractor well enough and that he maybe has opened

up his books and let’s say he, in working with a base, had Iraq that

had 500 passports and there was a way for us to look at it and a

guy was a righteous kind of guy and everybody walks in, they could

get theirs back and forth, I would say holding it for safety is not

a bad idea. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I go back to there was never a conversation where safety

was the only reason. There was always a, ‘‘The guys are jumping.’’

It was always, ‘‘Okay, this guy is leaving, he is going over,’’ and

I have got to somehow disincentivize him from leaving my company, jumping my contract and going somewhere else.

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Boyles, I wanted to ask you one last question, a hypothetical. Let’s suppose you have a young E3 that he is

very much aware of the current UCMJ changes, patronizes a house

of prostitution, goes in the door and realizes right away that he has

walked into a place of young people, children, just a really bad

place; leaves and is now torn.

Is he going to be able to come and say, ‘‘Somebody needs to do

something about this place down the street because there are a

bunch of 12-year-old girls.’’ Or by coming to you under the law of

unintended consequences will he put his military career at risk because he will be acknowledging that he went into a place of prostitution?

What do we have for protections of folks that want to step forward and say, ‘‘We have got a really bad situation down the street,

outside the gate’’?

Colonel BOYLES. There are avenues for him to make that known

anonymously. There are ways for him to do that. And so if he

wanted and he went somewhere and he saw something that he felt

morally compelled to make somebody aware of it, and I talk hypothetically here because I can’t speak for anybody, but there are

methods and ways, and you probably know, DOD hotlines, those

types of things, that he could make that anonymously.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you.

Gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Ambassador Miller, in your written testimony, you referred to

the fact that there are persistent rumors of peacekeepers violating

their trust. I know not too long ago my wife came to me and said

she has seen a thing on television where the U.N. peacekeepers

were trading candy bars with starving kids for sex, boys and girls.

You know, we hear the arguments, in fact, I have sat through

hearings that Chairman Smith has had where the argument was

that we are in a war zone, these things happen. Well, things don’t

happen with pre-teen kids. I mean, that is a whole separate issue.

29

I guess, do we grade the U.N. in the same way that we do the

other——

Ambassador MILLER. Good question. First of all, before I get to

the question, it is not just a rumor about U.N. peacekeepers.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I understand that.

Ambassador MILLER. What has happened has been disgraceful.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right.

Ambassador MILLER. And the U.N.’s own investigation turned up

scores, and I think Chairman Smith commented on this, scores of

instances of child rape and trafficking. And so there is a concerted

effort to try to push the U.N. to do something now, not a year from

now, and Ambassador Bolton had a hearing on this a couple of

months ago.

Now, to your main question, do we grade the United Nations, we

don’t grade but thanks to your recent legislation that you approved

last December, you asked that we evaluate efforts by international

peacekeepers. So starting on page 277 of our report, we have several pages on the U.N. and then on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and then the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and we go into considerable detail about the

deficiencies of U.N. peacekeepers and what is needed to improve

the situation.

In fact, I think Chairman Smith is the author and probably

knows this better than I do, in your legislation you also said that

before authorizing further peacekeeping appropriations that the

secretary has to send a report on the international peacekeepers

and what they are doing on trafficking; is that right, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. Fifteen days prior to approving or reauthorizing an existing peacekeeping deployment or a new peacekeeping deployment, we need to be noticed as to what measures

are to be taken to mitigate trafficking to make sure that the people

who will be sent overseas or gathered from other countries and

sent to the hotspot are sufficiently vetted and trained.

So it doesn’t have a veto power on whether or not our original

version of the bill had such a thing that we would not provide

money to any peacekeeping operation unless those checks and security measures were there to protect against exploitation, but the

final version means we at least have to get a report on what measures are being taken by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or NATO or the United Nations.

Mr. BOOZMAN. When we have Americans present in these areas

and there are rumors or more than that, are the Americans

present, those in authority, do they have clear direction as to how

to handle this and convey that we are just not going to tolerate this

stuff?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, I believe that our military does, but

I have to point out that if you look at U.N. peacekeeping forces

throughout the world and they are like in 30, 40 countries and

thousands and thousands of troops, the number of Americans involved is very small.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, I understand that.

30

Ambassador MILLER. And I don’t think it is even mostly military

personnel. I may be wrong. I think the figure 294 pops into my

mind.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I understand that. I would feel better, though,

that if we have, and, again there are not many of them, but we

have got people in responsibility in those areas, if they know that

this kind of activity is going on, I would feel better if they have certain guidelines that they are supposed to do in regard to that activity so that it can’t be tolerated.

Ambassador MILLER. Well, I think that is a good point. You are

talking about reporting on any evidence that they see, and I don’t

know if any of my colleagues here want to comment. Do you——

Ms. MCGINN. We can certainly work with the State Department,

but we only have about 29 military people engaged in the world in

peacekeeping right now. So a very small percentage of the total

military population that is out there.

Mr. BOOZMAN. One final thing, if it is okay, can you give us any

advice on—again, Chairman Smith has worked very hard on this—

can you give us any other advice as far as holding them accountable? Anybody?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, it is easy to say we should do more,

and of course we should do more. I believe that the basic elements

of the law you passed are very good. Now, I have been working

with it. People can complain about it. Foreign governments say it

is too harsh or we are being subjective, et cetera, et cetera, et

cetera, but the law, I think, is very ingenious. It is the only human

rights related law that works this way.

It not only calls for this evaluation based on criteria that you lay

out in a lot of detail, basically prosecution, protection, prevention

criteria, it then directs that we engage with other countries on this

and the law also says we better engage at home too, and then

what, I think, is a brilliant provision is it says if you put a country

in tier three in the June report, they have three months to shape

up, because the purpose is not the sanction, it is the threat, embarrassment, all that. They have got three months to shape up, to take

some steps.

Then in September the President makes a decision, a recommendation to the secretary. If they have taken steps, they can

be raised out of tier three or then he can decide on sanctions that

relate to certain kinds of aid—military aid, educational cultural assistance, support at the World Bank and International Monetary

Fund (IMF). It excludes trade-related aid and humanitarian aid,

anti-trafficking in person aid. The President then makes a decision

whether or not the country still in tier three to apply the sanction,

if so, to what degree or waive it in the national interest.

In my experience, there has been a tremendous amount of

progress by governments who were put on tier three in June in the

following three months. The next day they denounced the report,

of course, but then steps are taken.

I could cite you examples from Turkey, from Greece, from Jamaica, from Bangladesh how countries changed. And I think even

countries that aren’t in tier three. Tier two watch list this year, the

congresswoman pointed out that some countries are still on tier

two watch lists and not in tier three, but the interesting thing is

31

most of the countries that were mentioned that were put on tier

two watch lists denounced the report. India, I mean, I have seen

the cables, they were not happy. And a lot of statements from countries in tier two watch lists.

So even with tier two watch lists, although there was no threat

of immediate sanction, it had an effect on these countries, and I

hope it will lead to action.

So you can always fine tune a law, right? I mean, last year, the

reauthorization was passed. By the way, I am glad to say this

was—I don’t know of any other major piece of legislation that had

such an impact that passed, was it, 426 to nothing. I mean, it

shows the broad, bipartisan support on this issue. It passed the

Senate unanimously. There are always ways that a statute can be

tweaked to do more, but the basic elements of the law, I think, are

very sound.

Now, individually, we can all do more. I can do more to push

other countries. You can raise the issue when you meet with foreign officials. The news media can do more reporting. Law enforcement can do more training. There is a lot more to do, because this

problem is still, unfortunately, with us, and every day we discover

more about it. Of course, we think, oh, it has grown larger in the

last year. I don’t think it has grown larger in the last year. I think

we are discovering it.

If you look at what has happened—and this is important to keep

in mind because you can despair on this issue. I will tell you, you

meet with survivors and you are ready to despair. But if you look,

as the chairman mentioned at the beginning, at some of the overall

indicators, there is reason for some hope.

Several years ago, there were just a few hundred worldwide convictions of traffickers. Last year’s report, we reported 3,000. This

year, 4,700. Now, let me tell you, that has got to be sending a message to some people. Our staff visits countries, I visit countries. We

haven’t kept the statistics on shelters, but I can tell you from firsthand experience, every month, more and more shelters for survivors are opening up.

Last year, 41 more countries passed anti-trafficking in person

legislation. The year before it was 39. You go back to the year the

United States passed this law, I don’t know the answer. Were there

two or three countries, Congressman Smith? I am not even sure

there were two or three countries passing laws at that time.

The media coverage is increasing worldwide, and of course that

leads to good things happening.

So would should be angry, we should be concerned, we have to

do more, we have to pressure, we have to push, but I think what

the Congress set in motion is starting to—we are starting to turn

the corner—starting.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Ambassador.

Gentlewoman from California, Ms. Davis.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here. I appreciate the opportunity, really,

to sit in on this meeting and to have a chance to look perhaps closer at home here for a second, if I may.

One of the things that you mentioned that is very important is

the sensitivity training to the troops, to our military, and I wanted

32

to ask who is giving that training? Is that the military that is giving that training, primarily?

Ms. MCGINN. The training is actually being—is available online.

Some of the training is done at Fort Benning where our folks process through to go over to deployment, but other people going overseas can take the training at their home station or wherever they

would like to take it, because it is available.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Have we invited in outside experts to

work with us and to do that training?

Ms. MCGINN. I think we work with the State Department on the

development of the training.

Ambassador MILLER. The Defense Department, yes, they invited

in a lot of experts on trafficking. We had people that had been

working on training that worked with them on this, and we work

with NGOs on this subject of developing training programs. I think

there has been a lot of outside input, but I can’t cite you chapter

and verse.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I am glad to hear that, and I will certainly be happy to go back and talk with some folks, because I have

had individuals come to me over the course of the last year and

even as recently as today in trying to inquire in preparing for this

panel, and there are organizations.

I represent San Diego and of course we have the border very

close to us and large numbers of military in the community. And

they have tried to, kind of, break through and have the opportunity

to do more training and to really partner to help in that effort, and

they have not been very successful in doing that. So I don’t know

whether that is just a unique example or what, but I certainly

would encourage that.

I think if we can work with those organizations that have a history of doing that and certainly do as you suggest, Ambassador,

having close contact with victims so that they can tell those stories

well to members in the military. It is one thing to train our own,

and I think that there is a consistency with that and I really appreciate that and I think we need to make sure it is consistent, but

on the other hand, I would hope that we would at least have a dialogue with groups that are working on these issues and are fully

immersed in it on a daily basis.

That would certainly, I would think, would be helpful, and, certainly, if anyone would like to comment on that, perhaps what we

are hearing is not as valid as what you are suggesting.

Ms. MCGINN. Well, we will certainly look at that as our training

evolves, and we are certainly happy to demonstrate the training for

you or any member of either of the committees that would like to

see it, and obviously we would seek to improve it where it would

need to be improved.

I do think that it very clearly tells the service member what to

watch out for, what the rules are, and when they encounter people

in any situation where they believe, what are the symptoms, if you

will, or what are the indications that this person might be a victim

of trafficking of some kind. But we would be happy to demo it for

you, if you would like.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Great. That would be wonderful.

33

I know that Congressman Snyder, I believe, asked earlier, somebody did, about prosecution within the military, and it sounded as

if we didn’t really have baseline data on that nor did we know how

many prosecutions had occurred.

And, again, I have a sense, anecdotally, that on our border that

has improved, certainly, over the years and in Tijuana area, but on

the other hand, if we don’t really have that data, if we are not really tracking it, if we are not getting good reports on it, then we have

no way of knowing.

And, certainly, there again are organizations in the community

which would tell you that that has not changed dramatically since

the changes to UCMJ. Again, I don’t have personal knowledge of

that, and I have a sense that it has improved but they are suggesting that it hasn’t.

How can we track that? How can we begin to really know for

sure whether there have been changes and whether they are positive ones?

Ms. MCGINN. I think that is something that we have to do and

particularly around the new provision for patronizing a prostitute.

The tracking of the data gets complicated by the fact that there

are many different articles of the UCMJ that one can use to prosecute trafficking in persons. I have a scenario here that describes

how you might apply the UCMJ to a particular hypothetical case

that we developed, which we would be happy to give you or provide

for the record for the committee, but for this one scenario I think

there were 14 different provisions under which the person could be

prosecuted.

So what we are going to have to do is determine exactly the constellation of data that we want to collect as well as the data on patronizing a prostitute. And so it is probably not going to be as simple as—I made it sound like, yes, we are going to set up a system,

but we do need to track it, I think. In addition to sending a message to the force, it also sends an additional message that this is

important to us because we want to watch it.

Can I just take a moment to highlight something that my good

colleague has, in response to the question that Congressman Jones

had, there is a DOD hotline for people to report trafficking and an

e-mail that they can send the reports to. I just wanted the committee to be aware.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 104.]

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you.

And, Madam Chair, very quickly, just, again, a question to look

into: Are we training the new National Guard at the border in this

regard as well? Do we do that with our border agents also, and do

we know for sure whether they would be receiving that kind of

training?

Ms. MCGINN. Well, right now our training is for folks who are

going overseas. We do have a plan to try to extend the training to

all of our forces, because this is a domestic issue as well as an overseas issue, and we think it would be important for everyone to be

aware of this incredibly ugly thing that happens in our country.

But right now, unless they are going overseas, they do not receive

the mandatory training.

34

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Thank you.

Mrs. DRAKE. Ms. McGinn, to follow up on that, since Mexico is

on the tier two watch list, I would assume our Border Patrol are

also trained. I mean, you are from DOD. All of you are really referencing DOD questions. So is that a fair assumption or something

that we need to work on right away about Border Patrol?

Ms. MCGINN. I think I need to get back to you on that? I am not

really aware——

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 107.]

Mrs. DRAKE. All right. And I know you were going to get us data

too on the prosecution.

Ambassador Miller, do you know the answer to that? Do we train

our Border Patrol?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, I believe that the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) does have training for their personnel on

the border. I can’t tell you firsthand the quality of the training or

the extent. I would be happy to try to get back to you on that.

Mrs. DRAKE. And just one statement I want to make before I

turn back to Congressman Smith, and that is, I think you are exactly right, that there is much better publicity about this issue, the

press has picked up on it, the movies that we have seen. I still

wish we could find a way to make it more public what the countries are on the tier two watch and on tier three, because I personally have vacationed in Venezuela and Belize, and I would have

never done that had I known they were on tier three.

And I think these countries listen to money, so when Congress

put restrictions on foreign aid, that meant something to them. If

they know people are not going to travel to their nations because

of the way they deal with this issue, I think that would also help

us. I know I would never go, and I wouldn’t let my husband go either. He is not going.

Ambassador MILLER. That is an interesting comment because

there is no question this report gets more attention and publicity

and abroad than at home.

Mrs. DRAKE. But the average person, because I have told many

people about the Congressional delegation (CODEL) that I went on,

most people I talk to have never heard of it before. They react to

it instantly, just like Congressman Jones did a few minutes ago.

They are so appalled, they can’t believe such a thing exists. And

they really react. So if we could find a way to make that, just those

two, tier two watch and tier three, I think we would go a long way

in getting their attention and them not wanting to be on one of

those two lists.

Congressman Smith, I will turn it over to you.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for yielding, Madam Chair.

Let me just ask some final questions, if I could. The training in

the Navy and Marines, I have seen the training module, I think it

is a good one.

My first question is, is that also being implemented within the

Army and the Air Force?

Ms. MCGINN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Same, identical?

Ms. MCGINN. Yes.

35

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Second, let me just ask with regards to the

language that was contained in the 2007 act, the report language,

and you might recall, and I will just reiterate it, report language

directed the secretary of defense to ensure that combatant commanders designate a person on their respective staffs to carry out

anti-trafficking programs and oversee implementation of OSD antitrafficking directives.

It also directed training for military criminal investigators and

prosecutors regarding trafficking in persons, and I wonder if you

can give us an update where you are in terms of implementing

both the spirit and letter of that language, and how high of an officer are we talking about? I mean, it would seem to me that just

like personnel has policy and if you don’t have a sufficient number

of people dedicated to a task, it speaks volumes about your interest

or lack thereof with regards to that issue, and same goes in terms

of rank.

How high of a rank will that person be, he or she?

Ms. MCGINN. Well, the combatant commanders now have appointed somebody with the responsibility for this, and I don’t know

exactly what rank they have designated. I would assume it would

be an officer.

And in terms of the training for criminal investigators, we are

doing a training module for criminal investigators. We think we

will be ready to deploy that in October.

Mr. SMITH. So, again, each combatant commander does have

a——

Ms. MCGINN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Could you get back to us with some details of what

that looks like, what the rank is?

Ms. MCGINN. Sure.

[The information referred can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 107.]

Mr. SMITH. How well trained and how well motivated. I mean,

if it is part of their larger portfolio, and we often see this with

human rights officers, in very large countries who have portfolios

that include other things and that is like their part-time job, it

seems to me that this needs to be, if we are going to be serious

about it, a more singular focus.

Ms. MCGINN. I also understand that the IG in each combatant

command has made this topic a special topic of interest for someone on their staff as well.

Mr. SMITH. Okay.

Mr. GIMBLE. Yes, that is correct.

I would like to just put out a point back to Representative

Drake’s question about reserves. Just as an example, there is an

Air Force—we have a thing where Air Force Reserve units and National Guard, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units have

timelines for TIP training to be completed all in 2006.

Now, there is some little holes in that. There are the ones that

are deploying that the combantant commanders (COCOM) request

the training be executed before deployment. So we may have some

people getting double training, but it is basically being done

through the day-by-day (DBDs) being sent out to the reserve and

guard units, at least in the Air Force.

36

Mr. SMITH. Can I just ask you generally on that again, because

I have noticed ‘‘deployment’’ is one of the terms used. That is when

this training seems to kick in. We have tried to convey to the military, and maybe it is being done, that the training needs to be done

really at the point of maybe not basic training but certainly early

on in the training, and it needs to be reinforced over and over

again if we are going to take it seriously.

I mean, I would argue it is not just the exploitation of women,

which is in and of itself clearly enough to justify every bit of this,

but there are also force protection issues, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and a myriad of other diseases that can incapacitate

a unit. And we know that many of the units, as we try to muster

African peacekeepers, there was a real problem with battalions not

having sufficient soldiers because of HIV/AIDS. That is a real problem vis-a-vis Darfur.

So there are a whole host of issues. The exploitation issue clearly

is enough.

So my question is—and I would just parenthetically, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2005 contained a brand new initiative

on domestic trafficking. We know that upwards of 17,500 people

are trafficked into the U.S. from abroad every year, but we also

know that many of our own girls and young women, many of them

runaways, are being trafficked. We don’t know the number. We call

for analysis to get a better prevalence number.

But we know that anecdotally there are many women that are

being trafficked domestically, being picked up at malls, being

picked up on day or two that they have run away from home. They

are drugged, they are carted to different places, including military

bases, again, being a magnet for that kind of activity.

And I am wondering what kind of training has been initiated to

ensure that at our new joint base in New Jersey or Camp Lejeune

or any other military installation so that those soldiers in like manner are adequately trained, know what to look for. Because, again,

there is a duty to protect that we all have. The military has it, civilians have it, and these women are vulnerable as the day is long.

And as Ambassador Miller will tell you, from our work we have

discovered and from our hearings, from just meeting women, young

girls and young women who are seemingly voluntary prostitutes,

you find out that very often almost in every case they have been

raped, they have been the victim of incest as a young girl. These

are not the happy hooker myths. These are women who are dysfunctional and then they are exploited secondarily by these pimps

and others.

So the training domestically, is that there?

Ms. MCGINN. I think, as I said earlier, we are planning to expand our training to all of our forces, whether they are domestic

or they are deployed or sent overseas.

Mr. SMITH. When?

Ms. MCGINN. We haven’t done that yet. I don’t have a timeline

on that yet.

Mr. SMITH. Could you get back with us as to when?

Ms. MCGINN. Okay.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 107.]

37

Mr. SMITH. Because delay is denial, especially when it comes to

these exploited women.

Ms. MCGINN. Right, right. But we are trying to publish our next

two modules, which are the commander modules and the law enforcement modules. We are trying to push those out the door here

quickly.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Colonel Boyles, if I could ask you, you know, one of the things

that I do is I travel, and I do a lot of human rights traveling

around the globe. I always meet with defense ministers if they will

meet with me, and while we often talk issues related to security

matters, I bring trafficking—as a matter of fact, I have brought

General LaPorte’s training manual and given it to foreign ministers in several countries, because I think it is a good job and I

think we probably have even more that we could be giving out but

that is what I have been doing.

My question is with regard to military to military. Within the

last few months, I have met with two defense ministries, two different continents, one of whom practically laughed at me when I

raised the issue of trafficking and exploitation of women as if boys

will be boys.

And let me note parenthetically, when we were pushing NATO

to adopt a zero tolerance policy my wife, Maureen Walsh, Dorothy

Taft, who is the deputy chief of staff of the Helsinki Commission

and others who were with us on that trip, first went to trafficking

shelters in Greece and not only met with the Greek government

but went to shelters where Russian and other women were the

lucky ones; they had been rescued. And they told stories about how

soldiers, especially sailors, had abused them.

So our next trip was to Brussels. We met with top military leaders there. And most of them seemed to be sympathetic. One particular admiral, like this defense minister, practically laughed and

said, ‘‘What do my guys do when they get off their ship in Athens?’’

I said, ‘‘Well, funny you mentioned that. We just left a shelter

where a Russian woman had just been reunited with her two

daughters, had been trafficked for two years in a brothel frequently

visited by military personnel. She didn’t say American, she just

said military. And here is one of the lucky ones but a broken

woman if ever there was one.

So we obviously conveyed that back, I did, to the admiral and

said, ‘‘This is the end use, the end exploitation.’’

My question is, defense people listen more with a more open ear

to other defense individuals, and maybe, Ms. McGinn, you might

want to touch on this as well. Politicians, statesmen, whatever you

might want to call us up here, we can be dismissed when we are

talking to bureaucrats, particularly in the military, rather easily,

particularly abroad.

But when our military raises it, and I would ask that it be included in the record, Paul Wolfowitz’s memo and Donald Rumsfeld’s record, which are excellent statements of policy. I mean,

these are so well-written and they articulate what America is all

about. But it has to be a consistent message, and it has to be articulated, I would say, with all due respect, from the highest levels

38

over and over again if we are going to have militaries that respect

women and cease their exploitation.

What would be your thoughts on how our military can be much

more proactive so that when uniform to uniform they are meeting

this isn’t some asterisk somewhere that is brought up by a lowerlevel person, if it is brought up at all, but it becomes part of a serious dialogue?

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Ms. MCGINN. Well, we do obviously do military-to-military meetings.

Mr. SMITH. On trafficking?

Ms. MCGINN. No, not on trafficking but in general. I mean, we

do military-to-military meetings. I doubt that this has ever been

raised in that context. I can certainly go back and raise the issue

with our under secretary for policy who are people who are kind

of our version of the State Department that works with other countries. I can take that thought back.

Mr. SMITH. I would deeply appreciate that, because one of the defense ministers I met with in the last couple months took the manual and especially since it had the imprimatur, if you will, of the

United States government, that we saw it as a best practice, he

took it and thought it was something he would want to look into

with regards to his own military.

So I thank you for taking that back, and I look forward to working with you on that.

Colonel Boyles, if I could just ask you a couple of questions, then

I will be done. You mentioned a moment ago about the holding of

the passports, and I think the record should be very clear that this

isn’t some benign action taken by someone. It is usually part of a

long series of actions that have been taken, starting with the recruitment of that person in the first place, usually a defrauding recruitment that included the defrauding and then maybe the inhumane transit to get to the point where they might not even get

what they are told they are going to get.

We have a hard time in the United States, as you know, verifying wage and hour with illegal aliens, and it seems to me when you

are talking about a subcontractor where there is minimum oversight, whether or not that person gets what they have been told in

advance they are going to get is very, very unlikely, which, again,

would fit into a labor trafficking definition.

So I wondered if you might want to touch on that a little bit as

to what kind of verifications are we looking for? I mean, my numbers are, and correct me if I am wrong, 35,000 and 48,000 people

are non-Americans working in Iraq under U.S. funding. I mean,

that is a significant number of people.

Colonel BOYLES. Mr. Chairman, certainly there is this process

from day one to the time somebody shows up at a camp. I can’t talk

the whole process. I think, though, that the point you make goes

back to the enforcement I was talking about.

When we have contracts that are out there, and go back to things

that we did in terms of putting it in our contracts, making sure

that the employees have copies of their employment contract that

talks about their compensation and everything, when we teach our

CORs, which, again, are contracting officer representatives, people

39

not in the units, that unit has a contract, they have a COR. We

train them in contracting, because they are our extension. I am a

warranted contracting officer, I can’t be everywhere.

So I would need, I would think, to be adding this to our COR

training that might say on a periodic basis, all your contracts, go

out and talk to five or ten, pick a number, TCNs, look at their employment contract. Do they have it? That is a violation now if they

don’t. If they do have it, are they actually getting that, and then

take action if they are not.

So I believe there are mechanisms in place that the people and

the titles of the people to do certain types of things are there. It

is adding this now to their training, because these people are already out there validating delivery, validating quality. Now they

would be validating certain types of TIP provisions in the contracts.

If that answers your question, sir.

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. And I would hope that you

wouldn’t be shy about using the penalty phase to get the attention

of those others as well as the offending contracts.

Colonel BOYLES. I can tell you in Iraq, sir, there is no one shy

on this topic, on contractors.

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that and respect that.

Are you aware if Daoud and Partners and Bisharat and Partners, the two Jordanian subcontractors involved in the episode described in the Chicago Tribune, are still working under a low gap

or are receiving U.S. funding, directly or indirectly, or in any other

capacity? Obviously, one of those was involved with the Nepalese

men, the 12 of them.

Colonel BOYLES. Sir, I don’t have information on that. I imagine

it is something we could take for the record with the name and talk

to the——

Mr. SMITH. Would you get back and find out——

Colonel BOYLES. Sure.

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. And get back to the subcommittee and

whether or not you plan any action?

And I mentioned it before, maybe you answered and I am sorry

if I missed it, but in terms of obviously we provide protections for

commodities as they are sent; you don’t want commodities being

stolen. But the people, the laborer, what do we tell our contractors

or subs as to what measures should be taken to ensure that their

transit is safer?

Obviously, Iraq, as we know from everyday news accounts, is an

extremely unsafe place, but obviously there are routes and there

are ways that could be taken to mitigate at least some of that danger. Is that something that is on our agenda?

Colonel BOYLES. I would say that the answer to the question is

better focused on our force protection people. What I know from my

experience that I was quite surprised from the article when it

talked about a couple guys jumping into some SUVs and they kind

of traipse along the way on the Baghdad to Ahman road.

Because the conversations I have with contractors deal with

issues of border crossings and visas and trying to get these types

of people in with badging and MNF–I badges and there are issues

to work, which leads me to believe they are part and parcel of a

convoy coming in or they are on a C130 or they are flying up in

40

a Blackhawk or something. Certainly, it happens, I am hearing

that, but I wouldn’t want you to think that all TCNs are coming

in unprotected.

Mr. SMITH. Could you describe the investigation or investigations

done following the publication of the Chicago Tribune article? I

mean, I think you have done that, I think, to some extent, but the

real question is, was there any knowledge that American contractors or members of the military had knowledge of the trafficking

that was taking place by the subcontractors?

Because it seemed to me those articles really had a major impact

triggering many of the corrective actions that are being taken, not

unlike what Tom Merriman did when he broke the news to us

about what was going on in South Korea.

Colonel BOYLES. I know that in the course of the investigation,

and I have not been privy to the final full report, I have dialogue

with the inspector general, and I take action based on those pieces

of information he gives me. But I do understand that they have

gone out and they had talked to about 850 TCNs as their population for their investigation. Before the investigation was complete, I explained that the IG told me of two that they definitely

found out. I called them in and so took action even before the final

report was published. Because what we found out, we reacted.

So by inference, too, you can say that if we have an investigation

and we went out and had to tell everybody that most of them probably did know because they are probably doing it, and a lot of contractors turned passports back to TCNs.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask, again, one final question. Currently,

no one person at DOD has the overall responsibility for coordinating DOD’s response to trafficking. Is that something—I mean, earlier we had suggested that an assistant secretary be established,

the purpose of which would be to take this to a new level. Obviously, there are other modes or methods or approaches that could

achieve the same aim.

It was argued back to us that combatant commanders might

even be more effective.

My question to you is, is there a need, and this could be done

administratively, it doesn’t take legislation, to designate an office

or a person or persons in addition to the work you are doing to

really honcho this, especially since we are on such a learning curve.

I mean, there is so much that is not known. Very often until I met

some trafficking victims in the mid–1990’s after the break of the

Soviet Union, I was unaware of it, and it has been around, I am

sure, for a long, long time, certainly not to the degree that it is

today.

Ms. MCGINN. Well, the way we manage it now within the Department of Defense, and I am pretty impressed, actually, by the

way our response is matrixed, we have an individual who works for

us, Mr. John Autry, who is the honcho for it. He has colleagues

with the IG, with Acquisition, Technology and Logistics for the contracting piece of this and with the Readiness and Training Division, and they all work very hard on this topic together. And of

course their overall effort is coordinated under our under secretary

for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu.

41

I don’t know if the question so much is a formalized structure.

We have been thinking that there might be a need to augment the

resources that we have toward this program so we can get some

of these things done more quickly, get the data system out there

and the like, and that is something that we will be looking at.

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that whatever the resources are necessary that you would, and if you need more, certainly let the Congress know and we will fight for them.

I do have one final question, Madam Chair, and you have been

most gracious with the time.

The 2005 act, Ambassador Miller, as you know, requires the

study of best practices in a report, including proposed recommendations, which would be due in July of 2006. For those who are in

vulnerable populations, whether it be because of disaster or war,

I wonder if that is well along and will be available, I should say,

at the appropriate time, because obviously DOD has to be a part

of that.

Ambassador MILLER. Well, thank you for the reminder. I understand that the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) is taking the lead on this, but I will check further.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you.

And I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses, all four

of you, for your work on this extremely vital human rights issue,

for your service to the country, and it is a privilege to have you

here. Thank you.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mrs. Davis does have a few additional questions.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much.

And just very quickly, I know, Colonel Boyles, you have certainly

spoken strongly about the importance of prosecution as it relates

to contract termination. What relationship, though, I guess what

authority, really, does DOD have in relationship to some of those

issues, and how closely do you work with the State Department to

do that?

We, actually, on our services have been talking a lot about interagency coordination, and I am wondering in this particular regard

how would you characterize that as it relates to trafficking?

Colonel BOYLES. I have never dealt with the State Department,

not that I wouldn’t, but as a contracting officer dealing with my

contracts, there is some interpretation and there is some reaching,

to some degree. If something is a little bit cloudy, you have to kind

of make a call. If I was taking an issue here—well, I will be quite

straightforward, this is a big topic and I might reach a little bit or

I might bring someone in and kind of call them to task and say,

‘‘Here is what I am going to do.’’ Some of the legal guys might go,

‘‘Okay, we are kind of on the edge,’’ but, you know what, you have

got to work on the edge.

And so there is always—it may be tenuous but there is a link

between performance, contract performance, and not everything is

the delivery of a product or the delivery of a service. It is adherence

to the United States laws and even if you are a contractor that is

not a U.S. contractor, we are paying the bill and we flow those requirements down and we expect you to adhere to that. And if I

have to take, and I have, a strong approach that is a little bit tenuous, you take it.

42

Now, I don’t work with the State Department, because these are

my contracts that we had written and everything, but there was

really no need to. I don’t know if that helps you or answers your

question.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Did you want to respond, Mr. Ambassador? No?

Ambassador MILLER. Well, we are working together right now.

[Laughter.]

But the main way that Defense and State work together is

through two vehicles. In your legislation, you established a Presidential task force on trafficking where the cabinet officers get together. That met earlier this week.

And then you established a senior policy operating group that I

chair that has all the major agencies represented, including Defense. And that meets several times a year and we discuss interagency issues and how we can better cooperate. We are not involved in, obviously, as the colonel said, in reviewing contracts, nor

should we be, but we do try to cooperate on trafficking here.

I think we recognize that both the Congress and the President

has made this a top priority, and in your legislation you have

called on us to cooperate, to plan together, to coordinate, and of

course this is all, in a way, relatively new. This has all happened

in the last several years with this growing awareness, and so I am

sure we can improve cooperation and coordination.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. Appreciate you

all being here.

Mrs. DRAKE. To follow up on that for a moment, Mrs. McGinn,

can you tell us, once DOD identifies, say, it is a contractor or whoever it is, how does that work with turning it over to Department

of Justice or to State Department? What is the process there? I

mean, he has done his job, he has found them. Then what?

Ms. MCGINN. And if it is a case that is going to be prosecuted

perhaps under the MEJA provision, then combatant command having done the investigation and substantiated it, we will notify our

general counsel. Our general counsel notifies the Department of

Justice and the Department of Justice notifies the U.S. attorney in

the area which would have purview over the case. Could be the residence of the individual or something like that. And then the U.S.

attorney makes the decision whether or not to prosecute.

We do have an area of partnership we are just embarking on, the

State Department, concerning the provisions of MEJA, which our

joint briefing team, State Department and our combatant commands, are going to go out to the host countries and explain the

provisions of MEJA and how that might operate in their countries

so that it will be transparent to them when we want to send someone to the United States, for example. And I think that is about

to kick off here shortly.

Mrs. DRAKE. So that is just getting started if it is a foreign national or foreign company.

Ms. MCGINN. Yes.

Mrs. DRAKE. On the other side of that question, and this will be

my last one, we really do appreciate your time and your information, what happens to the victim? You have been successful, you

have broken up a trafficking ring, what about the victims that you

43

identify? Does the U.S. take them back to their original country?

Are they turned over to the country that they are in, just to make

sure that they are handled properly and they get back home.

Can anyone address that? What happens to the victim or victims?

Ms. MCGINN. It is my understanding that there are victim support organizations, and I look to Ambassador Miller. I thought they

were located throughout the world that can help the victims.

Ambassador MILLER. I don’t know what happens specifically in

Iraq if a case is discovered, but I will tell you, as you know, Congressman Drake, as you have traveled and talked with many victims, there are very few countries in the world today that don’t

have NGOs providing services. And we encourage—our policy is to

encourage governments and all the elements in our industry,

whether military or Justice or whatever, to try to use those services and help see that victims are directed to those services.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Ambassador, and I know we will be

talking more again. Thank you. It is encouraging to hear what you

are doing, because it was something I didn’t know.

I just would like to add that, without objection, we will submit

the three letters—one from Mr. Wolfowitz, one from Secretary

Rumsfeld and one from Secretary Chu—into the record.

So thank you again, and we look forward to talking to you more.

Thank you.

[The information referred can be found in the Appendix on pages

97, 98, 99.]

Ambassador MILLER. Thank you.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Ambassador.

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 21, 2006

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 21, 2006

(49)

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 21, 2006

(81)

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

JUNE 21, 2006

(103)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCHUGH

Mr. MCHUGH. It would seem to me, and I would ask the ambassador as well, my

understanding is that there is some $600 million being let for the new embassy.

About 1,000 foreign nationals are working on that project, and I could be off on that

number, and correct me if I am wrong. And I am wondering, you know, I remember

when we went through the debacle in our Soviet embassy, it had to do with a different threat and that was the bugging of the embassy. It seems to me that if we

don’t properly vet who it is that is in and around U.S. military and Foreign Service

officers and the like, we put them at risk. I mean, this is a deep concern of mine,

and I think many of my colleagues, that they be properly vetted.

Ambassador MILLER. In October 2004, the United States and Iraqi Ministry of

Foreign Affairs signed an agreement related to diplomatic and consular property.

The accord included transfer to the United States of title to a site for the new American Embassy compound.

At that time, the Department’s Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) identified

104-acres adjacent to the Tigris River in the Green Zone for location and construction of the new U.S. embassy compound.

In the month that followed, Congress authorized $592 million (P.L. 109–13) for

construction of the new embassy compound, later appropriating this amount in the

FY2005 emergency supplemental funding request (P.L. 109–13). Completion of the

embassy is expected by the end of the 2007 summer, according to OBO.

Most of the funding is supporting the contract of a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti

Trading & Contracting (FKTC)—the largest of seven contractors working on the 21-

building project. FKTC, which bills itself as the ‘‘Prime Contractor for the US Department of State, pre-qualified for the design and construction of the US Embassy

in Baghdad, Iraq,’’ houses and employs approximately 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers

on site.

However, a recent article has come to our attention, containing allegations of

human trafficking related to FKTC’s portion of the construction project. Because of

the gravity of this issue, I have directed my office to follow up with the former employees who made the allegations. I have also forwarded all information concerning

these allegations to General Charles Williams, Director of OBO, the State Department Inspector General, and other relevant Department Officials.

Mr. MCHUGH. It would seem to me, and I would ask the ambassador as well, my

understanding is that there is some $600 million being let for the new embassy.

About 1,000 foreign nationals are working on that project, and I could be off on that

number, and correct me if I am wrong.

And I am wondering, you know, I remember when we went through the debacle

in our Soviet embassy, it had to do with a different threat and that was the bugging

of the embassy. It seems to me that if we don’t properly vet who it is that is in

and around U.S. military and Foreign Service officers and the like, we put them at

risk. I mean, this is a deep concern of mine, and I think many of my colleagues,

that they be properly vetted.

And, you know, there are contractors, I know that Bisharat and Partners Group,

which didn’t provide any significant security for the overland trip, according to Mr.

Gimble’s statement, and they, as we all know, lost their lives.

And I would ask you, in addition to those questions, what your take would be on

this and also on the fact that any shipment of goods that are brought in get significant protection. The other side of that, labor capital, people, apparently don’t get

protection, and I am wondering what we are doing to try to rectify that very serious

problem. One is a trafficking problem, another is that, even if somebody is voluntarily or involuntarily en route.

And if one of you could tell us, if you would, how many foreign nationals are

working in Iraq.

Ms. MCGINN. Mr. Chairman, on the subject of vetting the security of the third

country nationals working on Department of Defense contracts in Iraq, the following

information is provided from Headquarters Multi-National Force—Iraq on the locally employed person screening program.

104

In December 2004, a suicide bomber at the Marez dining facility killed 22 and

injured 60. In response to the bombing, the Secretary of Defense directed the establishment of locally employed person screening cells on Multi-National Force—Iraq

installations. Based on a contract, 12 locally employed person cells are currently

screening on Coalition Forward Operating Bases throughout the Iraqi theater of operations. From January to December 2006: locally employed person cells granted

forward operating base access to 66,111 individuals, 1,137 individuals were denied

access, and 2,259 individuals were referred to counter intelligence teams.

The locally employed person screening program consists of a network of geographically based screening cells, which provide force protection support to MultiNational Force - Iraq forward operating bases. The purpose of the locally employed

person screening program is to mitigate the risk associated with the employment

of local nationals and third country nationals, and to maintain an accurate and current biometrics database of all local nationals and third country nationals. The locally employed person cells also collect perishable force protection information and

identify possible leads for exploitation by counter intelligence teams.

The locally employed person screening process consists of two parts: enrollment

in the Biometric Automated Toolset or the Biometric Identification System for Access and screening. Biometric Automated Toolset and Biometric Identification System for Access enrollment consists of biographic textual data entry, a fingerprint

scan, an iris scan, and a photograph. The screening process consists of a one-hour

biographical interview and a one-hour screening interview.

The mandatory minimum standard for the issuance of a badge is enrollment in

the Biometric Identification System Access and/or the Biometric Automated Toolset,

and a check of the applicants Biometric Identification System Access or Biometric

Automated Toolset dossier to ensure no prior derogatory information exists. The following high-threat categories required screening prior to badge issuance: Category

1 linguists, local nationals with unescorted access to the base, any local national

that works at an installation Entry Control Point, third country nationals from

countries that are on the Department of State list for State Sponsors of Terrorism

and third country nationals residing off base.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. DAVIS. This means that in terms of tracking data on trafficking in persons,

we will have to key on certain offenses and then analyze those cases to determine

if the individual was involved in trafficking.

Hypothetical Trafficking In Persons Scenario

‘‘A soldier lives off base. He is married to a foreign national. Relations of the wife

are involved in several criminal enterprises, to include trafficking in persons.

Through his wife, and her relations, he becomes involved in trafficking in persons.

Under the guise of ‘‘his wife’s relations staying with him and his wife, while they

get settled into the community,’’ the soldier buys women and holds them in house.

Through his wife’s family, he rents the women to local prostitution rings where they

are forced or coerced into committing various sexual acts. The women are held by

force, to include physical intimidation (beatings and rape), threats of violence to their

families, and threats of deportation. As a part of the criminal enterprise cycle, he

then sells the women to other traffickers, buying new women to take their place.

His wife’s family human trafficking operation is busted by local law enforcement.

He is caught by local authorities in the round up. The local authorities hand him

back to his military command for prosecution.’’

What Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) offenses would we use to charge

him?

Ms. MCGINN. Under the UCMJ, each act can be charged as a separate count

(UCMJ charge and specification) and the maximum punishment is the sum of all

the maximum punishments of the convicted charges and specifications. Under the

UCMJ, unlike civilian jurisdictions, the accused are not sentenced by individual or

specific count and, therefore, there is no authority to have separate sentences to

confinement in a court-martial that would be served concurrently. Also, courtmartials do not have authority to issue a suspended sentence.

The soldier’s acts, being in concert with the family members, who hold and rent

the women to prostitution rings, will subject the soldier to UCMJ charges of being

a Principal (Article 77, UCMJ) in the family members’ crimes by ‘‘aiding and abetting’’ them, and being part of a conspiracy to commit the assortment of crimes the

co-conspirator family members commit, as well as the crimes committed by the coconspirator persons engaged in the prosecution rings. Conspiracy is a crime under

105

Article 134, UCMJ, and the soldier is subject to whatever crimes his co-conspirators

engage in and the same punishment his co-conspirators would face.

In addition, he would be subject to any crimes he commits himself as perpetrator.

In addition to any of the following offenses personally committed as a pepretrator,

as a Principal or Conspirator, the soldier could be subject to charges under Article

77, or Article 88, UCMJ, for the each ‘‘count’’ of the offenses committed by the family members and prostitution ring members (even though they are not persons subject to the UCMJ):

Conspiracy [to commit any of the following offenses]

(Article 81, UCMJ) ............................................................ Same Punishment as Following Offenses

Kidnapping

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for Life without eligibility for parole,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Rape

(Article 120, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for Life without eligibility of parole,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Pandering

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 5 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Sex crimes the women may have been forced to engage in:

Forcible Sodomy

(Article 125, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for Life without eligibility of parole,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Indecent Acts

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 5 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Extortion

(Article 127, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 3 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

106

Assault

(Article 128, UCMJ) .......................................................... Bad Conduct Discharge,

Confinement for 6

months,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Aggravated Assault (Possibly)

(Article 128, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 3 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Communicating a Threat

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 3 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Solicitation of Another to Commit an Offense

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 5 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Misprison of Serious Offense ...................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 3 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Violation or Order or General Regulation (Possibly)

(Article 92, UCMJ) ............................................................ Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 2 years,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline, or Service-Discrediting Conduct

[whether or not specifically enumerated in UCMJ]

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Confinement for 1 year,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

Federal Assimilated Crimes

(Article 134, UCMJ) .......................................................... Dishonorable Discharge,

Federal Statute’s Maximum Confinement,

Forfeiture of all pay and

allowances,

Reduction in grade to E–1

107

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DRAKE

Mrs. DRAKE. Since Mexico is on the tier two watch list, I would assume our Border Patrol are also trained. I mean, you are from DOD. All of you are really

refereencing DOD questions. So is that a fair assumption or something that we need

to work on right away about Border Patrol?

Ms. MCGINN. The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance has an

ongoing program of training on human trafficking for federal, tribal, state, and local

law enforcement. I would have to defer to the Customs and Border Patrol’s parent

organization, the Department of Homeland Security, as to whether or not they have

participated in this training or any other in-house training provided by Department

of Homeland Security.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask with regards to the language that was contained in

the 2007 act, the report language, and you might recall, and I will just reiterate

it, report language directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that combatant commanders designate a person on their respective staffs to carry out anti-trafficking

programs and oversee implementation of OSD anti-trafficking directives.

It also directed training for military criminal investigators and prosecutors regarding trafficking in persons, and I wonder if you can give us an update where you

are in terms of implementing both the spirit and letter of that language, and how

high of an officer are we talking about? I mean, it would seem to me that just like

personnel has policy and if you don’t have a sufficient number of people dedicated

to a task, it speaks volumes about your interest or lack thereof with regards to that

issue, and same goes in terms of rank.

How high of a rank will that person be, he or she?

Ms. MCGINN. The Combatant Commands have all designated representatives for

trafficking in persons within their headquarters. The trafficking in persons representatives are generally located in the Personnel or Plans staff, depending on the

Combatant Commander’s preference. The designated individuals are all military

field grade officers (Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel) or the civilian equivalent, where

a civilian performs that function. In addition, the Inspector General of each Combatant Command has trafficking in persons as a special interest item for evaluations

and inspections, within the command.

Mr. SMITH. So my question is—and I would just parenthetically, the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act of 2005 contained a brand new initiative on domestic trafficking. We know that upwards of 17,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. from

abroad every year, but we also know that many of our own girls and young women,

many of them runaways, are being trafficked. We don’t know the number. We call

for analysis to get a better prevalence number.

But we know that anecdotally there are many women that are being trafficked

domestically, being picked up at malls, being picked up on day or two that they

have run away from home. They are drugged, they are carted to different places,

including military bases, again, being a magnet for that kind of activity.

And I am wondering what kind of training has been initiated to ensure that at

our new joint base in New Jersey or Camp Lejeune or any other military installation so that those soldiers in like manner are adequately trained, know what to look

for. Because, again, there is a duty to protect that we all have. The military has

it, civilians have it, and these women are vulnerable as the day is long.

And as Ambassador Miller will tell you, from our work we have discovered and

from our hearings, from just meeting women, young girls and young women who

are seemingly voluntary prostitutes, you find out that very often almost in every

case they have been raped, they have been the victim of incest as a young girl.

These are not the happy hooker myths. These are women who are dysfunctional and

then they are exploited secondarily by these pimps and others.

So the training domestically, is that there?

Ms. MCGINN. We expect to publish our Department of Defense Instruction on trafficking in persons by the end of the calendar year (2006). The Instruction will make

trafficking in persons awareness training mandatory for all Department of Defense

personnel. Currently, the Department of the Navy has begun the transition and is

requiring the awareness training of all Navy Department members. Once the Instruction is published, the other two departments will follow suit.

Æ