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

76–351PDF 2002

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS

PROTECTION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Serial No. 107–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

RON PAUL, Texas

NICK SMITH, Michigan

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

JIM DAVIS, Florida

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

DIANE E. WATSON, California

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director

GROVER JOSEPH REES, Professional Staff Member and Counsel

LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary, Office of the Under

Secretary for Global Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................... 11

The Honorable Ralph F. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,

U.S. Department of Justice ................................................................................. 25

The Honorable Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ............................................. 35

The Honorable Janet Ballantyne, Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S. Agency

for International Development ............................................................................ 39

Jessica Neuwirth, President, Equality Now .......................................................... 53

Gary Haugen, President, International Justice Mission ...................................... 57

‘‘Maria,’’ trafficking victim from Mexico ................................................................ 71

‘‘Vi,’’ trafficking victim from Vietnam .................................................................... 74

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

The Honorable Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Pennsylvania: Prepared statement ................................................................. 9

The Honorable Paula J. Dobriansky: Prepared statement ................................... 13

The Honorable Ralph F. Boyd: Prepared statement ............................................. 29

The Honorable Wade Horn: Prepared statement .................................................. 36

The Honorable Janet Ballantyne: Prepared statement ........................................ 40

Jessica Neuwirth: Prepared statement .................................................................. 56

Gary Haugen: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 61

‘‘Maria’’: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 73

‘‘Vi’’: Prepared statement ........................................................................................ 76

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFICKING

VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m. in Room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order.

Just over a year ago, Congress enacted landmark human rights

legislation whose objective was to put an end to modern-day slavery. The Smith-Gejdenson Trafficking Victims Protection Act provided a comprehensive plan of attack on the most egregious forms

of trafficking in human beings: the buying and selling of woman,

and children into the international sex industry, and the trafficking

of men, women, and children alike into slavery and involuntarily

servitude.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to assess the state of the war

against human trafficking 1 year after the passage of the SmithGejdenson Act.

In particular, we have asked our witnesses to discuss the extent

to which various agencies of the United States Government have

discharged the responsibilities imposed upon them by the act, and

whether they have effectively wielded the tools provided by the act

to punish and prevent these atrocious crimes and to protect their

victims.

A law without vigorous and effective implementation is worse

than no law at all, because it lulls us into the false sense that we

have done something to solve the problem. So it is vitally important not only that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act be implemented, but also that its implementation be guided by the fundamental policy choices that Congress made in enacting it.

In considering legislative proposals that eventually became the

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Congress made some important

decisions. In particular, we had to choose between two dramatically

different views of the commercial sex trade and its contribution to

the problem of human trafficking.

One view was that prostitution should be regarded not as an evil

in itself, but as just another form of labor or service. In this view

recruiting women into the sex trade should not be regarded as exploitation unless it is accompanied by other forms of abuse—such

as long hours and low wages—and the best way to deal with the

2

brutality and extreme degradation that so often accompany commercial sex would be to legalize and regulate it.

The opposing view, shared by a broad coalition of religious leaders, women’s organizations, and human rights advocates is that

prostitution is inherently a form of degradation—and that enticement into prostitution is invariably characterized by force, fraud,

or extreme desperation.

This was the view ultimately taken by Congress in enacting the

Smith-Gejdenson Act. The act defines ‘‘sex trafficking’’ to include

buying and selling human beings for the purpose of commercial sex

acts, regardless of the circumstances. While the act recognizes that

the most severe forms of sex trafficking are those effected by force

or fraud, or in which the victims are children, it squarely rejects

any effort to legitimize prostitution by treating it as just another

kind of work.

The act also resists efforts to define ‘‘trafficking’’ so broadly that

it would dilute and diminish the effort to attack the core problem.

We know there are a wide range of related offenses such as immigrant smuggling and unfair labor practices which require just and

effective remedies. But these remedies are better provided in the

context of labor law or immigration law than in an antislavery bill.

At the same time, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act recognizes

that a few particular brutal forms of worker exploitation, such as

the use of physical force or threats of serious injury, transcend ordinary concerns about wages and working conditions. These abuses

must be recognized as the moral and practical equivalent of human

slavery, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act reflects this recognition finally.

Congress had to decide what to do about foreign governments

that continue to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the

solution to worldwide human trafficking. Some argued we should

immediately impose economic sanctions on governments that are

complicit in the human slave trade. Others argued anything more

than gentle persuasion would be counterproductive.

The Smith-Gejdenson bill adopted a carefully crafted compromise

on this issue. It authorizes technical assistance to foreign governments that are sincerely attempting to shut down human trafficking and to protect the victims, but it also contemplates the

withdrawal of most forms of nonhumanitarian foreign assistance

from governments that consistently refuse to make such efforts.

I hope our witnesses today will discuss whether the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act is being implemented in a way that keeps

faith with these important principles. I also ask our witness to give

their assessment of the impact the act and its implementation have

had thus far, including any concern you may have.

I am confident there is still broad bipartisan support in Congress

for whatever is necessary—more resources, further legislation,

whatever it takes—to win the worldwide battle against trafficking

of human beings into the commercial sex trade and other forms of

slavery.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Just over a year ago, Congress enacted landmark human rights legislation whose

objective was to put an end to modern-day slavery. The Smith-Gejdenson Trafficking

Victims Protection Act provided a comprehensive plan of attack on the most egregious forms of trafficking in human beings: the buying and selling of women and

children into the international sex industry, and the trafficking of men, women, and

children alike into slavery and involuntary servitude.

Today’s hearing is to assess the state of the war against human trafficking one

year after the passage of the Smith-Gejdenson Act. In particular, we have asked our

witnesses to discuss the extent to which various agencies of the United States Government have discharged the responsibilities imposed on them by the Act, and

whether they have effectively wielded the tools provided by the Act to punish and

prevent these atrocious crimes and to protect their victims. A law without vigorous

and effective implementation is worse than no law at all, because it lulls us into

the false sense that we have done something to solve the problem.

So it is vitally important not only that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act be

implemented, but also that its implementation be guided by the fundamental policy

choices that Congress made in enacting it. In considering the legislative proposals

that eventually became the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Congress made some

important decisions. In particular, we had to choose between two dramatically different views of the commercial sex trade and its contribution to the problem of

human trafficking.

One view was that prostitution should be regarded not as an evil in itself, but

as just another form of labor or services. In this view, recruiting women into the

sex trade should not be regarded as exploitation unless it is accompanied by other

forms of abuse—such as long hours or low wages—and the best way to deal with

the brutality and extreme degradation that so often accompany commercial sex

would be to legalize and regulate it.

The opposing view, shared by a broad coalition of religious leaders, women’s organizations, and human rights advocates, is that prostitution is inherently a form of

degradation—and that enticement into prostitution is invariably characterized by

force, fraud, or extreme desperation. This was the view ultimately taken by Congress in enacting the Smith-Gejdenson Act. The Act defines ‘‘sex trafficking’’ to include buying and selling human beings for the purpose of commercial sex acts, regardless of the circumstances. While the Act recognizes that the most severe forms

of sex trafficking are those effected by force or fraud, or in which the victims are

children, it squarely rejects any effort to legitimize prostitution by treating it as just

another kind of work.

The Act also resisted efforts to define ‘‘trafficking’’ so broadly that it would dilute

and diminish the effort to attack the core problem. We know that there are a wide

range of related offenses, such as immigrant smuggling and unfair labor practices,

which require just and effective remedies. But these remedies are better provided

in the context of labor law or immigration law than in an antislavery bill. At the

same time, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act recognizes that a few particularly

brutal forms of worker exploitation—such as the use of physical force or threats of

serious injury—transcend ordinary concerns about wages and working conditions.

These abuses must be recognized as the moral and practical equivalent of human

slavery, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act reflects this recognition.

Finally, Congress had to decide what to do about foreign governments that continue to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution to worldwide human

trafficking. Some argued that we should immediately impose economic sanctions on

governments that are complicit in the human slave trade. Others argued that anything more than gentle persuasion would be counterproductive. The Smith-Gejdenson bill adopted a carefully crafted compromise on this issue.

It authorizes technical assistance to foreign governments that are sincerely attempting to shut down human trafficking and to protect the victims, but it also contemplates the withdrawal of most forms of nonhumanitarian foreign assistance from

governments that consistently refuse to make such efforts.

I hope our witnesses today will discuss whether the Trafficking Victims Protection

Act is being implemented in a way that keeps faith with these important principles.

I also ask our witnesses to give us their assessment of the impact the Act and its

implementation have had thus far, including any concerns you may have. I am confident there is still broad bipartisan support in Congress for whatever is necessary—

more resources, further legislation, whatever it takes—to win the worldwide battle

4

against trafficking of human beings into the commercial sex trade and other forms

of slavery.

Chairman HYDE. And now I am privileged to recognize the Ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

congratulate you and commend you and thank you for holding this

very important hearing.

I probably learned more about this issue from my younger

daughter than from anybody else, who served in Copenhagen, Denmark, as the wife of our Ambassador the last 3 years and devoted

countless hours, hundreds or thousands of hours, to the issue of

fighting trafficking in Denmark.

And on numerous trips to that country I have come to realize

that obviously the problem we are dealing with is clearly global in

all of its ramifications. It is a problem we face, the people of Denmark and the people of scores of other countries face.

When American schoolchildren are taught about slavery they

learn about it in history class. Until recently most Americans assumed that slavery and the slave trade ended centuries ago. Now

we know, in large part due to the distinguished Vice Chair of our

Committee, my good friend Chris Smith of New Jersey, and our esteemed former colleague Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut, that slavery is not ancient history, but it is a very current event.

This legislation, the Smith-Gejdenson bill also had the enormously significant professional input of the chief counsel on the

Democratic side, my friend David Abramowitz, and I want to recognize his contributions.

Among the 50,000 individuals, mostly women and children, who

have been trafficked into the United State in recent years, here are

but a few of the terrible but typical cases. In Florida traffickers

used alcohol and drugs to lure foreign field workers to isolated locations and hold them under cruel conditions of debt bondage with

their passports confiscated.

In New Jersey a Bangladeshi woman was forced to work 18 or

20 hours a day 7 days a week, and when she asked her masters

to give her back pay of $370, she was refused, forced to shovel snow

in the sandals in which she arrived. When she got sick, they refused to take her to the doctor.

In California a boy from Thailand who had contracted AIDS

through his prostitute mother was used as a decoy to try to traffic

a woman into the United States.

Right here in Washington, DC, Mr. Chairman, a woman from

Latin America was paid virtually nothing, sexually abused and refused medical treatment. The examples are countless and unlimited.

All of us here must continue to strive to do all we can to end the

modern-day slavery that devastates women, children, and men in

this country and across the globe. We in Congress have the responsibility of fully funding, reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as soon as possible. We are already on our way by increasing funding of the Department of State authorization bill and

the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which has just

5

been signed by the President, and which fully funds victims assistance efforts.

The State Department needs to raise this issue actively at the

highest levels, particularly with governments that are not making

significant efforts to end this terrible practice, and I know that Secretary Dobriansky is fully aware of this responsibility and is pursuing it diligently. It must also take active steps, along with AID,

to coordinate our Government’s efforts to ensure that funds are

being appropriately used to combat these abuses.

I hope that the new office established by Colin Powell has its

own funds to develop anti-trafficking programs as a way to enhance its effectiveness. The Justice Department needs to use the

money provided by us to actively prosecute cases, but it also needs

to issue final regulations under new trafficking victims’ visas. Let

me be clear about this issue. As the statute provides, this visa

should be in the first instance a humanitarian visa, not one used

only as a club to obtain the law enforcement cooperation from

frightened and abused victims who often are not only traumatized

but suspicious of all government authorities.

And HHS must work with the Justice Department to create a

seamless system for helping victims in the United States. In particular, I believe more grants must be provided to NGOs around

the country that are actually providing victim services such as the

Coalition Against Slave Trafficking in California. We must remember that it is not only radical ideologues such as the Taliban who

have oppressed women, but also criminal syndicates motivated by

base greed.

Our efforts to assist trafficking victims not only provides new

hope and opportunity to the vulnerable, but also a powerful demonstration of the best of American values in action.

I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman. I am anxious to

hear what steps the Administration is taking to implement the law

that we passed last year and what our friends in the NGO community believe has been done to ensure that we stamp out this hideous and despicable practice.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos.

The gentleman from New York Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to commend Chairman Hyde for holding this important

hearing, and commend our Vice Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith for his having introduced and

adopted the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of

2000, Public Law 106–386, which was a great pioneering step of

what should have been done a long time ago.

The abominable trafficking of humans for forced labor and slavery-like practices and commercial sex trade has risen regrettably

dramatically in the last few years. Women and young children from

all corners of the globe are being sold, kidnapped, tricked, or out

of sheer desperation voluntarily sell themselves into the horrors of

prostitution. It is estimated that up to 2 million people are victims

each year and that 50,000 are being brought into the United States

for these purposes.

6

Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

to tackle this problem, and today we look forward to hearing from

the Administration, from some of the nongovernmental organizations, and some of the victims themselves about the successes and

failures to end this great human tragedy.

We look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses, and I

thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this timely hearing.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

The distinguished gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.

Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also want

to commend you for your leadership and also calling this hearing.

I think it is most appropriate that we address this very important

issue.

At the outset I would like to offer my personal commendations

to our former Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I have had the privilege for the past

several years of working with him, my good friend, the gentleman

from New Jersey, not only as the cosponsor, as the author and

sponsor of the original legislation that we are now going to be reviewing. Hopefully that it has become an effective tool to combat

this horror, and certainly as an original cosponsor of this legislation, it has now become law.

Again, I believe that it is long overdue that we need to address

this very serious problem. I just wish that maybe other countries

of the world would also address the issue because it is a fact that

we are attacking the issue domestically and seeing that in our own

shores that this kind of practice does not happen. But it is very unfortunate, it is very difficult for us to reach out in other countries

and the leadership in other countries having the same commitment

to see that we wipe out this kind of human trafficking.

With that, Mr. Chairman, again I thank Chris and also our

former Staff Director—our former Chief Justice, by the way—Judge

Rees. I always call him Judge Rees for his important contribution

to this legislation that I have worked with him on over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

The gentleman from New Jersey, who is the father of this act

and who has been a driving force for decency in opposition to the

heinous practice of human trafficking, Chris Smith of New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Chairman Hyde, thank you very

much for those kind remarks, and to all of our colleagues for their

very strong comments about this legislation—the importance of effective and faithful implementation of it. And you know, we succeeded on getting this enacted into law not only because this legislation is pro-women, pro-child, pro-human rights, pro-family-values,

and anti-crime, but also because it addresses a horrendous problem

that cries out for a comprehensive solution.

And Members will remember, the road to ultimate passage was

indeed a very difficult one strewn with all kinds of obstacles, both

on substance as well as procedure. But I would be remiss if I didn’t

note at the outset that at the very beginning the Majority Leader

7

of the House, Dick Armey, made a commitment that this legislation

would get through the House of Representatives.

When it was referred to four Committees and approximately a

dozen Subcommittees, often the death knell for legislation—however good, however unwittingly—is often the death knell. And

Chairman Hyde played a crucial role, because a significant portion

of this was referred to his Committee, and he, through deadlines

and through negotiations, working with the Charles Kennedy and

Lamar Smith on the T-visa and other aspects that we have heard

as well as the criminal sanctions, worked miracles over on that

Committee.

The Chairman of our Full Committee made sure that we had a

prompt markup in this Committee. That is Ben Gilman. That

pushed the legislation through. And Dick Armey was, like I said,

committed to bringing this to fruition through a timetable on the

Floor. And then, of course, it went over to the Senate side and

there Sam Brownback and Senator Wellstone worked hard there.

The conference looked like it was going to be mired in endless debate and the bill would not get out before the close of this session.

And thankfully, all of those obstacles were overcome.

As some of my colleagues pointed out, Joseph Rees, who did yeoman’s work on this bill, and David Abramowitz, it was one of those

great collaborations of both sides of the aisle to assure that the legislation was indeed enacted. Then we had the myriad of stakeholders on the right and left and everyone in between who really

made a difference in seeing that this legislation was enacted.

Each year, as you know, Mr. Chairman, as many as 2 million innocent victims, of whom the overwhelming majority are women and

children, are brought by force, coercion or fraud into the international commercial sex industry and other forms of modern-day

slavery.

Our legislation was necessary because previous efforts by the

U.S. Government, international organizations and others to stop

this brutal practice had proved unsuccessful. And indeed all of the

evidence suggested that the most severe forms of trafficking in persons are far more widespread than they were just a couple of years

ago.

The essential principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection

Act is that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit

from sex acts involving persons who have been brought across

international boundaries for such purposes by force, fraud or coercion, or who force human beings into slavery should receive punishment commensurate with the penalties for kidnapping and forcible

rape. This would not only be a just punishment, but also, we believe and posited, a powerful deterrent.

The logical corollary to this principle is that we need to treat victims of these terrible crimes as victims who desperately need our

help and our protection. Like all laws, however, this law, as Chairman Hyde pointed out so well, is only as good as its implementation, and, frankly, I have been concerned about the slow pace of the

implementation of this legislation.

A year after enactment of this legislation, the State Department

office, which is designed to serve as the nerve center of our diplomatic efforts to engage foreign governments in the war against

8

trafficking, has only recently begun to get up and running. No regulations have been issued which would allow victims to apply for

visas provided by the act, and many other important tasks remain

to be done.

I say this not as a complaint or to criticize. I know that many

things move slowly, particularly in the first year of an Administration, and that since September 11th our attention and resources

have been diverted elsewhere. But I say to this emphasize that

from now on we do not have a single moment to spare.

I would also like to say that I am profoundly encouraged by the

fact that the Administration has been able to recruit Dr. Laura

Lederer to bring her expertise and commitment to the State Department’s anti-trafficking effort. Dr. Lederer is generally regarded

as the world’s leading expert on the pathology of human trafficking, and the Protection Project, which she headed, has provided

the factual analytical basis for most of the work that has been done

so far to combat human trafficking. Throughout the long process of

consideration and enactment of this bill, Laura was our mentor and

a comrade in arms.

Under Secretary Dobriansky, I commend you for this important

choice and for the important work that you are doing as well. I also

know that Ambassador Raphel will rely heavily on Dr. Lederer and

the resources of our Committee as well to bring the true faith of

the bill, the spirit and the letter, to pass so that we can have aggressive implementation.

I just wanted to make a very brief point about this. The principles behind the Trafficking Victim Protection Act were many. We

want to combat slavery. We want a comprehensive effort to do so,

especially sexual slavery. Emphatically the legislation rejects the

principle that commercial sex should be regarded as a legitimate

form of work. And that was no small issue last year, as Members

will recall. And I remember when Equality Now did a very strong

statement to the previous Administration taking them to task as

a U.N. Protocol was being debated that we not allow, however unwittingly, this type of sexual exploitation to go on and somehow to

be shunted aside as we go after the more extreme forms of exploitation. I am hoping that the Administration will speak to that issue

in terms of clarifying their position as we move on into this hearing.

I would ask finally that we need to make this law work. We need

true believers, people with an indominable will and heart who will

spare no effort to mobilize the resources and the prestige of the

United States Government to implement this important act. This

is historic. We have an opportunity to shut down what William

Wilberforce fought so hard to shut down in Great Britain when he

fought against the slave trade. Modern slavery is here. It needs to

be stopped. We have the tools. Let’s get about doing it.

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

I am going to gently request that further statements be a little

briefer than they have been. I mean no criticism, because Mr.

Smith is entitled to talk all week on this subject. This is his consuming interest, and he has done such magnificent work. But we

do have a panel of witnesses. So if you will be mindful of that.

9

Ms. Watson, the gentlelady from California.

Ms. WATSON. I will pass.

Chairman HYDE. God love you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Tancredo, the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. TANCREDO. No.

Chairman HYDE. Another superstar.

Mr. Nick Smith of Michigan.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No statement.

Chairman HYDE. You see how powerful the power of persuasion

is.

Mr. Pitts, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief and

submit my entire statement for the record.

First of all, thank you for convening this very important hearing

on the implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,

and I want to especially thank my colleague Mr. Smith for his tireless and persistent work on behalf of the victims of sex trading,

modern-day slavery.

Sexual trafficking is a huge problem worldwide, including the

United States, that urgently needs to be addressed. And I heard an

example that I just want to briefly mention to conceptualize how

immense the problem is.

Imagine a city the size of Minneapolis or St. Louis made up of

entirely of women and children. Imagine that those women and

children are kidnapped, raped, and forced into prostitution, and

then imagine it happening every year. Then stop imagining because that is what is happening now and in those numbers.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on the issue. I look

forward to hearing these distinguished witnesses today, and to

hear about the progress that has been made in the implementation

of this important act. I yield back.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

I thank the Chairman for convening this important hearing this morning on the

Implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I also want to thank my

colleague Mr. Smith, the original sponsor of this legislation in the 106th Congress,

on his tireless work on behalf of victims of trafficking.

Human trafficking is a serious problem worldwide including the United States. As

we have already heard, a vast majority of these victims are women and children

who are trafficked into the commercial sex trade.

The scenario looks something like this: In Japan, at least six times a year, Hiro

Watanabe drives to the Narita airport. There, in the international arrivals hall, he

meets three or four women. Women who are young and pretty and have come to

Japan to take word-of-mouth job offers from factories, restaurants, or bars.

However, these jobs do not exist. Instead, Watanabe takes them to a small apartment to convince them that they really should be working for him for free as prostitutes.

His way of convincing these women is not uncommon and includes verbal threats,

beatings, and rape. These young women then join the tens of thousands of women

and children are illegally brought to Japan and forced to work as prostitutes.

Sex trafficking is also happening in the European Union. This year, as in years

past, at least 300,000 women will be smuggled into the European Union—many of

whom will be forced to work in the sex trade.

In destitute places such as Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Albania, these women

are lured by the promise of well-paying jobs waitresses, nurses, or chambermaids.

Some of them are kidnapped. While in transit, their smugglers usually take their

10

passports and belongings, drug and rape them. This inhuman treatment breaks

them to the point of submission to a life of sexual bondage.

Sex trafficking is not the rest of the world’s problem. It has also reached our

shores.

Women like ‘Inez’ who was tricked into forced prostitution after agreeing to leave

her country for a good job in a restaurant. This promised job never materialized.

Instead, she was forced to participate in a sex tour of trailer parks.

‘Inez’ has since been freed and says, ‘‘I could not believe this was happening to

me, but even worse, some of the girls were as young as 14 years old.’’

Girls like Rosa. Rosa testifies, ‘‘Because I was a virgin, the men decided to initiate

me by raping me again and again, to teach me . . . Over the next three months,

I was taken to a different trailer every 15 days. Every night I had to sleep in the

same bed in which I had been forced to service customers all day.’’ Inez and Rosa

were trafficked to Florida, U.S.A.

As Americans, we have always worked for justice and freedom, in our borders and

worldwide. That is why it is important that Congress oversee diligently the implementation of Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Through this Act we seek justice

through criminal penalties for and victim restitution from those who would traffick

these women and children, and freedom for the victims as the United States takes

the lead in fighting to end this criminal business around the world.

Sexual trafficking is a huge problem that urgently needs to be addressed. To conceptualize how immense the problem is, imagine a city the size of Minneapolis or

St. Louis, made up entirely of women and children.

Imagine that those women and children are kidnapped, raped, and forced into

prostitution. Imagine it happening every year. Then stop imagining because it is

happening now and in those numbers.

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I look

forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the progress that has been made

in the implementation of this important Act.

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

Mr. FLAKE. No.

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Kerns.

Mr. KERNS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I would not

make an opening statement.

Chairman HYDE. I certainly am gratified.

The gentlelady from Virginia.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. No.

Chairman HYDE. Very well.

I would like to welcome Dr. Paula Dobriansky. Prior to her appointment as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Dr.

Dobriansky served as Senior Vice President and Director of the

Washington office of the Council on Foreign Relations. Previously

she served as Senior International Affairs and Trade Advisor at the

law firm of Hunton & Williams, and as cochair of the International

TV Council at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Ralph F. Boyd is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

at the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his appointment, Assistant Attorney General Boyd was a partner in the Boston in the law

firm of Goodwin Procter LLP and has also served as Assistant

United States Attorney in the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston. We welcome Assistant Attorney General

Boyd to the Committee and welcome his statement.

Dr. Wade Horn is the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior

to his appointment Dr. Horn was President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, whose mission is to improve the well-being of children. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Horn was the Commissioner for Children, Youth and Families and Chief of the Children’s Bureau in the

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. He also served as

11

a Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children

from 1990 to 1993, was a member of the National Commission on

Childhood Disability from 1994 and 1995, and the U.S. Advisory

Board on Welfare Indicators from 1996 to 1997.

Our fourth Administration witness is Janet Ballantyne, the Acting Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. She has been a professor of strategic studies at the National War College and served as the USAID Mission Director in

Russia and Nicaragua. Dr. Ballantyne has held senior policy positions including Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for

Policy, Planning, Coordination, and has served in Peru, Nepal and

Morocco.

We welcome our very distinguished witnesses. I ask that you try

to summarize your statements within 5 minutes, give or take. We

will be flexible, but around 5 minutes. And your full statement will

be placed in the hearing record. But that will give the Members an

opportunity to question you. And we appreciate that.

And so let’s start with Under Secretary Dobriansky.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY,

UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am very pleased

to be here this morning. I will submit my full text for the record

and make a very brief statement.

It certainly is a pleasure to be here today to review the progress

that we have made on monitoring and combatting trafficking in

persons since the passage of the anti-trafficking law, the Victims

of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

Trafficking in persons is a modern-day form of slavery. Both its

magnitude and the inhumane conditions in which individuals find

themselves are deeply troubling. Let me dive right in and indicate

since the law’s passage that we are pleased to report that we have

covered a lot of ground, we believe, from the establishment of the

new trafficking office to releasing the first trafficking in persons report, to getting some 85 countries to sign the new U.N. Protocol on

trafficking.

Let me mention the office first. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking was established on October 15. The office is an

independent office which reports directly to me. It coordinates policy and programmatic responsibilities with respect to trafficking in

persons. These responsibilities are predicated on human rights and

law enforcement.

The office focuses on three fundamental areas: the compilation

and release of the Trafficking in Persons Report; an assessment

and implementation of programs; and an outreach to partner agencies, Congress and the nongovernmental community.

I would like to take a moment, because most of them are here

today, just to introduce our team. We have Ambassador Nancy ElyRaphel, who is the new senior advisor to the Secretary on Trafficking; Dr. Laura Lederer, who many of you know is the Deputy

Senior Advisor to the Secretary on Trafficking. Sharon Payt, who

is seated up on the dais, will be our senior coordinator for public

outreach and diplomacy. She comes from Senator Brownback’s ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
12

fice. We have Amy O’Neill Richard who is the new senior coordinator for reports. Carla Menares-Bury, who comes from the Bureau

of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, and who will be

overseeing our programmatic shop, and then we have two others,

Sally Neumann, who will be working as well in the programmatic

division, and Chanel Turner, who is involved with management.

Let me say a word about the report. Last July the Secretary of

State, the leadership of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights

and Labor, as well as the Bureau of International Narcotics and

Law Enforcement and myself, rolled out the first annual Trafficking in Persons Report. The report presented information gathered from 186 embassies and consulates as well as NGO and press

reports. It then assessed the efforts of those countries, 82 last year

for which it was determined that there was a significant number

of victims of severe forms of trafficking, to determine whether such

countries meet the minimum standards specified in the law.

The report has become and is an invaluable tool in our bilateral

dialogues on trafficking. It has prompted a number of countries at

senior levels to engage the U.S. Government on this issue. In other

words, they have come back to discuss the terms set forth and the

specific conditions with us. We want to continue this. We want to

ensure that we hear the feedback and reaction of our partners,

both in and out of Government, who have been working on this

issue.

To build on this momentum, I think quite importantly, Ambassador Raphel and Dr. Lederer met recently with a group of NGOs.

I did myself when the report came out. That kind of feedback will

only strengthen our hand as we go forward with the issuance and

the putting together of the new report.

A word on the Interagency Task Force. The act calls for the holding of an interagency Cabinet-level task force on trafficking. We

are planning this meeting. A memorandum has been submitted to

the Secretary of State. We are hoping to hold this interagency Cabinet-level task force meeting very soon.

We will also, in conjunction with that, set up an interagency

working group at a lower level, which would be ongoing, to specifically review programs and ensure that all the agencies are well coordinated and ultimately report back to the task force on the nature of its work. In fact, in preparation for this, Ambassador

Raphel and Dr. Lederer both met with a number of agencies already to lay the foundation for these efforts.

A few other words, then I will close. A brief word on other initiatives. Intelligence. Ambassador Raphel and Dr. Lederer also met

recently with representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency,

the National Security Agency, as well as the Bureau of Intelligence

and Research to discuss the importance of enhancing intelligence

collection on trafficking.

Programs. We also have funded and implemented some 90 global

anti-trafficking programs, projects, initiatives in well over 30 countries. We have actually a fact sheet here for your information and

for those in the room on the kinds of programs that have been

funded thus far. The focus has been on the three Ps: protection,

prosecution, prevention.

13

While the act and our report and other efforts have significantly

raised awareness of the issue, we are committed to reaching out to

the public. So public outreach is the third component. All of our

members of the office have been engaged in this before and now as

the office has been set up.

In closing I think we have been very busy, but there remains a

lot to be done. We look very much forward to our continued partnership on this issue and thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dobriansky follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY, UNDER SEC- RETARY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPART- MENT OF STATE

It is a pleasure to be here today to review the progress we’ve made on monitoring

and combating trafficking in persons, since the passage of the anti-trafficking law,

the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

Trafficking in persons is a modern day form of slavery. Both its magnitude and

the inhumane conditions in which individuals find themselves are deeply troubling.

The egregious nature of this crime, however, has clearly been the driving force for

many of you and for those of us sitting here who work on this issue.

The impact that this law has had on the United States Government’s efforts to

fight trafficking and protect trafficking victims is enormous. Let me thank you for

the foresight in the creation of this law and for strengthening our ability to tackle

this problem more vigorously. It was through the tireless efforts and dedication of

many of you that we have this law. I have been honored to meet several of the members and the staff on this important and timely issue and have found your guidance

and input invaluable.

This law has provided policymakers and prosecutors with the necessary tools to

fight trafficking in persons, a truly grave violation of human rights and a growing

transnational crime problem. And it has given us a model to share with other countries that are also committed to ending this horrendous violation of human rights.

Since the law’s passage, we are pleased to report that we have covered a lot of

ground from establishing the new trafficking office to releasing the first Trafficking

in Persons Report to getting some 85 countries to sign the new UN Protocol on trafficking. This Protocol provides a framework for countries to criminalize trafficking,

provide victim protection, and prevent trafficking through public information campaigns.

NEW TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS OFFICE

Let me start with the office, which is your primary partner at the Department

on this issue. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking was established on October 15th. The office is an independent office which reports directly to me. It coordinates policy and programmatic responsibilities with respect to trafficking in persons. These responsibilities are predicated on human rights and law enforcement

concerns. As I have discussed previously with various members and staff, the office

focuses on three key areas: the compilation and release of the trafficking in persons

report; an assessment and implementation of programs; and outreach to partner

agencies, Congress, and the non-governmental community. The office structure reflects these key priorities.

The Deputy Secretary cut the ribbon on the new office space on November 15th

in a ceremony that was well-attended by our new staff, colleagues from other agencies, the non-governmental community, journalists, and partners on the Hill. We appreciated the kind remarks made by Representative Smith at this event.

I’d like to take a moment and introduce the new team.

• Ambassador Nancy Ely-Raphel is the new Senior Adviser to the Secretary on

the trafficking issue. She has a wealth of experience having previously served

as our Ambassador to Slovenia; our principal deputy assistant secretary in

the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; our Coordinator for Bosnia; and Assistant Legal Adviser for African Affairs.

— Prior to coming to the Department, she held important posts ranging

from Assistant U.S. Attorney to Associate Dean of Boston University’s School of Law to senior trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s

Organized Crime Strike Force.

14

• Dr. Laura Lederer, whom many of you know so well, is the Deputy Senior Advisor to the Secretary. She is an expert on trafficking, who founded and directed The Protection Project, which documented the scope of the problem, reviewed laws and enforcement responses, and collected survivor stories from

194 countries and published the first comprehensive Human Rights Report on

Trafficking. She has worked closely with the Hill in arranging briefings on

the trafficking issue and ensuring the law’s passage.

In addition to the senior leadership, the office will have three sections which reflect the priorities I noted earlier—Public Outreach and Diplomacy, Reports, and

Policy and Programs. Let me introduce the directors of these three sections and the

staff members.

• Sharon Payt will be the senior coordinator for public outreach and diplomacy.

As you know, she is no stranger to the trafficking issue; as a senior staffer

with Senator Brownback’s office, she worked diligently on the trafficking legislation and helped keep the issue on the legislative front burner.

• Amy O’Neill Richard is the new senior coordinator for reports. She comes to

the Office from the Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research and is

one of our government’s experts on the trafficking in persons issue. She was

also the author of the groundbreaking report, ‘‘International Trafficking in

Women to the United States: A Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery and

Organized Crime’’.

• Carla Menares-Bury has been secunded to the trafficking office from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) where she

has spent the last four years overseeing numerous anti-trafficking and domestic violence programs and initiatives abroad.

• Sally Neumann, is also formerly with the Bureau of International Narcotics

and Law Enforcement Affairs, where she was responsible for several anti-trafficking and domestic violence programs overseas.

— Both Carla and Sally will work on anti-trafficking programs in the new

office.

• Chanel Turner will also be assisting us in managing the office. Her efforts

have been crucial in setting up the new office.

As you can see, we have assembled a team of very capable and knowledgeable

people on the trafficking issue.

Let me take a moment to express my and the new office’s appreciation to James

Puleo for his hard work in establishing the new office. It was no small task to oversee actual set-up of the office, as well as give the office a firm footing upon which

to begin its efforts.

The Office aims to hire more staff over next several months until we reach our

full compliment of fourteen staff members, in accordance with the plan I laid out

to Congressional staff several months ago.

ANNUAL REPORT ON TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

Now let me move on to another initiative in the Act that we have been active on

since its passage late last year. That is the issuance of the annual report.

Last July, the Secretary of State, the leadership of the Bureau of Democracy,

Human Rights and Labor and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and I ‘‘rolled out’’ the first annual Trafficking in Persons report.

I’d like to thank those two bureaus for their leadership in preparing the first Trafficking in Persons report before the office could be established.

The report presented information gathered from 186 embassies and consulates as

well as NGO and press reports. It then assessed the efforts of those countries—82

last year—for which it was determined that there were a significant number of victims of severe forms of trafficking to determine whether such countries meet the

minimum standards specified in the law.

As expected, the report has become an invaluable tool in our bilateral dialogues

on trafficking. It has prompted many countries—at senior levels—to engage with the

US Government on the trafficking issue. I have met personally with a number of

senior representatives of countries who have said that the report had prompted

them to examine and improve their efforts. And I know the same is true for Assistant Secretary Craner and Assistant Secretary Beers and some of our regional Assistant Secretaries as well. Many of our posts are reporting a higher degree of interest, awareness, and, more importantly, action since the release of the report. This

increased interest is indicative of a larger positive trend as many more countries

are increasingly taking this issue seriously.

15

While we were very pleased with the report, we wanted to ensure that we heard

the feedback and reaction of our partners—in and out of government—who have

been working on this issue for years. I held a roundtable discussion for some 30

NGO representatives immediately following the release to hear what they thought

of the contents of the report. I was pleased with the support we received and with

the constructive feedback offered. As many of you may know, I, as well as a number

of my colleagues, also reached out to Congressional members and staff to hear their

feedback.

To build on this, Ambassador Ely-Raphel and her team recently met with various

relevant U.S. government agencies and non-governmental organizations to solicit

their feedback on the annual TIP report process. We intend to incorporate their

ideas and suggestions into the 2002 Trafficking in Persons Report. And as I’ve said

to many of our partners in the NGO community, we welcome comments and additional information that will help us produce the best report each year.

INTERAGENCY TASKFORCE

Another priority for the office is the first meeting of the Interagency Cabinet-level

Taskforce on Trafficking. We are beginning to plan for this meeting, which we hope

can be held within the next few weeks and we expect to be chaired by Secretary

Powell. At this meeting, we expect to introduce the office to other cabinet members

and highlight its mandate, as well as lay out a strategy for coordination with other

agencies. We will also set up an interagency working group which will review programs and ensure all agencies are well coordinated and, ultimately, report back to

the Taskforce on the nature of its work.

In preparation, Ambassador Nancy Ely-Raphel and Dr. Lederer recently met with

the Departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Agency for

International Development to take stock of their anti-trafficking programs. We are

looking forward to this effort to really examine how the numerous agencies—many

of whom are sitting here—can continue to strengthen their efforts to combat this

problem and to reach out to the victims that are so deeply impacted.

We have coordinated with our interagency partners on a number of steps outlined

in the Act. For example in July, Deputy Secretary Armitage and Attorney General

Ashcroft signed the regulations that will, among other steps, ensure that relevant

law enforcement personnel, immigration officials, and State Department officials receive the appropriate training to recognize and assist victims of trafficking. We look

forward to using the Taskforce and our direct contact with our partners to continue

such coordination.

OTHER INITIATIVES

Let me note a few other initiatives that we are undertaking to strengthen our effort and expand our knowledge.

Intelligence: Ambassador Ely-Raphel and Dr. Lederer also recently met representatives from the CIA, NSA, and Bureau of Intelligence and Research to discuss the

importance of enhancing intelligence collection on the trafficking issue. Better intelligence will make it possible for us to better understand the magnitude of the problem and fine-tune our strategy to combat it.

Programs: The State Department has also funded or implemented some 90 global

anti-trafficking programs, projects or initiatives in well over 30 countries. We work

closely with the Agency for International Development and the Department of

Labor, and have held interagency working group meetings to coordinate these programs. I have brought copies of a factsheet detailing the various international antitrafficking initiatives. This factsheet can also be found on our web-site. Our programmatic approach has been predicated on the ‘‘three P’s’’: protection, prosecution

and prevention. Our interagency meeting will take stock of the programs that have

been ongoing and make determinations as to what our priorities will be in these

three areas.

Public Outreach: While the Act, our report, and other efforts have significantly

raised awareness of the issue, we are committed to reaching out to the public to

educate them about the issue and what the U.S. is doing. For example, Ambassador

Ely-Raphel and I recently spoke on the trafficking issue in an OAS forum on Violence Against Women. The show was webcast and picked up by a host of radio and

television stations. I have spoken with numerous journalists, and I know Nancy and

her team will continue this effort. In fact her team has been busy throughout the

country and world educating people about the issue. Over the last year, members

of our new office traveled to Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, and Jamaica to

speak on trafficking panels at various international conferences and share information with various foreign government officials and non-governmental representaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
16

tives. Office members also traveled to different states, ranging from Alaska to

Vermont to South Carolina, to enhance public awareness of the trafficking issue

and/or participate in law enforcement training courses and conferences.

CLOSING

We’ve been busy. But there remains a lot to be done. We thank you for your leadership on this issue and the Act, which has provided a solid framework for our efforts, an impetus for increased coordination, and a model as we reach out to our

partner countries.

We look forward to continued partnership on this issue. I look forward to a day

when I can say that there isn’t a problem for us to talk and write about. Until that

day, we will continue to work in close partnership with you, our allies, the NGO

community, and anyone else committed to ending this unacceptable offense.

Thank you for this opportunity. I welcome your comments or questions today and

in the future.

Chairman HYDE. I understand that you have to leave at 12:15,

and rather than lose the opportunity for questions, if you will, we

will break our usual routine, and we will ask you questions now

before you leave.

And Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Could I pass for the moment?

Chairman HYDE. Sure.

Mr. Gilman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. I will be brief.

Can you tell us, Madam Secretary, how our embassies abroad are

using the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in diplomatic discussions? Are clear signals being sent to those foreign governments

about the act’s enforcement provisions and about the obligation,

the intention of our Nation to vigorously apply them?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. The answer is yes. First, let me briefly say I

have had the opportunity to meet with many of our outgoing Ambassadors through the State Department’s ambassadorial seminar.

I have discussed quite specifically the report, and the issue of trafficking in persons with them. I have also discussed trafficking with

those Ambassadors who have also come to my office before going

out in the field.

Quite specifically to answer your question, yes, we have. We have

used the report, first of all, as an instrument of dialogue. It has

been a fundamental tool in our discourse with other countries to

basically engage them on the issues of prevention, protection and

prosecution, and to quite specifically look at what is being done and

what isn’t being done.

Toward that end, I would say that I think the engagement has

not only been consistent, it has been broadspread, but it also has,

I think, reaped certain results. As I indicated briefly in my statement, a number of countries have come back to us and are very interested in improving their records and are soliciting our advice

and support in a number of cases.

Finally, separate from bilateral engagement, we have tried to

also use multilateral means and fora as well to raise the trafficking

issue.

Mr. GILMAN. Do you feel that you have been successful in your

efforts?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. As I said, in a number of cases, yes; in some

cases, no. In some cases it is very clear with certain countries that

we are going to have to be very vigilant. We are going to have to

17

think of new and creative means of exerting pressure. As clearly

indicated in the act, the act calls for ultimately in 2003 punitive

sanction measures.

But I will say this, that I think I am heartened by the fact that

essentially a number of the countries in Tier 3 have come back and

do want to work with us and try to improve their records.

Mr. GILMAN. Who are some of your major violators?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Meaning the ones that have engaged us positively?

Mr. GILMAN. Who have not engaged you positively and still are

a major violator.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Well, there are a number of major violators on

the Tier 3 list. I will tell you the ones, if you don’t mind, the ones

who have been positive, and then we will leave the others sitting

on the list.

Mr. GILMAN. I want to know the ones that have not been positive.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Okay.

Mr. GILMAN. Just some of the major ones.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Well, for example, countries such as Russia. I

don’t believe that we have had extensive engagement with Russia.

Let me see, looking through the countries, Indonesia, Congo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belarus.

Mr. GILMAN. Madam Secretary, could you supply for us a list of

the major violators who have not been cooperative? Could you supply our Committee with a list of those major violators who are not

cooperating?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Okay. As well as the ones who have been cooperating?

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman, she has to leave at 12:15, and we

have other Members.

Mr. GILMAN. One more question. Can you tell us of the activities

of the Interagency Task Force to Combat Trafficking, the establishment which was mandated by this Traffic Victims Protection Act?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I am sorry. I didn’t hear.

Mr. GILMAN. Can you tell us of the activities of the Interagency

Task Force to Combat Trafficking that was established by this act?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. As I said, the interagency group seeks to coordinate the activities of the various agencies that are involved and

have a stake in this issue and have been already engaged. But the

group is meant to ensure that we are well coordinated, that we are

focused; the group also looks at these programs that each of—actually each of the agencies have undertaken to try to ensure that we

are not duplicating, but that we are reinforcing one another; and

then also, thirdly, to lay down, I think, what would constitute programmatic parameters.

By the way, if I may add a footnote, which I feel I should. It

probably is not fair for me to have mentioned specific countries. I

mentioned a few. There are others that haven’t cooperated. There

are some in Tier 2 that I have not mentioned that haven’t been cooperative. Although I have mentioned a few, the process is ongoing.

There may be information that even as I sit here, and in fairness

to those countries, that I may not be personally aware of changes.

18

So I will—to be precise on that, I would like to submit that information for the record.

Mr. GILMAN. We welcome that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Madam Secretary, thank you again

for your testimony and for your good work.

Gary Haugen from the International Justice Mission will testify

later on, and he is concerned and I have heard this voiced by some

others, that there are some Tier 2 countries that were put on the

list that really, you know—and as we know, Tier 2 are those who

don’t meet the minimum requirements, but they are making significant efforts to do so. There are countries that—where there appears to be police complicity if not outright the buying and selling

and the running of those brothels.

He makes the point to a person, and this is after he goes through

some casework that is absolutely disturbing. In one of those bits of

casework he talks about those very young girls, 90 to 120 victims

observed, where the investigators found a dollar for sex, $5 for a

night, and $30 dollars to own these young girls outright. If that

isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is, yet this is a Tier 2 country. He

makes the point that these countries, like I said, the police are very

much involved, and yet they are on that Tier 2 list.

And many of us have the concern that India, China, Vietnam and

Cambodia are also on the Tier 2 list, and there is a concern. Are

any other matters weighing into that in terms of whether or not

they are in Tier 3 or Tier 2?

He makes the point again, I think it is very important to reiterate this, that if we give a passing grade without addressing the

real problem, we do a disservice to the people who are fighting in

those countries to stop this. How do you respond to that?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. When the reports were compiled, as I indicated—as I noted, they were predicated on a broad solicitation

drawing upon the act’s standards, questions, and criteria that was

sent out to all of our posts. The posts in turn reached out to a wide

range of sources, both public and private, indigenous NGOs as well

as American NGOs, press reports, the gamut.

When these assessments were made, they also focused on protection, prevention and prosecution and what efforts were being made

in each country toward that end. In some cases, you know, this was

our first effort.

We then looked back. Maybe there was information that we

needed to have and needed to have more of. That is why right

when we rolled out the report, I know, in fact, a number of NGOs,

including your upcoming witness, was invited to be part of that review effort, because we wanted to have a critique, actually a critique on what we put out.

This is an ever-changing process. That is why I felt a little bit

hesitant after I mentioned several countries earlier, because it is

a changing process. Some countries are improving their records.

Some may not. I may not be, as I am sitting here, aware of some

of the new efforts that may be going on at post.

19

But back to your question. Very specifically, there are countries

that are in Tier 2; there are countries in Tier 3. We made our best

effort in putting them in the categories based on the information

we had. We would be very much open and would welcome any information that either you or NGOs here in the room have as to a

number of the countries that you mentioned. And that is—— Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I know the time is very brief. We had

a major battle in terms of definition, section 103 of the bill, and we

included prostitution and the sale, harboring, transmitting and the

like under that definition, and there was an effort made by the previous Administration just to have forced prostitution included. My

understanding is that there is neutrality at the Department now

on that issue. Could you clarify?

And Jessica Neuwirth makes a very strong and compelling argument, as did the previous Administration, that this is exploitation

of women, and to somehow look askance when it is seemly by consent does a grave disservice to these women. If you could clarify

this.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Very simply, we oppose all forms of prostitution, and that is upon which——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. As well as the legalization of prostitution?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. All forms including legalized prostitution. And

our approach is predicated on, as you know, the three Ps, prevention, protection, prosecution.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Yes. I have two questions. First, the Tier 3 countries, and coming to mind are Greece, Israel and Turkey. What

kind of progress are they making coming up to Tier 2?

My second question is, there has been, particularly in Japan,

something that I would consider a real problem. They advertise for

young women to come over and work in the water bars. These

young women come to Tokyo or other cities within Japan, and they

end up working in these bars. They end up going into prostitution,

and they end up disappearing.

Have you been considering that particular issue and problem

that seems to be localized in Japan? It might be some other countries in Asia. But what do you know about that problem?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Okay. On the first question you mentioned

Greece, Turkey, Israel. I was mentioning on the positive side Israel

has come back and has engaged us in discussion on the issue of

trafficking in persons in the three categories. I think the report has

really generated very, very positive discussion.

I must say personally in the case of Greece and Turkey, we can

get back to you specifically, as we are getting back on the country’s

cases. I personally am not familiar with what discourse has arisen

with those two countries, but Israel has definitely come forward.

Ms. WATSON. Does that not move them to another tier?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Not yet. We haven’t actually come back to Congress with giving a single interim report and saying that a country

should be moved off of Tier 3 and put onto Tier 2 yet.

So you know, there are some countries that we are having discussions with. We may see some improvement. There are some that

20

we are having discussions with, but that may not translate into improvement. We have to see. In the case of Israel I could tell you

that it is real, has been initiated, and we have had some very good

concrete discussions with them. On the other two, as I mentioned,

I would have to come back to you specifically on that.

With regard to Japan, I would just state broadly, and then would

want to also come back to you on the specifics that you raise, any

form of trafficking where you know the term with all of you in your

statements have—you have made—force, fraud, coercion—that is

what we are concerned about.

Ms. WATSON. Deception more in this case.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. More fraud, force, coercion. Wouldn’t you translate deception as a type of fraud?

Ms. WATSON. Possible. What are they doing about it, or what are

you doing about it?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I would—Congresswoman, I would have to

come back to you on that specific point.

Ms. WATSON. Please do.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If the gentlelady would yield very

briefly.

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank you.

Madam Secretary, section 103(9) defines sex trafficking. The

term ‘‘sex trafficking’’ means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person for the purposes of a commercial sex act.

While the overwhelming weight of the sanctions are leveled

against those who engage in severe forms of trafficking, the clear

intent of this legislation was inclusive of sex trafficking in general.

Thank you.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Ohio Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the Chairman. I will be brief. The numbers

of lives who have been affected by this and oftentimes destroyed

are really mind-boggling, and I think it is appropriate, I would

commend the Chair for taking on this important hearing today.

Madam Secretary, could you discuss one or two recent cases in

which traffickers have been tried and convicted in countries other

than the United States? And has the Trafficking Victims Protection

Act helped to encourage foreign governments to bring such cases?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I am personally not familiar with those cases.

That may be potentially, I would assume, in your bailiwick, actually my colleague from the Department of Justice.

Mr. CHABOT. Could you briefly talk about a case in particular, or

would you prefer to wait until you testify?

Mr. BOYD. I will be happy to respond to that now.

We have a number of prosecutions at the Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division, in coordination with the various United

States attorneys’ offices across the country, that have been brought

in the trafficking and trafficking-related area. They involve cases

of trafficking women and, in some instances, children from Vietnam and China to work in forced-labor situations under the types

of cruel conditions and circumstances that exist in Samoa, a case

that Congressman Lantos referred to in his opening remarks.

21

We have cases involving women who were trafficked from Guatemala to serve in sexual servitude here in the United States. We

have instances of young women and girls being trafficked into the

United States to serve as prostitutes and in strip clubs from Russia

and the Ukraine. You name it, we’ve got it.

We have 89 open investigations, and we have prosecuted over the

course of the last year about 12 cases of some obvious note involving the kinds of circumstances that have been discussed here

today.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. And I yield back the balance

of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also will be brief.

Madam Secretary, when Congressman Smith and I and others

were in St. Petersburg, I think it was a year and a half ago, and

met with representatives of various organizations, NGOs over there

who were combating trafficking, it was quite elucidated that so

much of the problem dealing with it in countries is the fact that

there is a cultural sort of a nonchalant attitude taken by a lot of

people in a lot of these countries. This attitude suggests that, in

fact, most of these women know exactly what they are doing. If

they answered these ads, well, so what, come on, it is all pretty

much their own desire.

But there was one aspect of it that it seemed to me quite extraordinary in terms of the situation—how one thing could be more horrendous than another, but in Russia at the time we were confronted with an allegation that children were being taken from orphanages and wholesale. I mean, buses would come. A fee would

be paid to the people running the orphanage, and 20 or 30 or 50

children would be taken and sent away.

Now, in that situation it was absolutely apparent that even people in Russia who would have taken a more nonchalant attitude to

adult trafficking were completely astounded by this and were affronted by it. What I was wondering was whether or not it would

be legitimate for you and the State Department to begin to work

with those embryonic aspects of the media in these various countries. I say embryonic because I am speaking specifically of those

that are doing investigative journalism. They are using the media

in these countries to actually bring this kind of thing to light in

the country and to make it a public discussion in the hopes that

in focusing on issues like the one I just mentioned like the children

taken from the orphanages, that we could turn public opinion. Is

that a legitimate form of combating terrorism from your point of

view, the State Department working with the media?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Absolutely. In fact, the way our office is structured, the new trafficking office focuses on the report, the programmatic division, and then what we call the outreach division—

dealing with media, public outreach. As part of that, and clearly as

part of prevention, prevention is knowing and having campaigns,

public campaigns, international campaigns, local campaigns, and

the involvement of both those individuals in Government as well as

out of Government.

22

I mean, we have to be very vigilant in trying to encourage others

not only at the public level, meaning other governments, just as

our Government is being outspoken about the problems that we

have confronted in our own country, to join in. If trafficking in persons is to be eradicated, it has to be a very public effort.

As you were speaking, I wrote down three words. First, you

know, I don’t see it as a cultural matter. I will say that. I personally don’t see it as cultural. I see this as criminal activity no matter

where it occurs.

Mr. TANCREDO. Undoubtedly.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. But I wrote down two of the motivations: greed

and also not knowing. The media is critical. Many of these women,

with the thought that they are moving on to some new job and

some new prospect, are taken in and then, you know, are shocked

at what they end up in. One needs to know more, and that gets

back to education and back to media campaigns.

So absolutely, and that is, as I have indicated, certainly one of

the components of our office, and we will be pursuing programs toward that end.

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Thank you.

Help me understand trafficking. We are the money bags of the

world, so in the past I assume a lot of the trafficking was coming

to the United States to take advantage of the more lucrative market. As we have tightened down on through INS over the years— and I suspect the tightening is continuing, has trafficking into the

United States been a focus of the State Department’s efforts? What

do you predict is the future in terms of the tightening of all immigration coming into this country?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Well, I will answer the front end, and then I

think my colleague from the Department of Justice should be answering the end concerning specifically immigration.

We collaborate with the Department of Justice. The Department

of Justice is in the lead on this question of immigration. Specifically in terms of the numbers, you know, the numbers that have

been cited have been some 700,000, and I have been very struck

by coming back into Government and being involved with this issue

and hearing what is said. Most are saying that that is a low figure

actually. That figure is global, excuse me, not for the United

States. Globally 700,000, most say that is a low figure. For the

United States, and as cited in our report, I believe the figure is approximately somewhere between 50,000 to 60,000 that we cite at

the front of our report.

The United States is a transit and destination country. There are

some countries which are source countries, transit countries, and

then you have destination countries. We are a transit and destination country. That defines basically where we fit into this picture.

Do you want to—— Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. To Mr. Boyd, expand on your answer

to include I understand—— Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith, the purpose is to question Ms.

Dobriansky. She must leave at 12:15, and we will hold off on Mr.

Boyd.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

23

Chairman HYDE. Do you have a question pending?

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No.

Chairman HYDE. You are all through. Thank you.

Mr. Pitts, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam

Secretary, for your testimony.

Just to clarify, in the past 8 years it appeared that some in the

State Department supported the idea that prostitution could be a

legitimate form of labor. In fact, it is the position of some NGOs

that prostitution should be safe and legal. They advocate this position as part of their anti-trafficking activities and apparently receive some support of various sorts from speaking engagements, to

grants, to contracts, to subcontracts. Can you clarify the position

of the State Department in this policy debate as to funding these

groups?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I believe I answered that very directly. This

Administration’s position is we do not support prostitution, all

forms of prostitution, and when Congressman Smith asked me

about legalized prostitution, I indicated that we do not support legalized prostitution.

Mr. PITTS. Is there a restriction on what they can promote with

the funding and the arrangements you make with them as far as

their promotion of prostitution being safe and legal?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. We haven’t undertaken a specific review. That

is going on actually in taking stock of all groups that have been

funded, noting where we are and then determining where we go

forward with this.

Mr. PITTS. So that prostitution will be always viewed as a criminal violation, not just a labor issue of keeping it safe and legal; is

that correct?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Well, I think I have answered where we stand

on the issue of prostitution quite specifically.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Issa, the gentleman from California.

Mr. ISSA. Following up on that question, and I know that it is

not your portfolio, but allowing domestic prostitution in places such

as Nevada to be legal, doesn’t it eliminate our high ground in our

ability to define, and I think quite correctly define, prostitution as

a crime at all times?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. You are right. I don’t think it is my bailiwick.

I would defer to the lawyer at the table, but I have stated, I believe, very clearly what our position is.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that. Just following up on my question,

though, to keep it within your bailiwick, doesn’t it undermine your

credibility when you go to tell these NGOs that no prostitution legally allowed is not acceptable, doesn’t our American policy such as

in Nevada undermine your ability to accomplish that?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I think that the focus here is on trafficking in

persons, that is what the issue is. In terms of our approach and

policy, I think that our policy is a very effective one. If you are focused on the eradication of all aspects of trafficking in persons, I

don’t believe we stand any less credible in our position.

Mr. ISSA. One final follow-up, if I could. Presumably a Nevada

brothel could put an advertisement in an overseas newspaper askVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
24

ing for young women—under their law you wouldn’t have to be

18—to work in Nevada in a high-paying, safe and legal position.

Doesn’t that undermine your efforts if that can really legally be

done and if that law in some States works to the detriment of

credibility on trafficking?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Again, Congressman, I think the focus here— if you will forgive me, with due respect, I think the focus is on trafficking in persons. I think there are a variety of international

issues that we speak out on, on human rights issues, where other

countries may come and pick out particulars about specific laws in

the United States. I repeat, I do not think that if your focus is very

straight, very clear as to what our definition of trafficking is—as

Congressman Smith defined it and as I have it in front of me—I

think it does not undermine our own approach and credibility.

As to the legal dimension of this, I really defer to my colleague

here.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Flake, the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you very much.

Just a quick question of Africa, the prevalence of AIDS in Africa,

in some of the countries that you deal with here, Angola and whatnot, how has the prevalence of AIDS affected your work there both

in trafficking across country and within countries for labor and the

sex trade?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Quite significantly. In fact, in terms of my own

portfolio as the Under Secretary for Global Affairs, I handle a

broad range of issues, one of which is dealing with infectious diseases, and clearly there is a relationship here and a significant

problem. The number of cases have risen and are very much connected, in fact, to trafficking. That is one of the clear problems that

we have to deal with, and it is interrelated to refugee camps. A lot

of women in refugee camps have contracted HIV/AIDS. There have

been a lot of women, in addition, who have been trafficked out of

refugee camps.

There is an interrelationship among these various issues, and it

is a problem and one that we must be vigilant on.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. No further questions.

Chairman HYDE. And the last questioner, and I am happy to say

we made our time, 12:15, right on the button, the gentlelady from

the First District of Virginia Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

I will be very brief so the Secretary can leave.

Understanding that I am a freshman and wasn’t here last year

when the act was passed, and one of the things I have found since

in Congress is that things move slowly, do you think we enacted

the particulars of the legislation as quickly as we should have? It

seems to me that the perception is that a lot of the aspects of the

legislation have not been implemented yet, understanding you just

came on in March as well, so it is not directed at you, but that is

just a general question.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I wish I came on in March. I came on in May.

But the new Administration, I think, certainly tried to pick up the

mantle quickly and expeditiously on this issue. I am quite pleased

25

that we issued a report; in fact, we got positive feedback from a

number of you here in the room and other Members of Congress.

We felt that as a first start we made a very good and very important effort.

Also in terms of setting up our office, too, by maybe all accounts

bureaucratically I think we have done a good job in moving forward

and have a good, solid and experienced team to deal with the issue

of trafficking in persons. The Interagency Task Force, as I said, we

will be soon convening that body, which will be chaired by the Secretary of State. But I would want to underscore, and I think this

is an important point, that prior to the office actually being set up,

that did not mean that during this period that everything was put

on ice or being held off to the side. In fact, as you see, there were

a number of programs during this period that have been initiated,

had been ongoing, and no less in terms of the work completed by

the other agencies. I feel in looking back over everything since the

time of the act coming into being, I think that we really have made

a significant mark.

Also, coming back to the question before about visibility, I know

when we had our rollout, it certainly did make its mark, and we

had, I thought, a very significant impact internationally.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Madam Secretary, you are paroled. Thank you

for a very enlightening statement and answers to these important

questions, and we will be in frequent contact.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you. And I was going to ask Ambassador Raphel to come up here as you go forward, if that is——

Chairman HYDE. Surely.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

And now Assistant Attorney General Boyd.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RALPH F. BOYD, ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Chairman Hyde, Vice Chairman Smith

and Members of the Committee. I want to take this opportunity to

thank you along with my distinguished executive branch colleagues

who are seated here with me. I was going to say ‘‘this morning,’’

but now it is afternoon. I thank you for giving us this opportunity

to present testimony concerning what I believe are our determined

efforts to fully implement the provisions of the Trafficking Victims

Protection Act of 2000.

The Department of Justice is grateful to the Committee and to

Congress for passing this vital legislation. The TVPA gives the Department of Justice new and better tools that enhance our ability

to prosecute traffickers, and it allows us to assist trafficking victims in ways that simply were not possible before the act was

passed in October 2000. Let me speak—— Chairman HYDE. We have a series of votes. I don’t know how

many. Two votes? That won’t take too long, two votes. One is 15,

which means 28 minutes or so, and the next is 5 minutes, and that

can be abbreviated because once we vote, we come back. So if you

26

don’t mind the imposition, we will run over and vote and hurry

back.

Mr. BOYD. I will hold my thought, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Hold on to that thought.

The Committee will be in recess until after the second vote, and

I admonish you to return so we may complete this panel. Thank

you.

[Recess.]

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. [Presiding.] The Committee will resume. Twenty-eight minutes that Chairman Hyde had suggested

they would go, and I do apologize for that, but, Mr. Secretary, I

know you were just holding a thought there, and you are ready to

proceed. If you would proceed now.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Vice Chairman Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I don’t think it is on.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much.

What I had done was thank the Committee and thank you especially, Congressman Smith, for your efforts to give us a statute

which we really view as being an important tool in the DOJ tool

bag, if you will, to really prosecute and deter the trafficking of humans and also to do what we can to alleviate the suffering of victims of trafficking. So I thank you, Congressman Smith.

Let me move on because I know there is a lot to talk about and

probably a lot of questions the Committee has. Let me talk about

the Attorney General’s program to combat trafficking in persons

and the Department of Justice’s efforts at prosecution, outreach, coordination, and protection and assistance to the victims of trafficking.

In March of this year, Attorney General Ashcroft declared that

combating trafficking in persons, which I know the Committee

knows in many instances leads to situations that are tantamount

to modern-day slavery, combating this evil is one of the highest priorities for the Department of Justice. Attorney General Ashcroft

announced in March that additional resources would be allocated

first to prosecute these cases criminally; secondly, to engage in

meaningful outreach efforts targeting vulnerable victims, potential

victims and their advocates and services providers; and third, to coordinate between the various agencies of the Government, some of

which are represented here today, who have responsibilities to

eradicate trafficking and to ameliorate the suffering that it causes.

Let me talk briefly about the prosecutions. To improve our prosecution efforts in the Department of Justice, the Attorney General

issued the first guidance to all 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices concerning

Federal prosecutions under the act. The guidance details the important new law enforcement tools available under the act. The

INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, has also sent

guidance to its district offices regarding its role in implementing

the act.

The Attorney General also announced the creation of new attorney positions in the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section, new

additions that I am delighted to have as part of our efforts to eradicate human trafficking. I should say, Mr. Vice Chairman, that our

Criminal Section in the Civil Rights Division is an office that historically has specialized in investigating and prosecuting human

27

trafficking cases and other similar Federal civil rights crimes. We

have done a number of these cases in the last year. In fact, in August, a Federal grand jury returned a 22-count indictment charging

3 defendants with violations of numerous Federal statutes including involuntary servitude and forced labor under the act. Two of

the defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy and will be sentenced

in January. We also allege that one of the defendants held nearly

250 Vietnamese and Chinese workers in involuntary servitude for

2 years in the U.S. Territory of American Samoa, using them as

forced labor in a garment factory. Approximately 180 of the victims

remain in the United States and are assisting law enforcement.

Now, there are a number of other cases that we have brought

over the course of the last year, and they range from the type of

case that I have just described to the Committee to cases involving

young women and girls who have been brought into America unlawfully for the purposes of having them serve in sexual servitude

and to be exploited sexually. And I won’t go through all of those

because I know the Committee has questions, but I would say they

are set forth in great detail in my written statement, which I know

the Committee will make a part of the record.

Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee, human trafficking cases, as I know many of you know, are labor-intensive and

time-consuming. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has prosecuted—if I can give you these statistics, I think they are helpful

to put this in context. The Department of Justice has prosecuted

34 defendants in fiscal year 2001, more than four times as many

as in the previous year. As of October 2001, the Department of Justice had 89 investigations pending, approximately a 19 percent increase over the number that were pending a year earlier, and a

threefold increase since establishing our Trafficking in Persons and

Worker Exploitation Task Force toll-free hotline in February 2000.

And I want to be clear. Although only one of our current prosecutions involves specific violations under the new criminal provisions

of the act, we expect that many of our 89 open investigations will

end up having allegations and evidence to support those allegations

that will result in indictments under the act.

I should also say that there are other cases kicking around the

Department of Justice on related prosecutions that we also expect

may give rise to specific violations of the act, and we are reviewing

our cases to make some assessment of what the scope and magnitude and what those numbers are likely to be.

Let me talk briefly about outreach. The second part of the Attorney General’s anti-trafficking program involves outreach, and also

in March, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that there would

be permanent funding of the DOJ’s toll-free hotline. And I have already spoken about the information fruits from that hotline in that

it has translated into three times as many cases as we had prior

to the commencement of the hotline. He also directed the creation

of a community outreach program to work with local community

groups, victims’ and immigrants’ rights organizations, shelters, and

other interested and concerned organizations and service providers.

The Department of Justice is also providing expertise and assistance in training prosecutors, police and judges overseas to combat

human trafficking in other countries. We were informed by both doVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
28

mestic and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies

that trafficking in persons is a steadily increasing international

and transnational problem.

Let me move to coordination. The third part of the Attorney General’s strategy is to increase coordination among Department offices in order to investigate and prosecute human trafficking cases

more effectively and more efficiently. Attorney General Ashcroft directed both the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to work with the Civil Rights Division to explore ways to identify victims of trafficking and to refer these cases promptly to the

Division for prosecution. As I know the Committee knows, the FBI

and the INS play critical leadership roles in identifying victims and

investigating these cases that so offend our moral and our legal

sensibilities.

Another important method of facilitating coordination that I

want to mention is the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force. This interagency group helps coordinate the investigation and the prosecution of trafficking cases and seeks to ensure, and this is equally important, the protection of victims of trafficking and other exploitative work practices. And I am one of the

cochairs of the task force along with the Solicitor of Labor, and the

task force also includes several other representatives from many offices within the Department of Justice and the Department of

Labor and other interested and involved Federal agencies. In addition, the task force has created 15 regional task forces, each of

which has points of contact from local offices of various Federal

agencies represented on the task force.

Mr. Vice Chairman, if I can move quickly, because I suspect this

will be a matter of some interest to the Committee, to the protection and assistance to victims of trafficking aspects, our work with

respect to the T nonimmigrant status regulation and the regulation

promulgated to implement section 107(c) of the act. As I know the

Committee knows, the act created a new nonimmigrant status. The

T visas are for eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking as set

forth in section 107(e) of the act.

Although the Department has not yet published a regulation to

implement this provision, I am happy to say that last week we did

submit an interim rule to the Office of Management and Budget,

the OMB, and the rule addressed the essential elements that must

be demonstrated for a person to be classified as a T nonimmigrant

alien. It also sets forth the procedures to be followed by applicants

to apply for T visas, and also provides evidentiary guidance to assist in the application process.

Relatedly on July 24 of this year, Attorney General Ashcroft announced the issuance of a regulation implementing section 107(c)

of the act, and I do want to thank you, Vice Chairman Smith, for

your participation in that announcement. I know that this is an important aspect in implementing the provisions of this act, and I

know you participated in the publicity surrounding the issuance of

this important regulation.

This regulation instructs Federal officials to provide victims of

human trafficking with legal protections and other assistance as

their cases are investigated and prosecuted by Federal authorities.

The 107(c) implementing regulation requires Federal officials to

29

identify victims of severe forms of human trafficking, protect those

victims who are in custody, provide victims with access to information and translation services, and establish legal mechanisms for

allowing victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons who are

potential witnesses continued presence and reasonable protection

in the United States. And finally, it provides for developing appropriate training for Department of Justice and State personnel in investigating and prosecuting these cases.

Let me speak briefly about HHS certification, and I know Assistant Secretary Horn is here. Victims of severe forms of trafficking

may be eligible for a number of benefits and services regardless of

their immigration status. Under section 107(b) of the act, alien victims of severe forms of trafficking are eligible for many Federally

funded assistance programs to the same extent as aliens admitted

to the United States as refugees. The Department of Health and

Human Services will testify about the implementation of 107(b)

today, but I can report that the Department of Justice and HHS

have worked very closely together over the course of the past year,

and we remain in frequent communication about how best to implement the act and, most importantly, to assist victims of trafficking. The act also authorizes a $10 million grant program to fund

State and local governments, Indian tribes and nonprofit, nongovernmental victim service organizations to develop and expand

programs for trafficking victims, and we are very happy to hear

that this funding has been included in the Department’s fiscal year

2002 appropriation, which I understand the President signed yesterday. I should say that the Department, therefore, is prepared to

hit the ground running to implement this grant program.

Let me conclude by saying that since the passage of the act, the

urgent need for its provisions has become more and more apparent

to those of us charged with the act’s enforcement. The Department

of Justice has encountered many human trafficking victims who

need our assistance and our protection from traffickers. We commend you for passing this important legislation, and I assure you

that we are working, and I promise that we will continue to work,

diligently to implement the act and to help bring a real measure

of comfort, of justice and of dignity to trafficking victims who find

their way to our shores. Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much for your full

testimony, and your full statement will be made a part of the

record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RALPH F. BOYD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for affording me the

opportunity to appear before you today to present testimony concerning the implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). The Department of Justice is grateful to the Committee and to Congress for passing this vital

piece of legislation. The TVPA creates new tools that enhance the Department’s

ability to prosecute traffickers, and it allows us to assist trafficking victims in ways

that simply were not possible before the TVPA was passed in October 2000.

Trafficking in persons—also known as ‘‘human trafficking’’—is a form of modernday slavery, and, although unknown to many, it is a significant and persistent problem in America and internationally. Victims are often lured with false promises of

30

good jobs and better lives, and then forced to work under brutal and inhuman conditions. Many trafficking victims are forced to work in the sex industry, but trafficking can also take place in labor settings involving domestic servitude, prison-like

factories, and migrant agricultural work. An estimated 50,000 women and children

are trafficked into the United States each year.

The TVPA sets forth a three-pronged strategy to combat the crime of trafficking

in persons: providing protection and assistance to victims, prosecuting offenders,

and preventing human trafficking by working with authorities in the victims’ home

countries. My remarks today will focus on the areas in which the Department of

Justice is most directly involved—the prosecution of traffickers and the protection

of victims in the United States.

Combating human trafficking is one of the highest priorities for Attorney General

Ashcroft and the Department of Justice. In March 2001, the Attorney General set

forth new steps to address trafficking in persons, and in July 2001, he announced

the publication of a regulation implementing a portion of the TVPA. The Attorney

General noted:

Human trafficking is a serious violation of the law. It is an affront to human

dignity. The Department of Justice is determined not to stand idly by while the

toll in human suffering mounts. Human trafficking victims often are too young,

too frightened, too trapped in their circumstances to speak for themselves. By

setting high standards of conduct for federal officials in meeting the needs of

these victims, we hope to be the victims’ voice, to lessen the suffering, to prosecute those who commit these crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S PROGRAM TO COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

In March 2001, the Attorney General declared that combating trafficking in persons was an important priority for the Department of Justice. He stated that additional resources would be allocated for prosecutions, outreach, and coordination.

Prosecutions

To improve our prosecution efforts, the Attorney General issued the first guidance

to all U.S. Attorneys’ offices concerning federal prosecutions under the TVPA.

Among other things, the guidance document details the important new law enforcement tools available under the Act. For example, the March guidance points out

that under the TVPA, those convicted of trafficking offenses may be imprisoned for

up to 20 years and, in some instances, for life. This represents a significant increase

over preexisting servitude statutes, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the guidance explains that the new statutes created by the

Act are designed to address the subtle means of coercion that traffickers often use

to bind their victims in servitude. Such means include psychological coercion, trickery, and the seizure of documents. Preexisting servitude statutes and case law made

it difficult to prosecute such conduct, but the new statutes permit federal prosecutors to address this wider range of activities that traffickers use to facilitate their

criminal objectives. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has also sent

guidance to its district offices regarding its role in implementing the TVPA.

In addition, the Attorney General announced the creation of two new attorney positions in the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section, an office that specializes in

investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases (and other federal civil rights

crimes). In our FY 2002 budget request, the Department is seeking an increase of

$770,000 to hire 7 additional prosecutors and 5 support staff to work on human trafficking cases and enforcing the TVPA. In most of our cases, we serve as co-counsel

with the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices across America.

The following descriptions are illustrative of some of the cases the Department

has prosecuted this year alone:

• In August, a federal grand jury returned a 22-count indictment charging

three defendants with violations of numerous federal statutes, including involuntary servitude. Two others pleaded guilty to conspiracy and will be sentenced in January 2002. We allege that one of the defendants, Kil Soo Lee,

held nearly 250 Vietnamese and Chinese workers (mostly young women) in

involuntary servitude for over two years in the U.S. Territory of American

Samoa, using them as forced labor in his garment factory. He reportedly

maintained a captive, cheap and compliant labor force through various coercive means including threats of harm, assaults, beatings, extreme food deprivation, creation of company store indebtedness, denial of other work opportunities, threats of deportation with severe economic consequences including

bankruptcy to workers and their families, confiscation of passports, and false

arrest. Lee and his subordinates are alleged to have held the victims in a

31

guarded compound containing a factory, living barracks, and a cafeteria. Approximately 180 of the victims remain in the United States and are helping

law enforcement. Trial is scheduled for April 2002. (United States v. Kil Soo

Lee)

• In August, a federal grand jury in El Paso, Texas returned a six-count indictment charging two defendants with recruiting women from Uzbekistan into

the United States under false pretenses, then forcing them to work in strip

clubs and bars in order to pay back an alleged $300,000 smuggling fee. We

allege that the victims’ passports were taken away, they were required to

work seven days a week, and they were told that their families in Uzbekistan

would be harmed if they did not comply with the defendants’ demands.

(United States v. Gasanov)

• In August, May, and March, three defendants pleaded guilty to rounding up

and enslaving homeless and drug-addicted African-American men in Fort

Pierce, Florida, and forcing them to pick oranges against their will by using

crack-cocaine, threats and violence. The two primary defendants were subsequently sentenced to prison terms of 55 and 48 months. (United States v. Lee)

• In June, three men pleaded guilty in federal district court to bringing two sixteen-year-old Russian girls to Anchorage, Alaska to dance nude in a strip

club. The two main defendants were sentenced in August and September to

46 and 30 months incarceration. (United States v. Virchenko)

• In March, a Berkeley, California multimillionaire pleaded guilty to using

beatings and threats to hold girls captive whom he had brought into the

United States from India to work in his real estate business. The victims

were predominantly from families of lower castes and were brought here by

way of fraudulent employment offers or sham marriages. The defendant was

sentenced to 97 months incarceration and was ordered to pay $2 million in

restitution to four of his victims. (United States v. Reddy)

Human trafficking cases are labor-intensive and time-consuming matters, often

involving many victims and requiring the full-time involvement of multiple attorneys and investigators. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice prosecuted 34 defendants in FY 2001, more than four times as many as in the year before. In addition, we opened investigations into 64 allegations of trafficking in FY 2001. As of

October 2001, we had 89 investigations pending, which represents a 19% increase

over the number of pending investigations we had a year earlier and a three-fold

increase since establishing our Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task

Force toll-free hotline in February 2000. Although just one of our current prosecutions (United States v. Kil Soo Lee) involves violations of the new criminal statutes

(Section 1589—forced labor), many of our 89 investigations include allegations that

may lead to indictments under the TVPA.

Outreach

To enhance our outreach efforts, the Attorney General announced in March that

there would be permanent funding of our Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force toll-free hotline (1–888–428–7581). He also announced the creation of a community outreach program to work with local community groups, victims’ rights organizations, immigrants’ rights organizations, shelters, and other interested groups. This outreach program has been under way for several months, and

we have had increasing success in informing victims of the protections and services

that are available to them, and encouraging victims and others to report suspected

trafficking crimes. Justice Department personnel have made numerous presentations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), shelters, crisis centers, community and advocacy groups, and service providers about the Department’s efforts to

combat trafficking and aid trafficking victims. We are also working closely with the

Department’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) to provide expertise and assistance in training prosecutors, police and

judges overseas to combat human trafficking in those countries and regions. Department officials have participated in assistance and training in Poland; BosniaHerzegovina; Bulgaria; Kosovo; Macedonia; Romania; the former Soviet republics,

including Ukraine; and Thailand; and we have briefed many international visitors

to the United States on our new trafficking in persons law.

Coordination

The third part of the Attorney General’s March announcement was that there

would be increased coordination among Departmental offices in order to investigate

and prosecute human trafficking cases more effectively. He directed both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the INS to work with the Civil Rights DiviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
32

sion to explore ways to identify victims of trafficking and to refer these cases to the

division for prosecution. The FBI and INS play a critical leadership role in identifying victims and investigating these crimes.

Another important method of facilitating coordination is the Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force, formerly called the Worker Exploitation

Task Force. This interagency group helps coordinate the investigation, prosecution,

and protection of victims of trafficking and other exploitive work practices. The Task

Force is co-chaired by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the Solicitor of Labor. Department of Justice components include the Civil Rights Division

(Criminal Section, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices), the Criminal Division (Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,

Alien Smuggling Task Force), the FBI, INS, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

(EOUSA), the Office of Legal Policy, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), and the

Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). Department of Labor components include

the Office of the Solicitor, the Wage and Hour Division, and the Women’s Bureau.

Other federal partners include the U.S. Departments of State, Agriculture, and

Health and Human Services (HHS); the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and the National Labor Relations Board. In addition, the Task Force has created fifteen regional task forces, each of which has points of contacts from local offices of federal agencies.

PROTECTION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING

‘‘T’’ Nonimmigrant Status Regulation

The TVPA created a new nonimmigrant status for eligible victims of severe forms

of trafficking in Section 107(e). Although the Department of Justice has not yet published a regulation to implement this provision, last week we submitted an interim

rule to the Office of Management and Budget regarding the implementation of Section 107(e) of the TVPA. The rule will address the essential elements that must be

demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien, the procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant status, and evidentiary guidance

to assist in the application process. In order to encourage input and feedback from

affected communities, the INS conducted a series of stakeholders’ meetings with

representatives from key federal agencies; national, state and local law enforcement

associations; non-profit, community-based victim rights organizations; and other

groups. Many officials and components within the Department have devoted considerable time and attention to this issue, and we expect to publish this important regulation in the near future.

107(c) Regulation

In July 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft announced the issuance of a regulation

implementing Section 107(c) of the TVPA. This regulation instructs federal law enforcement personnel, immigration officials, and Department of State officials to provide victims of human trafficking with legal protections and other assistance as

their cases are investigated and prosecuted.

The 107(c) regulation requires federal law enforcement personnel, immigration officials, and Department of State officials to: (1) identify victims of severe forms of

human trafficking; (2) protect victims in custody; (3) provide victims with access to

information and translation services; (4) establish legal mechanisms for allowing

victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons, who are potential witnesses, continued presence and reasonable protection in the United States; and (5) develop appropriate training for Department of Justice and State personnel investigating and

prosecuting these cases.

Identifying Victims. Federal officials must identify victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. The regulation helps clarify the roles and responsibilities of federal officials in identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking as early as possible

in the investigation and prosecution process, to ensure efforts are made to see that

such victims are accorded the rights described in 42 U.S.C. 10606, and to provide

the protections and services required under 42 U.S.C. 10607 and under the TVPA.

Protection. Victims of severe forms of trafficking who are in custody must be protected. The regulation establishes procedures for appropriate federal employees to

ensure, to the extent practicable, that victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons are housed in a manner appropriate to their status as crime victims, afforded

proper medical care and other assistance, and protected while in federal custody.

Access to Information. Trafficking victims must be informed of their rights, provided information about pro bono and low-cost legal services, and given access to

translation services if they are unable to communicate in English. In order to help

meet these obligations, federal agencies have created two brochures. The first broVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
33

chure is designed for federal law enforcement personnel to hand out to trafficking

victims they encounter during the course of their investigations and prosecutions.

EOUSA, the FBI, and INS will send the brochure to their agents and victim specialists in the field. Based on research about trafficking victims found in this country,

this brochure is designed to be read at the second-grade level, to provide information to victims about their rights and available services, and to give them specific

contact information for the Department of Justice or Department of State law enforcement agency working with them. We anticipate translating the brochure into

Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, and Russian—these five languages are among

the most common languages spoken by trafficking victims in the United States.

The second brochure is being published by the Department of Justice in collaboration with the Departments of Labor, State, and HHS. It is designed to provide information about federal activities on human trafficking for NGOs that are likely to encounter trafficking victims. The Civil Rights Division plans to send this brochure to

the 1,500 organizations and service providers in our trafficking database; post the

brochure on our Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force website

(other components within Justice will post it on their websites as well); provide the

brochure to Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment

Practices grantees (including faith- and community-based organizations), which conduct public education programs for workers, employers, and immigration service

providers about immigration-related job discrimination; and use the brochure in outreach presentations before appropriate audiences. VAWO plans to send the brochure

for NGOs to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the National Resource Center

on Domestic Violence (which collaborates with 1,800 shelters nationwide), STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program state administrators, and state and

tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions.

Continued Presence. The regulation clarifies the procedures for federal law enforcement officials to request that certain victims of severe forms of trafficking in

persons, who are aliens and potential witnesses to such trafficking, be permitted to

have continued presence in the United States in order to effectuate the investigation

and prosecution of those responsible. It also establishes procedures to protect victims’ safety, including taking measures to protect victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and their family members from intimidation, reprisals, and

threats of reprisals by traffickers and their associates. The INS may use a variety

of immigration mechanisms to ensure the alien’s continued presence in the United

States. The specific mechanism used will depend on the alien’s current status under

the immigration laws and other relevant facts. These mechanisms may include parole, voluntary departure, stay of final order, section 107(c)(3)-based deferred action,

or any other authorized form of continued presence, including applicable nonimmigrant visas. In most circumstances, victims granted continued presence will be

eligible for temporary employment authorization.

Training. The regulation provides guidance about training of appropriate Justice

and State Department personnel in identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking

in persons, in understanding the particular needs common to victims of severe forms

of trafficking in persons, and in providing for the protection of such victims. Most

recently, in October 2001, EOUSA (in conjunction with several other Department

components) organized a training for federal victim-witness coordinators at the Justice Department’s National Advocacy Center in South Carolina. The seminar included victim-witness coordinators from U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country,

Civil Rights Division officials, and agents from INS district offices. Victim-witness

coordinators are on the front line of the effort to combat human trafficking, and they

often are the federal government’s key liaisons to victims of federal crimes like trafficking victims. They help ensure that victims receive information about their rights

and referrals to necessary services.

EOUSA has also used the Justice Television Network (JTN), a satellite television

network broadcast to U.S. Attorneys’ offices and other components of the Department of Justice, to conduct training on trafficking victim issues. During Crime Victims Rights Week in April 2001, EOUSA aired a panel on JTN comprised of representatives from different areas of the federal government who discussed the special needs of trafficking victims throughout the criminal justice process and the resources that are available to assist these victims. In August 2001, EOUSA aired a

panel discussion about how to better assist trafficking victims, with a discussion of

the TVPA as well as the labor laws that protect victims of trafficking.

In addition to the guidance sent in March 2001 to all U.S. Attorneys’ offices, the

first comprehensive training on the TVPA and trafficking cases was conducted for

federal prosecutors, agents, and other officials at a December 2000 seminar at the

National Advocacy Center. The training included presentations on structuring trafficking investigations and prosecutions from a victim-centered perspective; a panel

34

on civil approaches to worker exploitation issues; discussion of recent successful

slavery prosecutions; and development of action plans by regional working groups

of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and agents from the FBI, INS, and Department of

Labor. The Department is planning another training course for federal prosecutors

and agents during the summer of 2002. The INS has also conducted a series of

training activities for Service personnel over the past year.

OVC has provided important training on human trafficking for immigrant service

providers at its annual National Symposium on Victims of Federal Crime. In addition, OVC has provided generous funding for the brochures discussed previously.

HHS Certification

Victims of severe forms of trafficking may be eligible for a number of benefits and

services regardless of immigration status. Under Section 107(b) of the TVPA, alien

victims of severe forms of trafficking are eligible for many federally-funded assistance programs to the same extent as aliens admitted to the United States as refugees under § 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. To be eligible to receive

this assistance, adult victims of severe forms of trafficking must have been certified

by HHS after consultation with the Department of Justice. HHS will testify about

implementation of 107(b) at today’s hearing, but I can report that the Department

of Justice and HHS have worked very closely together over the past year, and we

remain in frequent communication and coordination about how best to implement

the TVPA and to assist victims of trafficking.

Federal Grants

The TVPA authorizes a $10 million grant program to fund state and local governments; Indian tribes; and nonprofit, non-governmental victims’ service organizations

to develop and expand programs for trafficking victims. We were happy to hear that

this funding has been included in the Department of Justice’s FY 2002 appropriation, and OVC and VAWO (as part of the Office of Justice Programs) are prepared

to hit the ground running to implement the grant program. Since 1998, OVC has

provided funding to a Los Angeles-based organization called the Coalition to Abolish

Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), one of the only programs in the United States that

focuses exclusively on victims of trafficking. CAST has provided considerable support to federal efforts to prosecute cases of human trafficking, and the organization

has helped the government better understand the unique needs of trafficking victims. The Department’s funding efforts are being coordinated with the Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS, which has also given recent grants to NGOs to assist

trafficking victims in finding housing, applying for work permits, studying English,

and receiving medical care. The National Institute of Justice, in consultation with

other Justice Department components, is supporting research on human trafficking.

This research will provide the federal government with a better picture of the needs

of trafficking victims.

CONCLUSION

Since passage of the TVPA, the urgent need for these measures has become even

more apparent. The Department of Justice has encountered many human trafficking

victims who need assistance and protection from traffickers. We commend Congress

for passing this important legislation, and I assure you that we are working—and

will continue to work—diligently to implement the TVPA and to help bring a measure of comfort, justice, and dignity to trafficking victims in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to your questions at this time.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Before going to Secretary Horn, I do

want to acknowledge that Chairman Wolf was here earlier, the

Chairman of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee. It should be

noted as he worked his bill through the House, he made sure that

every area where was there a trafficking concern it was fully provided for and fully authorized, and we are very grateful for that.

In terms of the foreign upspill, and I will be asking some questions about this later, we are still working to try to ensure that the

full authorization moneys are provided there as well.

But I also want to acknowledge that Sharon Payt is also here.

Sharon, as the counsel to Senator Brownback, was also very, very

helpful and one of the architects of this legislation. So I want to

35

thank her for being here and for her ongoing work on behalf of

trafficking victims.

Secretary Horn.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE HORN, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify

on the progress the Department of Health and Human Services has

made in implementing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of

2000.

As evidenced by this panel, HHS is only one of several agencies

playing a role in efforts to combat human trafficking. Given the

complexity of participating in such a multiagency endeavor, I am

pleased at the progress that has been made thus far and am deeply

committed to continuing our efforts to implement the law in conjunction with other key Federal agencies.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act is designed to combat

human trafficking by increasing law enforcement, ensuring effective punishment of traffickers, protecting victims, and providing assistance to victims. The law makes adult victims of severe forms

of trafficking who have been certified by HHS eligible for certain

benefits and services to the same extent as refugees. Victims of severe forms of trafficking who are under 18 years of age are also eligible for these benefits to the same extent as refugees, but do not

need to be certified.

In order to ensure the timely certification of trafficking victims,

HHS staff consults on a daily basis with a staff at the U.S. Department of Justice which is charged with investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases and referring appropriate cases to HHS

for certification. Once we receive a referral, the certification letter

is provided to victims safely and without breaches of confidentiality. In addition, we contact local refugee service providers and

other benefit-granting agencies to inquire about appropriate local

programs to help the victims.

We also work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service

to coordinate access to employment authorization documents. This

is a critical component because it allows victims to participate in

work programs and move toward self-sufficiency. In fiscal year

2001, HHS issued 196 certification letters to adults and 4 eligibility

letters to minors under the age of 18. Since the beginning of this

fiscal year, four more certification letters for adults have been sent.

The majority of these victims, 87 percent, are female. Only 13 percent were male. Although the 204 victims came from a variety of

countries, 87 percent were from Vietnam. Victims have also come

from Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, India, Mexico, Micronesia and Russia. In many of these cases traffickers took the victims’ immigration documents, restricted their freedom of movement, and physically and, in some cases, sexually abused them.

Despite the hardship that these victims have suffered, many

have been able to successfully participate in the Voluntary Agency

Matching Grant Program, a program to help refugees and now trafficking victims attain self-sufficiency within 4 months. The proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
36

gram emphasizes employment, English language training, and cultural orientation.

In addition to certification assistance activities, the act calls for

HHS, in collaboration with other Federal agencies, to carry out activities and programs to increase public awareness about trafficking. To that end we have been actively involved in outreach efforts aimed at immigrant and refugee communities, NGOs, voluntary agencies, State and local social service providers, State and

local law enforcement, the general public and other Federal and

State government officials. Further, in fiscal year 2001, we awarded more than $1.25 million

in discretionary grants to aid organizations throughout the United

States. These grants provide these nongovernmental groups the

means to assist certified and/or eligible victims of trafficking in

order to enhance their transition from victimization to self-sufficiency. In addition, trafficking grant funds may be used to fund

other services needed during the time between the date of HHS

certification or eligibility letters and the receipt of public benefits

and support services.

As important as these steps are, we know that there are still also

an estimated 50,000 victims annually in the United States and

over several hundred thousand worldwide. One of the barriers to

victims of trafficking coming forward is the fear that doing so may

result in their being deported. It must be remembered that many

of these victims are women and children who have been beaten or

raped. We need to help them understand that coming forward

would not result in their further victimization, but in their being

made safe and provided with help.

To date our efforts have focused on making the program operational. We are now prepared to ensure that we do a better job of

communicating to trafficking victims that we will protect them and

that we will provide them with support of services. If successful,

our model will not only be important for victims here in the United

States, but also for trafficking victims throughout the world.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address HHS’s response to this horrendous problem of human trafficking, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the Committee Members,

that I am fully engaged in this issue and intend to work as diligently as possible to ensure that all victims of trafficking are provided protection and safety and assured that if they do come forward, they will not be deported, but will be, in fact, provided with

the help they need. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Secretary Horn, thank you very

much for your testimony and your commitment.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify on the progress of the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) in implementing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. The

Administration is fully committed to implementing this important legislation to

fight against trafficking in persons and to protecting and assisting trafficking victims.

Since enactment, HHS has acted quickly in carrying out the vision of the Act, always keeping in mind that behind our paper processes are vulnerable human

37

beings—who have been subjected to severe physical and emotional coercion. These

trafficking victims are usually in desperate need of assistance, and HHS has worked

diligently to see that once someone is determined to be a victim, no time is wasted

in linking them up with necessary benefits and services.

At the same time, however, HHS is determined to see that victims are given the

opportunity to regain their dignity—by emphasizing benefit programs geared toward

building self-sufficiency, rather than dependency. It has been our experience to date

that this approach is what most trafficking victims prefer. When victims are empowered to gain back control of their own lives, everyone wins.

As evidenced by this panel, HHS is only one of many federal agencies playing a

role in efforts to combat human trafficking. Given the complexity of participating

in such a multi-agency endeavor, I am pleased at the progress that has been made

and will commit to continuing our efforts to implement the law in conjunction with

the other key federal agencies. Before speaking to our progress, however, I would

like to provide a brief overview of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and our

Department’s role in its implementation.

I. BACKGROUND

The trafficking of women, children, and men into the sex industry, sweatshop

labor, domestic servitude, and migrant agricultural labor is estimated to involve

over 700,000 people annually worldwide—and approximately 50,000 annually to the

United States alone. To address this atrocity, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act

was enacted as part of Public Law 106–386 in October 2000. The Act aims to combat

trafficking by increasing law enforcement, ensuring effective punishment of traffickers, protecting victims, and providing Federal and certain State assistance to

victims.

The law makes adult victims of severe forms of trafficking, who have been certified by HHS, eligible for certain benefits and services to the same extent as refugees. Victims of severe forms of trafficking who are under 18 years of age also are

eligible for these benefits to the same extent as refugees but do not need to be certified.

‘‘Severe forms of trafficking in persons’’ is defined under the Act to mean: 1) sex

trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or

in which the person induced to perform such act is under 18 years of age; or 2) the

recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor

or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection

to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

To implement the department’s responsibilities under the Act, Secretary Thompson delegated the authority to conduct certification activities to the ACF Assistant

Secretary, my current position, which in turn was re-delegated to the Director of

the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

I would like to turn now to our efforts to implement this provision.

II. CERTIFICATION AND VICTIM ASSISTANCE

HHS has been actively involved in developing policies and procedures related to

certifying individuals who are determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking, and making victims eligible to access federal and certain state benefits and

services to the same extent as refugees.

HHS has developed a systematic approach to the certification of trafficking victims and the facilitation of their access to benefits and services. ORR staff consults

on a daily basis with staff at the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Section of

the Civil Rights Division (CRD), which investigates and prosecutes trafficking cases

and refers appropriate cases to ORR for certification.

Once ORR staff receives a referral, the first step is to produce a certification letter, which is provided to victims safely and without breaches of confidentiality. In

addition, ORR staff contacts local refugee service providers and other benefit-granting agencies to inquire about appropriate local programs to help the victims. Many

victims are in need of psychological counseling, medical assistance and immigration

legal advice.

ORR staff also works with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to coordinate access to Employment Authorization Documents. This is a critical component

because it allows victims to participate in work programs and, hopefully, to begin

work. In turn, working allows victims to move toward self-sufficiency, improved selfesteem and increased stability to allow them to assist with cases against the traffickers. HHS is also coordinating with the State Department. ORR staff recently

briefed Ambassador Nancy Ely-Raphel, Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and her staff on the HHS role in implementing this legislation.

38

Through this regular contact with refugee service providers and other agencies assisting trafficking victims, ORR continues to learn a great deal about the certified

trafficking population in the United States today. In FY 2001, ORR issued 196 certification letters to adults and 4 eligibility letters to minors under the age of 18.

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2002, 4 more certification letters for adults have

been sent.

The majority of victims, 87 percent, are female. Only 26 victims (13 percent) were

men. Although the 204 victims came from a variety of countries, a disproportionate

number were from Vietnam (87 percent). The Vietnamese victims were all involved

in the same case in which garment workers, who believed they were coming to work

in a U.S. factory, were held in slavery-like conditions with their freedom of movement restricted and some suffering physical abuse.

Victims also have come from Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, China, India, Mexico,

Micronesia and Russia. For example, some of the victims were forced into a form

of domestic servitude, forced to stay in the trafficker’s house, suffering physical

abuse and no compensation for their work. Other victims were forced to work in the

sex industry. In many of these cases, traffickers took the victims’ immigration documents, restricted victims’ freedom of movement, physically abused victims and did

not provide payment for work.

Victims are located throughout the United States. In all, Certification/Eligibility

letters were sent to benefit-issuing offices in 19 states plus the District of Columbia.

Despite the hardships that these victims have suffered, many have been able to

successfully participate in the refugee program called the Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program, a program to help refugees, and now trafficking victims, attain

self-sufficiency within four months. The program emphasizes employment, English

language training and cultural orientation.

Thirty-four percent of the victims applied for food stamps, while 21 percent applied for Refugee Cash Assistance and 35 percent applied for Refugee Medical Assistance. Less than 1 percent of victims applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

III. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES.

In addition to certification and assistance activities, the Act calls for HHS, in collaboration with other designated federal agencies, to establish and carry out programs to increase public awareness about trafficking in persons. To that end, we

have been actively involved in outreach efforts aimed at immigrant and refugee

communities, non-governmental organizations, voluntary agencies, state and local

social service providers, state and local law enforcement, the general public, and

other federal and state government officials.

ORR staff facilitated training and gave presentations in a variety of organized forums, reaching out to more than 800 people during FY 2001. The content of these

sessions focused on the problem of trafficking, background of the legislation, the

roles and responsibilities of HHS within the law, the role of benefit-issuing offices

within the HHS certification process, and the benefits and services available to certified/eligible trafficking victims.

ORR staff also participated in an interagency working group that drafted a ‘‘trafficking in persons’’ brochure designed for wide dissemination to non-governmental

organizations. The brochure focuses on the needs of trafficking victims and what

non-governmental organizations can do to assist them.

IV. DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.

The last implementation activity I would like to address is discretionary grants. In FY 2001, ORR awarded more than $1.25 million in discretionary grant money

to eight organizations throughout the United States. The grants provide these nongovernmental groups the means to assist certified and/or eligible victims of trafficking in order to enhance their transition from victimization to self-sufficiency.

Grant funds may be used for a wide range of services, including case management,

temporary housing, special mental health needs (such as trauma counseling), legal

assistance referrals, and cultural orientation. In addition, trafficking grant funds

may be used to fund other services needed during the time between the date of HHS

certification/eligibility letters and the receipt of public benefits and support services.

V. CONCLUSION

As important as are the steps we have taken so far, we know that there are still

an estimated 50,000 victims annually in the United States and over 700,000 worldwide. One of the barriers to victims of trafficking coming forward is the fear that

doing so may result in their being deported. It must be remembered that many of

39

these victims are women and children who have been beaten and/or raped. We need

to help them understand that coming forward will result not in further victimization, but in their being made safe and provided with help.

To date our efforts have been focused on making the program operational. We are

now preparing to ensure that we do a better job of communicating to trafficking victims that we will protect them, and that we will provide them with supportive services. If successful, our model will be important not only for victims in the United

States but also for trafficking victims throughout the world.

I want to thank the committee for offering me the opportunity to address HHS’ response to the problem of human trafficking. At this time I’d be glad to address

any questions you may have.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Secretary Ballantyne.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET BALLANTYNE, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms. BALLANTYNE. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished

Members of the Committee. It is a very great pleasure to be here

today to discuss how the Agency for International Development,

AID, has responded to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We

are fully supportive of the objectives of this act and have worked

over the past year to incorporate key elements into our overseas

programs. USAID works in over 80 overseas missions, and we now

have anti-trafficking activities in 24 of these countries. Many of us

serving in these field missions, particularly where trafficking is

prevalent, have seen this corrosive impact on society.

When I was serving as the AID mission director in Russia, I had

a personal experience with a woman—I am sorry, with a girl who

was being trafficked. I was in the departure lounge of a small airport in the south of Siberia waiting for a flight that was seriously

overdue when a very pretty young girl maybe 11 or 12 years old

came over to me and asked what time it was. I pointed to the large

clock on the wall and said, well, as you can see, it is noon. I will

never forget her reply: ‘‘I don’t know how to tell time.’’ I asked

where she was going, and she pointed to a middle-aged man in a

track suit wearing dark sunglasses and talking on a cell phone. ‘‘I

am going to St. Petersburg and then to New York,’’ she said, ‘‘and

I am going to make lots of money and become a millionaire.’’ I left

the departure lounge and talked to the Russian authorities, and

they were escorted out of the lounge. I do not kid myself for a

minute that the girl was saved, but at least her sentence was perhaps postponed. I continue to be haunted by the memory of a little

Siberian girl who couldn’t tell time, but whose time was very clearly rapidly running out.

One need only go as far as the Internet to see what international

trafficking in human beings is all about. I do not recommend that

these Committee Members or anybody in this room look at the various numerous Web sites from St. Petersburg, Ukraine, Belarus, or

you name it advertising or soliciting women, but they are there,

and thousands of women and children are putting their resumes

and photographs up on those Web sites still believing they have a

better life by going abroad. Many have taken the first steps toward

becoming victims of trafficking.

USAID has moved quickly over the last year to address trafficking, as required in the act. In fiscal year 2001, we spent $6.2

million on direct anti-trafficking activities in all regions. These are

40

a few of the activities we did with this funding. These are described

in our easy-to-read 10-page publication, which I commend to your

reading.

In Angola we funded a street girl center providing basic literacy

training and vocational services for former war wives, abused

women, and young prostitutes. In Uganda we are helping to reintegrate girls abducted in the conflicted areas of Uganda. In Bangladesh we are supporting education among vulnerable populations, legal assistance, rehabilitation, repatriation of victims and

shelters for women and children. In Nepal we are supporting evaluation of the existing legal framework and institutional mechanisms to control human trafficking. In Ukraine we are continuing

a multisector trafficking prevention program.

Since 1999, nearly 11,000 women have received information on

the dangers of trafficking and domestic violence, and 26,000 women

have used the program’s walk-in employment referral and vocational services. Helping victims of trafficking is important, but prevention is the key. We must address its root causes of poverty, lack

of education, vulnerability, and low value on women and children,

and the lack of legislation, lax enforcement and corruption.

In the future USAID will continue to support protection and prevention programs. We must also work to leverage governed policies

particularly in countries that permit or cast a blind eye to this

human rights abuse. Trafficking is complex and highly profitable.

It continues because of poverty, ignorance, and gross negligence on

the part of both the exporting and receiving countries. Stopping it

depends not only on efforts within source countries, but also on actions of recipient countries, including our own. We have important

first steps with the act, and it is encouraging for me to hear what

other agencies are doing to make sure that our country is doing the

right thing.

AID remains committed to this fight. In implementing the act we

are collaborating closely with the other U.S. Government agencies,

particularly those represented on this panel, with international organizations, other bilateral donors and nongovernmental organizations. Kathy Blakeslee, who is here with me today, is the Chief of

AID’s Office on Women in Development and works closely with all

these groups. I have known Kathy for nearly two decades and can’t

imagine anybody more committed than she is.

We will be submitting a statement for the record. Thank you for

your kind attention.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Deputy Administrator

Ballantyne, for your testimony and for sharing that very powerful

story about that young girl.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ballantyne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET BALLANTYNE, ACTING DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to

represent the U.S. Agency for International Development at this hearing on the implementation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This Committee has provided true leadership in initiating this legislation to address the global problem of

trafficking in persons. Internationally, the United States is clearly in the lead in the

fight against trafficking. As a result of our efforts, there is increasing interest and

41

potential opportunity for future collaboration with other development cooperation

agencies.

Trafficking in persons for purposes of sexual and economic exploitation is a highly

profitable criminal enterprise through which human beings, many of whom are still

children, are coerced into commercial sex work, domestic servitude, and forced labor.

As your legislation indicates, this is ‘‘a modern form of slavery.’’ It is an abuse of

human rights that degrades not only its victims, but also our collective humanity.

The U.S. Agency for International Development is committed to playing a critical

role in the implementation of this legislation in relation to trafficking in developing

and transition countries in which we work. Combating trafficking is the responsibility of all parts of the agency, field missions, regional bureaus and central bureaus. The USAID Office of Women in Development is coordinating this work within

the agency and represents USAID on the Inter-Agency Taskforce.

BACKGROUND

Trafficking of persons is a complex global criminal problem for which there are

no silver bullets. USAID is working closely with the State Department because antitrafficking efforts call for diplomatic, legal and enforcement interventions in source,

transit and recipient countries. Trafficking is also a development problem. The low

value placed on females and the vulnerability of women and children, combined

with poverty and expanding global markets for sex and cheap labor, are important

factors underlying much of the trade in humans. The nature of trafficking varies

by region, although there are some common threads. Not all, but most trafficked individuals are women or children and most are threatened with physical and emotional abuse.

Both natural and man-made disasters lead to and exacerbate poverty, insecurity,

population displacement, separation from families, and desperation—conditions

under which trafficking flourishes. The economy of war and conflict also breeds the

enterprise of trafficking. In conflict areas in sub-Saharan Africa, young children are

abducted and pressed into conflict as child soldiers or as sex slaves.

To mount effective anti-trafficking interventions we must understand the factors

underlying the vulnerability of particular groups and individuals, how traffickers

are able to dupe, trick or threaten individuals or their families and how economic,

social and political conditions globally as well as within countries exacerbate the

problem. For example, the deteriorating economic conditions in the former Soviet

states have stimulated migration outside the region. As the motivations for migration grow, the opportunities for trafficking increase. Economic migration often has

been assumed to center on adult males. However, females form a large portion of

those who find themselves needing to migrate for economic reasons, and they are

very valuable prey to traffickers.

Trafficking is increasingly intertwined with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Women and

girls who are trafficked into the commercial sex trade are at increased risk for contracting the HIV infection. In India, 71 percent of the sex workers in Mumbai were

HIV positive in l997. In Cambodia’s two largest cities, 40 percent of the 40,000 sex

workers were infected with HIV. The infection is then spread further into the rest

of the population. HIV positive trafficking victims may then be stigmatized and find

acceptance back into their communities difficult. Women and girls who are trafficked into forced labor or domestic servitude also may be subjected to sexual violence and abuse and become HIV infected.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT

A significant part of USAID’s development assistance is aimed at reducing poverty, promoting the rule of law, supporting the education of girls, and fostering economic and political opportunities for women. These programs help to create conditions that lessen the vulnerability of women and children to traffickers. In addition,

USAID is funding direct anti-trafficking activities aimed primarily at prevention of

trafficking and assistance and protection for victims. These include prevention

through economic and educational opportunities targeted at groups that are especially vulnerable to traffickers, public awareness, legislative changes, protection and

rehabilitation for trafficked victims and enforcement of anti-trafficking legislation.

Assistance and protection for trafficking victims require restoration of a sense of

safety and security for these individuals as well help and preparation for returning

to their communities and families where that is possible. Prevention and protection

activities often overlap or are one and the same. For example, public education both

warns communities, families and individuals of the dangers of trafficking and also

serves to explain the phenomenon, placing accountability on the traffickers rather

than the victims. Shelters and protection for trafficked individuals can prevent them

42

from being re-trafficked. Efforts to help governments meet minimum standards to

eliminate trafficking include legislative reform and enforcement activities, strengthening public education and nongovernmental organization efforts to prevent trafficking and help victims.

In FY 2001, USAID provided approximately $6 million for direct anti-trafficking

activities in all regions through field missions, regional bureaus and the Office of

Women in Development. Approximately $2.5 million was obligated for the former

Soviet Union and Central Asia. Another $l.3 million is being spent in Asia. Over

$2 million is being spent on programs supporting assistance for trafficked children

in Africa, cooperation between nongovernmental organizations and governments in

Central Asia, and an examination of cross-border trafficking in Latin America and

the Caribbean. In addition, USAID also manages significant anti-trafficking programs that are funded through the State Department.

USAID’s anti-trafficking activities are concentrated in countries that appear on

Tiers 2 and 3 of the Trafficking in Persons List. We expect to focus on additional

countries on this list in the future. Tier 3 includes 12 USAID-recipient countries,

four of which have direct anti-trafficking activities. Tier 2 includes 33 countries in

which USAID supports activities, and we have funded anti-trafficking activities or

studies in 15 of these.

COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION

USAID is a member of the Inter-agency Taskforce on Trafficking and is working

collaboratively with State Department and with embassies in a number of countries.

We provided funds to an embassy-sponsored meeting in Almaty to bring together

nongovernmental organization and government representatives from the five Central Asian states to talk about how to address trafficking in that region. In India,

the USAID mission is working closely with the U.S. Embassy on the trafficking

problem within that country. USAID is participating in a meeting on trafficking in

West Africa sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in Abuja. We are also in touch with

other U.S. Government agencies, for example, the Departments of Labor and Education.

CONCLUSION

USAID has long been a leader in focusing on the problems faced by vulnerable

women and children, precisely those groups most at risk from trafficking. Targeted

development efforts—the reduction of poverty, particularly among vulnerable

groups; increases in the economic and social status of women; education and skills

training for girls and young women; and public education for communities, families

and individuals—have an important role to play in prevention of trafficking in developing countries. Specific trafficking prevention and victims’ protection interventions should be set within the context of larger development programs so that their

impact is reinforced by overall development progress. USAID expects to increase its

funding for anti-trafficking activities in the future, to further integrate them into

our overall development efforts and to focus efforts on additional countries that are

in Tiers 2 and 3 of the Trafficking in Persons List.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Very briefly, Dorothy Taft, who is the

Chief of Staff and General Counsel at the Helsinki Commission of

which I chair—we were in St. Petersburg 3 years ago, and at the

parliamentary assemblies I routinely, ever since that assembly,

have brought up resolutions trying to get the other parliamentarians of the 54 other nations that make up the OSCE to look at

their own laws and realize that one law is not enough. Our law,

whatever positives or negatives it may have, would be infirm if

other laws and other cooperation is not forthcoming from other

countries.

And I was amazed 3 years ago at the St. Petersburg conference

with the disbelief bordering on contempt that I was met with. The

resolution did pass, but it was one of those things where one delegation after another particularly in our bilaterals would come back

and say they are just prostitutes. One representative, and I had to

restrain myself in terms of my reaction to him, was so condescending to women who were caught up in the horrific cycle and

43

degradation of prostitution, and particularly those who have been

coerced, thought it was just a figment of my imagination. The

Duma’s speaker for Russia did not respond, although he has since

become much more open to this problem, which leads to my first

question, and perhaps, Deputy Administrator, you might want to

respond to this.

When we were working on this legislation, there were many

within the Department who said that by having a provision where

nonhumanitarian aid could be withheld. In other words, there is a

sanction that could be imposed, of course there is a time period

hopefully so they can make whole and fix their own problem, and

we also give a very generous waiver to the President to not impose

it if he sees fit. We were told that this would actually hurt the individuals that we are desperately trying to protect and save.

Obviously there has also been a listing of Tier 3 countries. Many

of us think there are some Tier 2 countries that ought to be on Tier

3, but these egregious offenders have been named by name. Has

there been any retaliation? Have you heard from the ADA offices?

And, Secretary Dobriansky, I would have liked to have asked her,

and perhaps she can do that for the record. Of course, Ambassador

Raphel could respond to this as well. As a result of that provision,

we have named names now and put it on the table and said this

is unacceptable. Has there been retaliation?

Ms. BALLANTYNE. I will have to check back and see if we have

had any instances of withholding assistance.

I think the question you have raised, though, is a very important

one. The carrot and the stick. Do we, in fact, in countries where

there is willful or knowing violation of some of the principles that

we hold very dear, by walking away are we eliminating the chance

of correcting them? I am a great believer in dialogue, and you can’t

carry on a dialogue if you don’t have anybody there to talk with.

I have worked in six overseas countries, several of which have provisions and social customs which are very anathema to the way

that we think. I would like to think that by being there, working

with colleagues, working with other international donors, with

some of the NGOs, that we have been able to provide the kind of

guidance that has lessened the impact of some of these practices.

I will have to check, though, to see if we have——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ambassador Raphel.

Ms. ELY-RAPHEL. I, too, would have to check. I don’t believe we

have, but I don’t know for a fact.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask, several weeks ago

an amendment passed on the Floor of the House. I mentioned

Frank Wolf’s bill being fully—appropriations meeting the authorization levels. It passed 427 to zero. As a matter of fact, I offered

it to fund the foreign ops part, the $30 million. We have been told

that there are some people within the Department that have suggested the absorptive capability of using that money wisely doesn’t

exist, and while the Senate didn’t have any, we had 30-.

My fear is that we will come in with a number that is far less

than 30-, and it seems to me that at a time when we are creating

a box, thinking outside of it isn’t asking all that much. We want

more programming, not less. We know that countries are having a

difficult time even on a technical basis crafting new laws on this,

44

particularly in the emerging Eastern European and Central European countries. It seems to me that technical advice does cost

money, and that money could be well spent if we had an action

plan. Perhaps one of you might want to respond. Can the $30 million

be spent effectively in the foreign ops section?

Ms. BALLANTYNE. I am not sure what the exact amount is. We

have over the past year in many start-up programs spent a little

bit over $6 million. A lot of the limitations stem from the fact not

of lack of good ideas and lack of appropriate counterparts. Certainly in Russia with all the problems you have mentioned, Mr.

Vice Chairman, there are dozens and dozens of nongovernmental

organizations who are very much concerned with the rights of

women and trafficking of women.

The problem we have is on the operating expense budget of our

own. We don’t have enough people, enough American Foreign Service direct-hire staff to get out there and provide the proper supervision. I don’t know what the right number is, but whatever number comes up, you can be assured that we will do our very best to

see that it is well spent. There are limitless opportunities. It is just

how we go about delivering it.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would point out in a bipartisan way

with Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos leading, a letter has been sent to

Mr. Kolbe and to Nita Lowey, the Ranking Democrat, asking that

the full $30 million be provided because the belief being that every

dollar of that could be and should be spent. And, again, if it means

coming up with additional programs, I know for a fact when you

are talking about victims overseas being protected, there are a

number of recommendations, and I have even brought back a few.

One of them was from our Ambassador Lindy Boggs, when she was

Ambassador to the Vatican, for a refuge that would be in Italy. We

know in Albania and elsewhere there are a number of proposals to

provide refuge. That takes money. The mere $10 million for that

section could be spent in a fortnight, I would think.

So I would hope at this critical juncture you would consider

weighing in and the Administration would, because otherwise we

will get far less, and implementation, as

Mr. Hyde pointed out, is absolutely crucial to this. And add to

the fact obviously these countries are on Tier 3. Those who may go

on it would want to get off, and finding the means to that end, if

we can be of help, it seems to me that would be money well spent.

When can we expect OMB to approve? This is a long process, obviously, people will slip through the cracks. And secondly, on prosecutorial discretion, we know that the Attorney General has issued

guidance, he has been very strong in his support of this as a Senator prior to becoming Attorney General.

And prosecuting those people, it seems to me, one reason why we

went to 20 years and up to life imprisonment was that the penalty

was so minuscule, especially for first offenders, that many U.S. Attorneys saw the other type of trafficking, weapons and drugs, as a

far more promising potential for them.

Now we have the tools, as you pointed out. Are U.S. attorneys

taking seriously that guidance? Is there any kind of feedback as to

who really is taking it more serious than others? I mean, they are

45

not independent. They all work for us. We all work for the people.

My hope is that they are taking that guidance very seriously.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Let me

say this in response to your question. It is still early on. But one

of the important aspects of our enforcement efforts in the Department of Justice is for those of us in the Civil Rights Division who

have the experience doing these cases and these kinds of cases,

even cases involving forced labor and involuntarily servitude and

slavery prior to the enactment of the act, one of the things we are

charged with is using our expertise and our experience to train and

educate the very able assistant United States attorneys in the various 94 U.S. Attorney offices across the country.

I am happy to say that we had our first formal training session

this summer at the National Advocacy Training Center in South

Carolina. We have another training session that is scheduled for

this summer. During the interim, we are not standing pat. In fact,

the folks in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division are

engaged in an ongoing effort to provide consultive services drawing

on our experience and our expertise in talking to U.S. Attorneys offices across the country about the extent to which this is a priority

and the enhanced substantive and sentence enhancement tools that

the act gives us. And in fact, we’re offering advice and judgment

and guidance about bringing these cases and we’re offering it to cut

co-counsel, local assistant United States attorneys across the country.

Indeed, the publicity, the very good publicity we have gotten

about the early cases that we have done, I think, has sparked a

real interest among prosecutors across the country. As the Vice

Chair may know, prior to coming to this job, I was an assistant

United States attorney out in the field for several years. This is the

kind of case that really gets the juices flowing of prosecutors who

are dedicated and committed to protecting people, particularly the

most vulnerable people among us.

So I would suggest to you that it is early, but you have given us

the tools. We have the will. We have the expertise, and we are

going to train, educate and proselytize to our prosecutors across the

country. This is really a joint effort within the Department of Justice.

With respect to the timing of the issuance of the T Visa, as I said

in my opening remarks, we submitted the interim T Visa rule to

OMB on November 20th. By rule, the Office of Management and

Budget has 90 days to conduct that review.

I will say that in this instance, which isn’t always the case, but

certainly in this instance, we front-end—we front-loaded the vetting process that OMB goes through. We went through that process

internally in the Department of Justice realizing how important it

was to get this right and get it right in the first instance. We recognized that we had an abiding determination to really get it right.

It is complicated, but it is important.

We vetted it with all of the relevant components within the Department of Justice and also vetted the issues, the complex issues

surrounding the promulgation of the regulation, with other involved and interested agencies, both in and out of Government. So

46

we are hopeful that that will assist OMB in their vetting process.

They can technically ask for more time.

But we expect that—they have until the end of February. We are

hopeful to get it back from them at that time. When we receive it

back, that is the review and the check-off from OMB, the Department of Justice, our Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, does a final

check on it, and then it goes to the Attorney General for his signature.

We expect that to be a process of days or weeks, certainly not

months. So we are helpful by this spring we will be somewhere.

Can I add one thing, Congressman? Lest there be no misimpression, the interim rule that we promulgated in July of this year

implementing the provisions of section 107(C) of the act really is

a provision to protect and provide for the continued presence of potential victims of trafficking in this period before there is a formal

published rule.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. So it is a bridge?

Mr. BOYD. Yes.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. That is encouraging. The sooner the

better, obviously. This is a demand-driven exploitation. The sooner

we get some very significant prosecutions and put some of these

thugs behind bars, the sooner the message will be sent that it

doesn’t pay, and we dry up demand. As we all know, you begin to

dry up the source and the pressure—full-court press obviously will

hopefully put these people out of business.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Yes. I think my question might have already been

answered. But there was a transmittal package for the U.N. for

their protocol on combatting trafficking. It was going to be reviewed by you before we get it on to the Senate. And I was wondering if it can be expedited?

Mr. BOYD. The short succinct answer is I don’t know, but I promise to check and get back to you forthwith, as we lawyers say.

Ms. WATSON. Please do. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Any—Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend our witnesses for their eloquent statements made before the

Committee.

I do have a couple of questions and appreciate the opportunity

to raise some of these concerns or issues with our panelists.

First of all, I am very impressed with the fact that there is an

active participation and interaction among the respective Federal

agencies in trying to implement the provisions of this law.

And I might also, with a tremendous amount of tolerance in not

expecting a whole lot, given the fact that the law is fairly new, and

that some of our leaders have simply just started to make provisions, even in trying to put up the regulatory process and some of

the provisions of the law. So I fully can understand and appreciate

that.

I take it that the Department of Justice is the lead agency on

this whole aspect of human trafficking. And basically, if I were to

review the law, it comes under two basic categories, or maybe even

more, they are basically forced labor and forced prostitution.

47

And I wanted to ask Mr. Boyd, if I am correct that the Department of Justice is the lead agency on this?

Mr. BOYD. With respect to enforcement, we absolutely are. It is

our job to identify those situations and to make the victims of that

conduct feel safe and comfortable so that they will work with us.

I mean, there are two important features that you all have given

us in this—in this legislation. One is the enhanced ability to do the

investigative and the prosecutive function by giving us additional

substantive crimes and also meaningful sentence enhancement.

But the other piece is to provide aid and comfort to victims. It really is a victim-oriented statute. And that is an important part of

what everybody else is involved in.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And not taking anything away of wanting to

be helpful to the victims, but I would like to raise the question,

what is the weight of the criminal penalty, under the current statute? Are you satisfied to put these traffickers in a very meaningful

way—in terms of as much as I want to look to the victims, but I

want to get ahold of the traffickers as well. I wanted to ask our

Assistant Attorney General Boyd, under the current provisions of

the law, is there sufficient teeth in the law to make sure, because

it seems to me it is the traffickers also that are perhaps even more

responsible than the victims themselves.

I wanted to make sure that the law is strong enough that we

make a real aggressive effort to apprehend these people who are

responsible for this.

Mr. BOYD. Answering as a professional prosecutor, my first answer is, I always love more and better tools to enforce the law and

protect people. But I should say that the tools that Congress has

given us are excellent and we can use them effectively.

The enhanced sentencing provisions under the statute hike, in

many instances, the—the statutory term of incarceration up to 20

years, and in aggravating circumstances, a sentence of incarceration of up to life.

As you know, Congressman, the—the Federal law now has taken

away the opportunity for parole. So the sentences that are actually

given out under the Federal sentencing guidelines—which provide

for a lot of aggravating factors—add to the sentence that is actually

imposed. And the sentence that is ultimately imposed is pretty

much a real sentence. So when we see these people sentenced to

10 years, for example, 10-year sentences or sentences in that area,

that is pretty close to being a real 10 years. That is not 10 years

reduced by some significant factor.

So the short answer is, the statute has upped the sentencing provisions in a way that we think gives some meaningful clout to our

efforts to deter traffickers.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have my own personal opinion in terms of

the penalty that ought to be heaped upon the traffickers, especially

if the victims are children. As far as I am concerned, they should

be sentenced to life without parole. We can invite capital punishment when it comes to the lives of innocent children. That is my

personal opinion.

But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Boyd, if I am way off the track on

this. Where I come from, we do it in a more effective way, rather

48

than just putting them in prison. But I just want to solicit your

comment.

Mr. BOYD. Well, we are—our principal mission in the Department of Justice is a dual one; to protect people but uphold the primacy of the law. So we are going to work with what Congress has

given us. But I will say that in the rubric of the Federal sentencing

guidelines, some of the aggravating factors that you mentioned, the

involvement of children and the brutalization of children and the

deception and induction of children are factors that would properly

add to the sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines

scheme.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Boyd. Would

you accept a proposed amendment on my part that the penalty for

traffickers that would do harm to children should be life imprisonment without parole, no ifs or buts.

Mr. BOYD. I would say that that would not offend me.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would Attorney General Ashcroft have any

problems with that?

Mr. BOYD. I can’t speak for him. I haven’t discussed the issue

with him. But my sense is, and it is certainly not an official position, but my sense is that he would be sympathetic to what you

have expressed.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I like your sense.

The T Visas. You say that it is in the process right now of being

developed into regulations. Have there been an opportunity given

for public comment?

Mr. BOYD. I believe we are in the public comment period—actually I am—— Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How many more days left?

Mr. BOYD. No is the answer.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It has gone past? Yes. I wish I would have

known about it there. There is a concern, too, about the problems

of, say, pretensions that these women that are brought into our

country for purposes of employment, especially to serve as nannies,

household girls, and in many, many instances, these poor women

end up being abused. There are also instances of ads being put out

that a man wants to look for a wife. Is that a legal transaction that

you can purchase or make a contract, that I can buy a woman to

become my wife in this country? Is there any laws that will be

against that process?

Mr. BOYD. It certainly offends—I would say there would be a consensus in America that that offends our values. I would imagine

that you could contract to—contract to purchase someone to be a

wife, but I can’t imagine there is any jurisdiction within these

United States where that would be viewed as an enforceable contract.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am curious because under the current

trend now, it says that most marriages are under some sort of

prenuptial arrangement. It is a contract. It is no longer until death

we part or something to that extent. So what would be the difference if I wanted to do a contract with a beautiful woman from

Scandinavia to become my wife, and I would pay her a certain

amount of money for a certain amount of years. Is that considered

legal in our country?

49

Mr. BOYD. I am not an expert in this area of the law, Congressman. But my sense is that that would be a difficult contract to enforce.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This leads me to my next question that Congressman Issa had raised earlier. And I think it is an interesting

observation. At least I would like your comment, and certainly the

other members of the panel are welcome to respond. I think what

Congressman Issa was referring to is that we are putting the onus

on these countries about forced prostitution, forced trafficking, employment, and this is not being derogatory against the State of Nevada for legalizing prostitution.

But it kind of puts a hedge on being somewhat hypocritical on

our society to say that you can’t do this, and I suppose the difference here is that there is a difference between voluntary prostitution and legalizing prostitution, and I think, as I understand,

one very advanced European country legalizes prostitution.

Now, where does the law come into play in this, especially with

the policy of the Administration, any form of prostitution is against

the Administration’s policy. I just—I wanted to get a response on

that.

Mr. BOYD. This issue was raised earlier with respect to Nevada

law. I guess I would say from the Department of Justice’s perspective the following: That is that Nevada law, which allows brothels

to operate under certain circumstances, certainly would not excuse

cases of prostitution involving force, fraud or coercion.

And it certainly would not, in instances where children are involved.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Boyd, this raises a very interesting

question. I would be importing women for purposes of prostitution

as a contract, bring them to the State of Nevada just like they

would in any other employment contract, as an engineer or lawyer,

with some other firm. Where does our law stand in that kind of a

situation where the State of Nevada totally recognizes, by Nevada

law, that it is already legal to conduct prostitution.

Mr. BOYD. Well, let me say this. It is an interesting question. I

would answer you in this way. That is, Department of Justice prosecutors historically have brought criminal charges under the Mann

Act, which is 18 U.S. Code Section 2421. For those boxing fans, it

was the statute under which I believe Jack Johnson was prosecuted. But in any event, that statute makes it illegal to transport

interstate someone for the purpose of prostitution, and in fact, U.S.

Attorneys’ offices have prosecuted that very crime.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. I can see that. Very interesting. What

is the approximate total dollar value, Madam Ambassador, worldwide on the forced prostitution and forced trafficking employment

that goes on? Has there been an estimate in the terms of the

amount of billions of dollars that we are looking at.

Ms. RAPHEL. I don’t think there is a figure. People talk in terms

of billions of dollars; millions of dollars. But I don’t think—it is almost impossible to come up with a figure, because it is very difficult to distinguish trafficking of persons from organized crime,

from drug trafficking, they are all interconnected.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I think under what we are looking at

in terms of the law. I would think that some agency would have

50

some form of a study or review process in terms of what dollar

value would be on this issue.

The question of American Samoa, as you had raised, happens to

be in my district. I was very much directly involved in this case

with these Vietnamese workers that were brought over.

The problem is that there is a very interesting situation. We

have no Federal district court there. We have no U.S. Attorneys.

We have no U.S. Marshals. And we have very limited resources. In

fact, the U.S. Immigration laws do not even apply to this territory.

A very, very unique situation. And if you want to make it even

more dubious in terms of the legal aspect of this place, is that we

are unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United States.

And many Americans I know do not know the fact that we have

had over a 100-year political relationship with the United States.

But given a very interesting situation with what the Department

of Justice has done, and I want to commend the Department of

Justice, also with an understanding that the resources, the capabilities of my district to bring up this kind of thing has really given

us some real good hair raisers and to the point know that there is

absolutely never to be any of this kind of activity to occur in my

territory.

I am sure that you are very much aware of the ramifications of

this. And I do appreciate what the Justice Department is doing

with regard to this.

Not wanting to put the onus on any particular country, but

maybe you can just tell me what region of the world, you are talking about Africa, Asia, Latin America. What region of the world

tops the list as far as being the most active in conducting forced

prostitution and forced labor activities? Madam Secretary or

Madam Ambassador, do we have any figures on this?

Ms. RAPHEL. We have figures—it is very difficult because we are

still looking and examining the issue. I mean southeast Asia is a

major problem. The Balkan states are a major problem. The numbers of women who come out of the former Soviet Union is enormous. It is a worldwide problem.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know it is a worldwide problem.

Ms. RAPHEL. I am not sure I can say one area of the world is

worse than another. We know that Southeast Asia is one area certainly. And we know what is going on in the former Soviet Union.

But that doesn’t exclude Africa and Latin America.

Ms. Ballantyne.

Ms. BALLANTYNE. We have done some analysis on this. And Ambassador Raphel is absolutely correct, that this is a worldwide

problem. What we have found is the Europe and Eurasia Bureau

of AID contains probably the largest number of countries with very

severe problems, followed by South Asia and Southeast Asia.

I would like to make one comment. We were talking earlier about

the forced prostitution and voluntary prostitution. Voluntary prostitution, I think, is a luxury confined to a very few countries that

are in what we call the developed world, where people make that

choice that they are going to become a prostitute.

In the developing world, and the world in transition, this is not

a choice that someone makes. This is a situation into which one is

forced by lack of opportunities, by lack of education, by lack of any

51

sort of alternatives. One of the things that the Agency for International Development does is we try to create alternatives to the

terrible lifestyle into which those forced prostitutes turn. Thank

you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And one more question.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Will the gentleman yield on that

point? But I think that presumes too much. Even in the developing

world, we have large pockets of poverty. Someone who may even

have a great deal of this world’s wealth may have been abused by

her father, and may have experienced some other exploitations. So,

I mean that was a big battle we went through last year. We wanted to make it absolutely clear that sex trafficking includes those

who seemingly entered into this terrible profession as a volunteer

which begs the question as to how do you define volunteer given

the fact that there could have been a pathology that led to it.

I do hope you are not saying that—luxury was not—— Ms. BALLANTYNE. No. When I talk about luxury prostitution, I

am talking about those few people who go on 60 Minutes and explain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. The vast majority

obviously are victims of poverty and ignorance, the same as they

were in Albania or Kazakhstan.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You have been very patient with

your time. I would like to ask one other additional question. And

that goes to the issue of the Tier 2 countries and the Tier 3 countries again.

As you know, we did define what significant efforts were in the

statute, we didn’t just leave it to ambiguity. And part of that definition includes the extent of noncompliance with the minimum

standards by the government, and particularly the extent to which

officials or employees of the government have participated in, facilitated, condoned or were otherwise complicit in severe forms of trafficking.

Mr. Haugen makes again a very pivotal point in his testimony

about the police being at the core of the problem and trying to

eradicate this terrible sex trafficking industry.

He makes a point to a person talking about the people who are

on the side of the Angels in country that are offending. They will

admit that nothing will happen in their country until the police are

out of the business of sex trafficking and forced prostitution and

the perpetrators are held accountable.

We had a situation with the Helsinki Commission a few years—

not unlike your situation that you spoke about with that girl in St.

Petersburg or was going to St. Petersburg. We had heard of a number of women who had been trafficked out of the Ukraine into Montenegro. LaStrada an NGO that does yeoman’s work on behalf of

women, had the names, knew where they were, contacted our Helsinki Commission. We wrote to the Prime Minister of Montenegro,

Mr. Vujanovic, with the names and where they were and asked for

his intercession. One month later they were out, 7 out of 8. The

other one had been trafficked into another brothel.

The point that was made by the women was that they were fearful when the authorities came in, because the police themselves

were customers and were apparently on the take and providing

52

protection. It seems to me that as we look at the Tier 2 countries

and what is pointed out in testimony that we will receive later, is

that one of those Tier 2 countries has an annual victimization number of 500,000. Obviously, that has got to be done with the complicity if not outright aiding and abetting of the police.

My point is, I would hope as we go into that next report, that

the issue of the police will be looked at much more thoroughly, because I do think that is the crux. Perhaps the Department of Justice could speak to our law enforcement efforts, how are we—I

mean, the person you collaborate with may also have on the side

a brothel that he or she is making money hand over fist exploiting

women. Is that something that we are sensitive to and will that be

further looked at as we go into these reports? And also as well, look

to issue interim reports?

Under Secretary Dobriansky mentioned we haven’t issued any

yet. It seems that there is a spate of information that needs to be

looked at about how these police are a significant part of the problem in these countries.

Mr. BOYD. One of the things that we have to do, Congressman,

is really get our coordination going in this area so that, particularly

law enforcement, the law enforcement piece of this has real access

to the kind of information, and one hand knows what the other is

doing so that we can make the kind of assessments that you are

talking about, which at the end of the day, will advance our prosecution ball significantly.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I want to, unless—I want to thank

our panel, our very distinguished panel, for your commitment, your

good work and look forward to working with you as we go forward.

And again, I would just say please help us in this final end game

on the foreign operations appropriations. If the Administration

were to weigh in and I think heavily, we would get the full 30 million. I guarantee you will find great ways to spend it. Thank you.

I would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses, again,

thank you in advance for their patience. Mr. Gary Haugen who is

the President of the International Justice Mission. He has worked

in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and

served as the officer in charge of the United Nations genocide investigation in Rwanda in 1994. Mr. Haugen also served on the Executive Committee of the National Initiative for Reconciliation in

South Africa.

He is the author of numerous articles and books on foreign affairs, international law and human rights.

Ms. Jessica Neuwirth is the Co-founder and President of Equality Now. She has worked in international finance as an association

at the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Stein & Hamilton. Ms.

Neuwirth also served in the Office of Legal Affairs of the United

Nations and more recently as an expert consultant of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Our final two witnesses, who will testify under the names of

Maria and Vi, are victims whose real identities must be concealed

in order to protect their family members abroad. We would strongly

request that no photographs be taken of these witnesses and that

film or video cameras not be directed at their faces.

53

I would also wish to add that our final witness, Ms. Vi, is one

of the victims in an ongoing Federal criminal prosecution regarding

the happenings at a factory. This Committee has no intention of

doing anything to interfere with that pending criminal prosecution.

While it is important for us to help expose these abuses, we must

respect the victim’s status as a victim in the pending prosecution

and we will try to ensure that all of our questioning does not, in

any way, prejudice the pending prosecutions.

Thank you again for being here. And Ms. Neuwirth, if you would

begin.

STATEMENT OF JESSICA NEUWIRTH, PRESIDENT, EQUALITY

NOW

Ms. NEUWIRTH. Thank you. Upon behalf of Equality Now, I

would like to thank Chairman Hyde, Congressman Smith, former

Congressman Gejdenson, and Members of the Committee and their

staff, particularly Joseph Reeves and David Abramowitz, for the

Committee’s ongoing concern over the growing international industry of human trafficking.

The passage last year of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act

was a significant step forward in the battle against trafficking.

Legislation strengthens our capacity to ensure the prosecution of

traffickers as well as the protection of trafficking victims.

It is also helping us hold governments around the world accountable for their inaction which allows traffickers to operate with impunity. We were pleased to work in a broad-based coalition on this

bipartisan initiative. Thank you for your exemplary leadership in

this regard. We were also pleased that the legislation included

measures supporting trafficking prevention and victim protection,

as well as law enforcement reflecting Congressional understanding

of the importance of addressing the problem comprehensively.

Just over a year after the legislation has entered into force, we

welcomed the opening a few weeks ago of the office to monitor and

combat trafficking, as Congressman Smith mentioned earlier. We

are particularly encouraged by the appointment of Laura Lederer

as Deputy Director of that office. Dr. Lederer’s long-time commitment to this issue and instrumental role in the legislative process

last year is well known, and gives us confidence that the work of

this office will be effective.

We also welcome the appointment of Ambassador Raphel. We are

concerned, however, by the delays in establishing this office as well

as the task force provided for in the legislation. As mentioned earlier, this task force has yet to meet.

We are also concerned by the lack of prosecutions for trafficking.

We know of only one successful prosecution under the new law.

While understandably, resources have been diverted to ongoing efforts to combat terrorism since September 11th, trafficking of persons, especially women and girls, continues.

We hope that the new law will be used, and that it will facilitate

and lead to a significant increase in prosecutions. Similarly the

delay in issuing even interim procedures for T Visas, which were

distributed to lawyers just a month ago, for a long time, denied victims of trafficking access to the Visa Protection Measure set forth

in the legislation.

54

The interim regulations are good in providing for self-petition by

victims of trafficking. It should be assured, however, that victims

have full access to immigration relief and any forms of relief

against removal, and that they should not have to jeopardize any

other legal status that they have to get this access.

With regard to the reinstatement of removal, it is also important

to ensure that past deportations do not jeopardize the ability of

trafficking victims to seek the protection of the T Visa. We think

it is also very important for trafficking victims to be able to get

swift access to work authorizations and to be able to secure simultaneous relief for close family members abroad who may otherwise

be subject to reprisals.

We note that the funding authorized by the bill has not yet been

appropriated. We were very encouraged that the House of Representatives has approved an appropriation of 30 million by a vote

of 427 to 0. We were pleased also that this funding was to be distributed evenly for law enforcement, victim services and prevention. We were disappointed that none of those provisions were in

the bill passed by the Senate, and urge you to ensure that this

funding is appropriated by Congress and allocated equally among

the mutually reinforcing components of law enforcement, victim

services and prevention as envisioned in the House bill.

The first report on trafficking mandated by the legislation has

given us some sense of what the potential impact of its three-tiered

system of classification to rank country compliance with what the

minimum standards will be.

Equality Now notes that political alias of the United States were

included in all tiers, an indication that the criteria are being applied objectively across the board.

Our preliminary impression is that the leverage provided by the

legislation will have a positive effect in encouraging governments

to take concrete steps to meet the minimum standards, or at least

to prevent their classification as lowest-tier countries, and that the

framework as a whole provides a very useful tool in getting the attention of governments focused on specific measures that will help

eliminate or reduce trafficking.

Equality Now and the coalition it represented in the legislative

process last year, which included the National Organization for

Women, Gloria Steinhem, the Feminist Majority, and others,

worked with you to ensure that the definition of trafficking in this

legislation was a comprehensive one. We were pleased that the bill

was expanded to include labor trafficking.

But the legislation carefully distinguishes between sex trafficking

and labor trafficking, a distinction of real importance as has been

noted today. As defined in the bill, sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person

for the purpose of a commercial sex act.

Sex trafficking that is induced by fraud, force or coercion or that

involves victims under the age of 18 falls into the category of severe forms of trafficking in persons in which labor trafficking,

which is inherently limited to these situations also falls. While the

severe form of trafficking is the subject of most of the operative

provisions of the legislation, the broader definition of sex trafVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
55

ficking was consciously adopted by Congress in recognition of the

inherently exploitative nature of the commercial sex industry.

Among the Congressional findings set forth in the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act is the link between poverty and sexual exploitation. While many women and girls are trafficked by force,

fraud or coercion into the international sex trade, others are lured

by those who prey on the desperation of their poverty. These profiteers are traffickers, under the definition.

It is our hope that the legislation, as it relates to sex trafficking,

will be implemented in the spirit of understanding with the commercial sex industry as a whole promotes trafficking. The legislative findings refer to prostitution, pornography, sex toys and other

commercial sexual services, noting that the low status of women in

many parts of the world has contributed to a burgeoning of the

trafficking industry.

While it makes sense to focus on the severe forms of trafficking

as a matter of priority for action, we believe it is important in implementing the legislation to avoid supporting initiatives that may,

in what is perceived to be the short-term interest of protecting

women in prostitution, legitimize the commercial sex industry.

Initiatives designed to give women and girls real alternatives

through education and employment and other initiatives that help

women in prostitution get out of the industry are a better investment in the campaign to end trafficking, an effort that is undermined by attempts to make it a safe and legal industry. Such efforts ultimately support the industry that exploits women, not the

women themselves.

Our staff expert on trafficking is currently in India where yesterday she went to visit a home for rescued girls, from 12 to 16 years

old. She asked them what they thought should be done to end trafficking. Without missing a beat, one of the girls said, ‘‘shut down

the brothels and punish the pimps, traffickers and madams.’’ In

this regard, Equality Now considers that the policy of the Administration on sex trafficking, as it relates to prostitution and the commercial sex industry as a whole, should be clarified.

My understanding of the current policy is that it is intended to

reflect a position of so-called neutrality on the question of legalization of prostitution. This position is not consistent with the understanding expressed in the legislation of the growth of the sex industry as a whole is related to the growth of sex trafficking, all of

which is related to poverty and the low status of women in the

world.

For this reason, we believe the Administration should take a

clear position against commercial sexual exploitation. The Under

Secretary was very clear this morning, but what she said differs

from what we have heard elsewhere. It would be helpful to get a

formal articulation of the policy statement that would be distributed within the State Department, U.S. AID, and throughout our

embassies around the world. We also believe the inclusion of information on the sex industry as a whole in countries around the

world and the relevant legislation governing it would be a valuable

addition to the trafficking report.

In closing, I would like to thank you again for the Trafficking

Victim Protection Act. This act has given us new hope that one day

56

the forces that oppose the trafficking industry will be more powerful than the industry itself. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Neuwirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSICA NEUWIRTH, PRESIDENT, EQUALITY NOW

On behalf of Equality Now I would like to thank Chairman Hyde, Congressman

Smith, former Congressman Gejdenson, Members of the Committee, and their staff,

for the Committee’s ongoing concern over the growing international industry of

human trafficking. The passage last year of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act

was a significant step forward in the battle against trafficking. The legislation

strengthens our capacity to ensure the prosecution of traffickers, as well as the protection of trafficking victims. It is also helping us hold governments around the

world accountable for their inaction, which allows traffickers to operate with impunity. We were pleased to work in a broad-based coalition on this bi-partisan initiative. Thank you for your exemplary leadership in this regard. We were also pleased

that the legislation included measures supporting trafficking prevention and victim

protection as well as law enforcement, reflecting congressional understanding of the

importance of addressing the problem comprehensively.

Just over a year after the legislation has entered into force, we welcomed the

opening a few weeks ago of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. We are

particularly encouraged by the appointment of Laura Lederer as Deputy Director of

that Office. Dr. Lederer’s long-time commitment to this issue and instrumental role

in the legislative process last year is well known and gives us confidence that the

work of this Office will be effective. We are concerned, however, by the delays in

establishing this Office, as well as the Task Force provided for in the legislation.

My understanding is that this Task Force has yet to meet. We are also concerned

by the apparent lack of prosecutions for trafficking. We know of only one successful

prosecution under the new law. While understandably resources have been diverted

to the ongoing efforts to combat terrorism since September 11th , trafficking of persons, especially women and girls, continues. We hope that the new law will be used

and that it will facilitate and lead to a significant increase in prosecutions.

Similarly, the delay in issuing even interim procedures for the ‘‘T’’ Visas, which

were publicly distributed just a month ago, for a long time denied victims of trafficking access to the visa protection measures set forth in the legislation. The interim regulations are good in providing for self-petition by victims of trafficking. It

should be assured, however, that victims have full access to immigration relief and

any forms of relief against removal, and that they should not have to jeopardize any

other legal status they may have to get this access. With regard to the reinstatement of removal, it is also important to ensure that past deportations do not jeopardize the ability of trafficking victims to seek the protection of the ‘‘T’’ Visa. We

think it is also very important for trafficking victims to be able to get swift access

to work authorization, and to be able to secure simultaneous relief for close family

members abroad who may otherwise be subject to reprisal.

We note that funding authorized by the bill has not yet been appropriated. We

are encouraged that the House of Representatives recently approved an appropriation of $30 million by a vote of 427–0. We were particularly pleased that this funding was to be distributed evenly for law enforcement, victims’ services and prevention. We were disappointed that none of these provisions were in the bill passed by

the Senate, and we urge you to ensure that this funding is appropriated by Congress and is allocated equally among the mutually reinforcing components of law enforcement, victims’ services and prevention as envisioned in the House bill.

The first report on trafficking mandated by the legislation has given us some

sense of what the potential impact of its three-tiered system of classification to rank

country compliance with the minimum standards will be. Equality Now notes that

political allies of the United States were included in all tiers, a good indication that

the criteria are being applied objectively across the board. Our preliminary impression is that the leverage provided by the legislation will have a positive effect in

encouraging governments to take concrete steps to meet the minimum standards,

or at least to prevent their classification as lowest tier countries, and that the

framework as a whole provides a very useful tool in getting the attention of governments focused on specific measures that will help eliminate or reduce trafficking.

Equality Now and the coalition it represented in the legislative process last year,

which included the National Organization for Women, Gloria Steinem, The Feminist

Majority and others, worked with you to ensure that the definition of trafficking in

57

this legislation was a comprehensive one. We were pleased that the bill was expanded to include labor trafficking, but the legislation carefully distinguishes between sex trafficking and labor trafficking, a distinction of real importance. As defined in the bill, sex trafficking is ‘‘the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.’’ Sex trafficking that is induced by force, fraud or coercion, or that involves victims under

the age of 18 falls into the category of ‘‘severe forms of trafficking in persons,’’ in

which labor trafficking—which is inherently limited to situations of force, fraud, coercion—also falls.

While this severe form of trafficking is the subject of most of the operative provisions of the legislation, the broader definition of sex trafficking was consciously

adopted by Congress in recognition of the inherently exploitative nature of the commercial sex industry. Among the Congressional findings set forth in the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act is the link between poverty and sexual exploitation. While

many women and girls are trafficked by force, fraud or coercion into the international sex trade, others are lured by those who prey on the desperation of their

poverty. These profiteers are traffickers under the definition.

It is our hope that the legislation, as it relates to sex trafficking, will be implemented in this spirit of understanding that the commercial sex industry as a whole

promotes trafficking. The legislative findings refer to prostitution, pornography, sex

tourism, and other commercial sexual services, noting that ‘‘the low status of women

in many parts of the world has contributed to a burgeoning of the trafficking industry.’’ While it makes sense to focus on the severe forms of trafficking as a matter

of priority for action, we believe it is important in implementing the legislation to

avoid supporting initiatives that may, in what is perceived to be the short-term interest of protecting women in prostitution, legitimize the commercial sex industry.

Initiatives designed to give women and girls real alternatives, through education

and employment, and other initiatives that help women in prostitution get out of

the industry are a better investment in the campaign to end trafficking—an effort

that is undermined by attempts to make it a safe and legal industry. Such efforts

ultimately support the industry that exploits the women, not the women themselves. Our staff expert on trafficking is currently in India, where yesterday she

went to visit a home for rescued girls, from 12–16 years old. She asked them what

they thought should be done to end trafficking. Without missing a beat, one of the

girls said ‘‘shut down the brothels and punish the pimps, traffickers, and madams.’’

In this regard, Equality Now considers that the policy of the Administration on

sex trafficking, as it relates to prostitution and the commercial sex industry as a

whole, should be clarified. My understanding of the current policy is that it is intended to reflect a position of so-called ‘‘neutrality’’ on the question of legalization

of prostitution. This position is not consistent with the understanding expressed in

the legislation that the growth of the sex industry as a whole is related to the

growth of sex trafficking, all of which is related to poverty and the low status of

women in the world. For this reason we believe the Administration should take a

clear position against commercial sexual exploitation. We also believe that the inclusion of information on the sex industry as a whole in countries around the world,

and the legislation governing it, would be a valuable addition to the trafficking report.

In closing I would like to thank you again for the Trafficking Victims Protection

Act. This Act has given us new hope that one day the forces that oppose the trafficking industry will be more powerful than the industry itself.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Haugen.

STATEMENT OF GARY HAUGEN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL

JUSTICE MISSION

Mr. HAUGEN. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. It is a great privilege to be back here, and I give you special thanks and to the Committee for inviting the International Justice Mission to participate.

I remember being here in this room 2 years ago when we also

brought one of the victims that we had rescued from forced prostitution.

And I think these follow-up hearings are very important as they

will be for the victims that we hear from today, because we are,

in a sense, accountable to them about whether or not the actions

58

we take actually prove to be helpful for those who are suffering

under those circumstances.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the International Justice Mission

specializes in hands-on operational rescues of the victims of forced

prostitution and sex trafficking. We send our criminal investigators

to actually infiltrate the brothels to identify where the children are

being held, to use surveillance technology to document that, and

then we use our secure police contacts to do a raid, get the children

out and get them to places of aftercare.

Now, as a result, we have rescued hundreds of children out of

these situations. And we have spent thousands of hours infiltrating

and investigating the sex trafficking world. And so what I am hoping to bring to you today is what we are learning about the impact

of this legislation.

I am specifically going to address my comments, and of course I

have submitted a written statement for the record. But I want to

address specifically the State Department’s report on the trafficking of persons. This is absolutely fundamental, I think, because

the report addresses the most important thing in terms of the impact around the world. And that is the political will of the actual

countries where the crime takes place.

If there is no top level political will to address this, all of the programs, all of the spending, all of the conferences, all the training

won’t matter. It depends on whether it is a political priority at the

top level. That will depend on whether or not the government feels

like it is under the gun in terms of its relationship with the United

States.

So in that context, I want to examine with you the State Department’s report on trafficking. And I believe the most interesting

question for the Committee, and certainly for victims that we have

been trying to help is, does the State Department’s report actually

make a difference for the victims of sex trafficking?

And our answer regrettably is that unless the basic approach of

the report is changed, it simply won’t be helpful to the vast number

of victims it is designed to help.

Why is that? Two reasons. The report fails to measure, in any

concrete way, the two most important and straightforward factors

in the fight against sex trafficking. That is, within a given country,

number 1, does anybody ever get in trouble for sex trafficking and

forced prostitution?

Secondly, how much are government employees themselves actually involved in the sex trafficking business? This fundamental

omission in the report leads to the second reason the report is not

helpful for the victims it is meant to serve, namely the report gives

a passing grade to a number of the worst offending countries.

What do I mean by that? Well, as you know the report breaks

down the countries into 3 different tiers. Tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3.

The report places countries that have a significant number of sex

trafficking in one of these three tiers. Tier number 1 is a group of

countries that have significant trafficking victims, but they are

complying with minimum standards.

Tier 2, also significant trafficking victims, but not meeting minimum standards, but they are making, according to the State Department, significant efforts to meet the minimum standards. If

59

you are Tier 3, you are not meeting the minimum standards and

you are not even making significant efforts to do so, therefore, you

may be subject to certain sanctions, like the denial of nonhumanitarian aid or goodies from international financial institutions.

Accordingly, for these countries then, for the countries we are

trying to influence, the battle lines are completely clear. You got

to stay off Tier 3. Nothing bad happens to unless you fall into Tier

3. So you got to make sure you stay off Tier 3.

So the question is, did the State Department do a disservice to

the victims of trafficking, and, I think, to the Congress by letting

some of the worst offending countries stay safely on Tier 2 where

they will have zero incentive to actually improve their conduct. And

I am afraid the answer is that they did.

Now, for diplomats, there will be this feeling that a metal should

be struck because any countries placed on Tier 3 at all, you can

sort of understood that perspective. But it would be odd if Congress

had passed this legislation saying there was a severe trafficking

problem and there were no countries on Tier 3. It is like my children say, Dad, I cleaned up my room, I should get an award. No,

that is fairly expected. You should do that. So we shouldn’t be surprised that there are countries on Tier 3.

So with due regard to the State Department, the question is, did

the State Department allow some of the worst offenders slip away

to find shelter on Tier 2? And the answer is yes.

Well, under the standards of the legislation, how do you get to

stay off of Tier 3? You can fail minimum standards and stay on

Tier 2 if you are making significant efforts. And under the act,

whether you are making significant efforts depends upon three

things. One, the extent of victimization; two, the extent of official

complicity in sex trafficking; and three, whether or not you are taking the reasonable steps that you could.

Well, let’s look at these one at a time in countries in Tier 2. It

is not my desire today to embarrass specific countries in this public

setting, or compromise the IJM’s sources and methods on those

specific countries. So I will speak generally here, but will be glad

to meet with your staff or members of the State Department to provide country details. But if we look first at just significant efforts

criteria number 1, which is the extent of victimizations, in that regard, I can tell you that according to numbers that the State Department itself relies upon, I can pick just three countries off of the

Tier 2 countries. They have more victimizations of sex trafficking

then all of the countries presently on the Tier 3 list combined.

Next let’s look at criteria number 2, the extent of official complicity in sex trafficking. Well, we can take these same three countries that are on Tier 2, and yet nevertheless have more victims

than all of the countries combined on Tier 3 and we can look at

them. And if you turn to those specific country narratives in the

country report, the State Department itself says that—about those

countries, that payoffs to government officials utterly undermine

attempts to get anyone in trouble for sex trafficking in these countries.

Well, what does there actually look like in these countries? Well,

attached to my written statement is just a number of scenarios

that we have been able to document ourselves. The first one is an

60

open market for girls from the ages of 8 to 13 where our investigators were purchasing girls for $1 for sex, $5 for the night, or $30

to buy the girls outright. This was not hard to find. And yet we

presented this information to the Minister of Justice three times

with all of the video over 6 months. No effort at all to shut down

the brothels that are open to the public and clearly available for

prosecution. Apparently, the police official owns a series of brothels

in this area, including this one.

Case 2, we were able to easily demonstrate a police officer buying—selling his services to protect children who were being offered

for sex tours of U.S. businessmen. This was a simple thing to be

able to videotape.

Case 3 was a raid that I actually participated in myself where

I was able to talk to the girl, and she was afraid to come out because part of the police raid party, one of the members of the police

raid party had been a customer that previous day in the brothel,

and had received money from the brothel owner.

Case 4 is another police owner of a brothel who explained that

he can procure underage girls, and he will actually come to the airport in police cars and pick up our American businessmen so they

can participate in having sex provided by the sex trafficking victims.

Again, another case from a country in which we identified under

videotape 3 boys, ages 6, 7 and 10 were being offered for sex by

adults. Ages 6, 7 and 10 for sex. Videotaped it all. Gave it to authorities that are actually being funded by U.S. State Department

for trafficking purposes, and over all these months, no action has

been taken.

And then finally, case 6 is just a case where we did do a successful raid and found a pile of all of the bank books. Then when we

asked a few weeks later of the prosecutor where all of the bank

books identifying where all of the money goes, we were told that

is all lost. We found that is a brothel being run by police.

What do we understand from all of this? All of these stories are

from Tier 2 countries, not Tier 3 countries. And I can assure you

that they are not isolated examples. I would offer any Member of

this Committee to come with us to one of those countries, and within 72 hours, we will find blatant evidence of police complicity in sex

trafficking.

Finally let’s look at criteria number 3, which simply asks, is the

country taking reasonable steps? We don’t want to, after all, make

unreasonable demands on these countries. One reasonable step

might be that you can catch some of bad guys and get them in

trouble. Unfortunately, for the worst offending countries left safely

on Tier 2, the State Department simply doesn’t tell us whether the

government actually prosecuted anyone for sex trafficking and

forced prostitution. I can tell you that for the country that has the

largest number of victimizations, there have been no successful

prosecutions for children in forced prostitution.

But in any case, the State Department should simply report in

an objective way in the country, what is the number of victimizations we think are taking place and what is the number of prosecutions that are either in progress or have been successful.

61

You will note here that when the Committee was asking the

United States about what it was doing about sex trafficking, it was

asking the prosecutor about how many people were going to jail.

What is the number of victimizations, how many people are going

to jail, Mr. Attorney General?

That is the question we simply should be asking of those countries but we are not. Another perfectly reasonable step that any

country could take would be to fire or discipline any officials who

are financially involved or profiting from sex trafficking. Does the

State Department report, even ask how many such actions have

been taken by the worst offending countries on Tier 2? That is to

say, look at Tier 2 and ask: How many police officers have ever

been disciplined for involvement in sex trafficking?

No, they never ask the question. Is this too much to ask of those

developing countries to actually fire the police who are involved in

sex trafficking? Well, are such corrupt officials hard to find? No.

They are hard not to find, frankly.

And financially, it costs nothing for a poor country to fire or discipline them. That doesn’t cost anything. So the idea, oh, these are

poor impoverished countries and they can’t really take it seriously,

there is no financial bar to firing those involved in forced prostitution.

And you only have to do this actually a few times to be able to

change the entire police force, perception of what they can get

away with.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, the preparation of this report gives the

State Department, as the Congress intended, a very powerful tool

to start to change the behavior of friendly countries who are tolerating the mass rape and sexual abuse of women and children.

But nothing will change for most of them if the worst offending

countries are given a safe harbor. And in its next report, the State

Department has a tremendous opportunity to change that.

I give you great thanks, Mr. Vice Chairman, and to the Committee for giving us the opportunity to testify and be with you

today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haugen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY HAUGEN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

MISSION

INTRODUCTION

My name is Gary Haugen and I serve as President and CEO of the International

Justice Mission (IJM). I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Chairman Henry

Hyde for convening this hearing and for inviting me to participate. I am grateful

for the opportunity to present the perspective of the International Justice Mission

to you on the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for the invitation to make suggestions as to how

we can accelerate our progress towards eliminating the trafficking of human beings

around the world.

The International Justice Mission is an international human rights agency that

provides a hands-on, operational field response to cases of human rights abuse referred to us from faith-based ministries serving around the world. Frequently these

workers observe severe human rights abuses in the communities where they serve.

These workers refer these cases to us, and then we conduct a professional investigation to document the abuses and mobilize intervention on behalf of the victims.

Many of the cases referred to us involve children trafficked into forced prostitution. Accordingly, we deploy criminal investigators to infiltrate the brothels, use surveillance technology to document where the children are being held, and then idenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
62

tify secure police contacts who will conduct extraction actions with us to get the children out. We then coordinate the referral of these children to appropriate aftercare.

IJM CASEWORK IS HELPFUL TO UNDERSTANDING PROGRESS UNDER THE VTPA

Through its casework, IJM law enforcement professionals and attorneys have

interviewed numerous victims of sex trafficking and forced prostitution in South

Asia and Southeast Asia. Additionally, the evidence gathered through these victim

interviews has produced numerous encounters with local police officials and prosecutors. The body of evidence collected through casework reveals a picture of what

is happening at the brothel and point-of-sale level in a particular country. My testimony today is about the evidence we have gathered and about whether the efforts

of the U.S. government have had any helpful impact on what is actually happening

to victims of trafficking and forced prostitution. I propose that by comparing actual

casework evidence with the efforts undertaken by the U.S. government, you will

have a useful tool to determine whether the executive branch is conducting its programmatic efforts in the manner that Congress intended.

BACKGROUND PRINCIPLES IN SEX TRAFFICKING

The following basic principles form an important background for any discussion

of sex trafficking and form the foundation from which we at the International Justice Mission evaluate particular evidence in our work to rescue victims of sex trafficking.

1. International sexual trafficking is driven by what is tolerated in the country

of final sale—the country where the customer actually purchases sex for

money. In other words, it is the country that effectively tolerates forced prostitution at the point of final sale that empowers the market demand for

international sexual trafficking.

2. Whether forced prostitution is effectively tolerated is determined by the quality and vigor of local, street level, law enforcement.

3. The quality and vigor of local law enforcement’s response to forced prostitution is driven by 1) the priorities of senior level political authorities, 2) the

clarity and comprehensiveness of the criminal law, and 3) the quality of resources and training provided to local law enforcement.

4. All efforts to combat international trafficking are impacted by the victim’s

eagerness to seek help and to cooperate in prosecution, and the greatest obstacles to such cooperation are the immigration laws and authorities that

treat the victims as criminals.

These four principles are reflections of an overriding characteristic of sex trafficking: it is a market-driven industry in which a disruption of the market forces

is an effective means of preventing the transaction from taking place. This economic

observation may sound cold, detached, and calloused to us—and in the discomfort

we feel when we think about sex trafficking as a market transaction, we see more

clearly its fundamental evil: the commodity bought and sold is a human being. We

are not talking about farm products, electronics, or even narcotics—we are talking

about a little girl, a little boy, a young woman. But to those who buy and sell

human beings, these victims are only a commodity. In order to bring effective help

to the human person victimized, we must apply pressure to the market that drives

these transactions. The force of the law, when properly applied, can add sufficient

risk of criminal sanctions to the traffickers’ and brothel keepers’ cost calculation, so

that the market transaction is no longer worth the threat it represents to their

property and liberty. Epidemic levels of sex trafficking do not occur everywhere in

the world. It does not even occur in every poor country in the world. It occurs exclusively in those places where the sex trafficking industry is allowed to flourish without anyone ever paying a meaningful cost in the form of criminal penalties.

COMPARISON OF CASEWORK EVIDENCE WITH PROGRESS UNDER THE VTPA

These foundational principles have formed the basis for two important conclusions

that parallel the ‘‘Significant Efforts’’ criteria found in Section 110 (3) of the Act.

Through numerous investigations, brothel rescues, police contacts and interviews

with victims, the IJM has learned two important facts about particular countries

currently found within Tier 2 of the first State Department Report:

(1) A significant percentage of brothel owners and agents are government employees, usually policemen; and,

63

(2) The vast number of victimizations is dramatically disproportionate to prosecutions of traffickers and brothel owners.

Under the VTPA, countries that do not meet minimum standards or are not making significant progress toward compliance with minimum standards are subject to

a conclusion that they violate U.S. policy and are subject to withholding of non-humanitarian foreign aid.

The VTPA measures ‘‘significant efforts’’ by (A) the extent of victimization; (B) the

extent of official complicity; and (C) whether reasonable steps are taken. When the

State Department has found ‘‘non-compliance’’, those countries have been reported

as ‘‘Tier Three’’ countries while countries making ‘‘significant efforts’’ are placed into

‘‘Tier Two’’.

The State Department Report and these statutory standards serve three important purposes. They inform Congress about whether its intent is being successfully

carried out. They provide a basis for recommendations made by the Secretary of

State for Presidential decision making. And not least, they should provide to countries that are out of compliance a transparent and useful guide to rationally undertake steps to be in compliance. The following discussion compares what IJM has

learned on the ground to the State Department ranking of important Southeast

Asian and South Asian countries in Tier Two.

64

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 1—Open market for final sale of prepubescent girls

Total victims observed: 90 to 120.

These young girls were offered for sale to IJM investigators for $1 for sex, $5 for

the night and $30 to own outright. The oldest girl is 13; the youngest is 8. After

completing this investigation, IJM presented an evidentiary package to the Minister

of Justice on three separate occasions over a period of six months. No effort was

made to rescue the girls or hold the owners of this market accountable. IJM has

learned that a police official owns the series of brothels where these girls are sold.

65

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 2—Police officer offers to escort and provide protection to U.S. businessmen

while they have sex with underage girls

An IJM investigator posed as a sex tourist and completed a deal with pimp and

police official to provide underage girls for U.S. businessmen. Victim was trafficked

from a foreign country and is underage.

66

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 3—Underage trafficking victim explains her fear during rescue

The victim on the far left explained that she was afraid to come out of the brothel

because one of the police on the intervention raid was a customer the previous day

and received money from the brothel owner.

67

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 4—Police owner of brothel explains that he can procure underage girls and provide protection

An IJM investigator posed as a sex tourist and received assurance that underage

girls and protection can be provided to U.S. businessmen. During negotiations, the

police official offered to pick up his ‘‘clients’’ at the airport in police vehicles. Later

during negotiations, pictures of numerous underage girls were provided, some from

foreign countries.

68

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 5—Three boys offered to U.S. pedophiles, case not acted on by government for

8 months

IJM investigators posed as procurers for U.S. pedophiles and were offered these

three boys, ages 6, 7 and 10, for sex. IJM produced a comprehensive report and filed

it with the appropriate government officials in January 2001. The government unit,

funded by the U.S. State Department, has failed to act to assist these boys or prosecute their uncle and father who offered them for sale. After repeated inquiries and

assistance from helpful government officials, police have still not taken any action.

69

CASEWORK EVIDENCE FROM THREE TIER TWO COUNTRIES

Case 6—Lost evidence of ownership and bank account

Important evidence filmed during a brothel intervention of ownership of a brothel

and the bank passbook for the brothel account were ‘‘lost’’ by the police. This was

discovered when IJM lawyers met with the prosecutor to discuss case progress and

the prosecutor explained that he cannot determine brothel ownership. IJM later

learned that the brothel is police owned.

70

CASEWORK EXAMPLES RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT TIER TWO STATUS

These casework examples present evidence of the level of government involvement

in sex trafficking and the non-cooperation of government officials in additional

cases. Let’s place this picture alongside these countries’ statistics on the numbers

of victimizations. In each of these Tier Two countries, the number of annual victimizations is 500,000, 200,000 and 50,000. Yet the State Department Report provides

no examples of prosecutions for traffickers or brothel owners in any of these three

countries. In fact, language from the 2001 Report describes these governments’ com- plicity as ‘‘corruption is pervasive,’’ ‘‘pervasive corruption,’’ and ‘‘local corruption

render most prosecutorial efforts ineffective’’. Yet the Report places these countries

in Tier Two on the basis that there are some people of goodwill who have formed

efforts to combat trafficking. I have met many of these people and they are heroes

who are making a great effort. But to a person they will admit that nothing will

happen in their country until the police are out of the business of sex trafficking

and forced prostitution and the perpetrators are held accountable.

I would submit that the State Department Report has disserved and even undermined the people of goodwill in these countries by awarding a passing grade without

addressing the real problem. Why would police generals and prosecutors have to do

anything now?

We propose that the grading system follow the statutory criteria in Section 108

and particularly in Section 110 and ask:

1) Has the government taken actions to hold it own employees accountable for

trafficking offenses?; and,

2) How many actual prosecutions as a ratio to the number of victimizations has

the government undertaken?

For countries with limited resources, we can ask how much it costs to adopt a

zero tolerance policy for criminal conduct by government officials and then discipline, fire, or prosecute violators. The answer is simple—it costs nothing. Second,

the State Department Report should simply list the extent of the victimizations

within a country and then list that country’s prosecutions for the reporting year. If

a country has 50 thousand or 100 thousand or half a million victimizations and it

reports zero prosecutions or two prosecutions, the Report should say so.

This would be a simple, transparent and helpful service for the State Department

Report. Such an objective approach would give countries notice about the coming

Report and avoid the kind of surprise that happened the first year. It would also

help the State Department and others to target their resources and funding for

training.

I would like also to provide our suggestions for action by other U.S. government

agencies.

SUGGESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE

1) FBI academies in Quantico, Bangkok, and Budapest should include training on

sex trafficking and forced prostitution. If police in a particular locality are to

be effective in applying the law to the illegal market in women and girls, then

they must be trained, both in the technical skills necessary to infiltrate the secrecy and deception in which these transactions take place, and also to maintain the professionalism necessary to control and ultimately eradicate corruption. The United States, with its vast human and technical resources in the

field of law enforcement, is uniquely capable of offering such training to foreign

police departments. But focused effort must be placed on mobilizing these resources to build up law enforcement professionals overseas.

2) Police executives should receive training in management methods and practices to eliminate corruption in their own ranks.

3) U.S. Attorneys and Federal law enforcement officials should obtain intelligence

from trafficking victims in this country about how they were trafficked, from

what city and by what means. This intelligence should be regularly forwarded

to the law enforcement desk at U.S. embassies and could then be made available as appropriate to law enforcement authorities of source countries. This

would make it possible to interdict trafficking within the source country. This

practical step would accelerate our progress toward disrupting the illegal market in human persons. The perpetrator of a crime of human trafficking who

is identified and prosecuted in the U.S. is part of a global chain of illegal transactions that brought the perpetrator and victim into the U.S. And similar to

the drug trafficker caught within the borders of the U.S., the sex trafficker is

part of a series of transactions which include players in each country of origin,

71

transit, and final destination. In order to effectively disrupt the market, intelligence must be transferred back through this chain of players—from the dealer in the U.S. to his transportation network to his overseas supplier.

4) We commend the State Department’s Bureau for International Narcotics and

Law Enforcement Affairs for its funding and monitoring of the Anti-Trafficking

in Persons Unit in the Royal Thai Police. The benefits of creating a police task

force in a particular country or community are several. First, a task force can

readily be held accountable for the trafficking cases they do or do not do. Second, designating a team to focus on trafficking cases allows personnel to develop expertise and successful methodologies for identifying and investigating

such cases. Third, a task force creates a model that is duplicable throughout

a country or region. Fourth, designating a task force prevents trafficking cases

from being pushed further down the list of assignment priorities as other cases

are brought to the attention of law enforcement. Additional such task forces

should be funded.

5) An additional step is, of course, to establish a similar task force of prosecutors,

so that cases that are investigated end in successful prosecutions of the traffickers.

CONCLUSION

Although the Act is still new, the one early correction is the reporting criteria and

the objectifying of Tier Two and Tier Three standards. The Report should not be

seen as an end in itself but as a means to encourage improved performance by countries with serious trafficking problems. Without these corrections, the Report is too

inconclusive to be a tool to encourage countries to improve their performance. The

overly generous rating of many Tier Two countries will not provide much incentive

for improvement unless new criteria are identified and the Tier Two status for many

countries is called into question.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I want to thank you both for outstanding testimony. And again, you were stakeholders, both of you,

in helping to write this legislation. And to get your feedback on the

implementation is extremely important. And I know that the State

Department and the people from the newly-created office, some of

whom are still here, are taking notes, because I think both of you

made excellent points.

And I thank you, sincerely. I would like to take you up on that

idea of a trip. And I think your point about finding them would be

no difficulty, what a sad commentary on the status of the police

and the officials in many of these countries. Thank you.

I would like to ask now our two very brave victims, witnesses

here today who have come forward who want to speak out. And I

thank you for having the courage to be here. And, Maria, if you

wouldn’t mind beginning.

STATEMENT OF ‘‘MARIA,’’ TRAFFICKING VICTIM FROM MEXICO

[The following was delivered through an interpreter.]

MARIA. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the House Committee on International Relations for the opportunity to speak on

behalf of trafficking survivors.

My name is Maria. I am in disguise today because I am in fear

that my captors will recognize me and place my life and that of my

family in danger. My story begins in May 1997 in Vera Cruz, Mexico, when I was approached by an acquaintance about some jobs in

the United States. She told me that there were jobs available in

restaurants and that I will earn enough money to support my

daughter and my parents in Mexico.

I accepted the offer and a coyote brought me to Texas. I was

transported to Florida, and there one of the bosses told me I would

be working at a brothel as a prostitute. I told him he was misVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
72

taken, and that I was going to be working in a restaurant, not a

brothel. He said I owed him a smuggling debt and the sooner I paid

it off, the sooner I could leave. I was 18 years old and I had never

been far from home. I had no money or way to get back.

I was constantly guarded and abused. If anyone refused to be

with a customer we were beaten. If we adamantly refused the

bosses would show us a lesson by raping us brutally. We worked

6 days a week, 12 hours a day. Our bodies were sore and swollen.

If anyone became pregnant we were forced to have abortions. And

the cost of the abortion was added to the smuggling debt.

The bosses carry weapons. They scare me. I never knew where

I was. We were transported every 15 days to different cities. I

knew if I tried to escape I would not get far because everything

was unfamiliar. The bosses said that if we escaped, they would get

the money from our families.

I was enslaved for several months. Other women were enslaved

for up to a year. My enslavement finally ended when the INS, FBI

and local law enforcement raided the brothel and rescued us. From

the moment I arrived in the United States, I have gone through so

much.

After I was released from my captors, I cooperated with the government to send them to jail. Some of them are serving sentences

in the United States, but unfortunately, others are free in Mexico

threatening our families. Meanwhile, I continue to wait for my S

Visa and one for my daughter. She will be 6 years old.

I have not seen her since I left my country when she was only

a year and a half. I never thought this process could take so long.

Seven of our captors were successfully prosecuted in 1999.

Two thousand and one is coming to its end and we are all waiting for a status that would allow us to remain safe in the United

States and also to give us the opportunity to reunite with our loved

ones. My desire to see my daughter and the chance to give her a

better life keeps me going. But how long do we have to wait? If I

would have had the opportunity to apply for a T Visa, I understand

that the transition to the life I lead now in this country would have

been significantly less burdensome.

Once INS gave me work authorization, I went out looking for employment without following the city, without speaking the language, without any guidance. My goal was to obtain honest employment immediately, to send money to my parents for my daughter’s

upbringing. From that day I have not stopped. I continue to work

for the same company that hired me when I was most desperate.

I am learning English and I hold a position with much responsibility. But my story is not the story of most of the women and girls

that were enslaved by the Cadena family. Most of the women are

struggling to rebuild their lives. Some are mothers but do not count

with any form of assistance with daycare because of their present

immigration status and that of their children.

They do not have any special training that would help them obtain employment, employment that would provide for day care. Our

temporary status needs to be renewed yearly. Most of us have not

been able to reunite with our loved ones and worry for their safety.

73

I did not come to the United States to be a prostitute, I came to

find a better future for my family. No women or child would want

to be a sex slave and endure the evil that I have gone through.

The men we helped in jail harmed us and possibly many others

before us. Please help us and do not let this happen to anyone else.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you for very much, Maria, for

being here and for providing the Committee with that insight and

that information.

[The prepared statement of Maria follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ‘‘MARIA,’’ TRAFFICKING VICTIM FROM MEXICO

(Prepared and translated by Maria Jose T. Fletcher, Florida Immigrant Advocacy

Center)

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the House Committee on International Relations for the opportunity to speak on behalf of trafficking survivors. My name is

‘‘Maria.’’ I am in disguise today because I am in fear that my captors would recognize me and place my life and that of my family in danger.

My story begins in May of 1997 in Veracruz, Mexico when I was approached by

an acquaintance about some jobs in the United States. She told me that there were

jobs available in restaurants and that I would earn enough money to support my

daughter and my parents in Mexico. I accepted the offer and a coyote brought me

to Texas.

I was transported to Florida and there, one of the bosses told me I would be working at a brothel as a prostitute. I told him he was mistaken and that I was going

to be working in a restaurant not a brothel. He said I owed him a smuggling debt

and the sooner I paid it off the sooner I could leave. I was eighteen years old and

had never been far from home and had no money or way to get home.

I was constantly guarded and abused. If anyone refused to be with a customer,

we were beaten. If we adamantly refused, the bosses would show us a lesson by raping us brutally. We worked six days a week, twelve hours a day. Our bodies were

sore and swollen. If anyone became pregnant we were forced to have abortions. The

cost of the abortion was added to the smuggling debt.

The bosses carried weapons. They scared me. I never new where I was. We were

transported every fifteen days to different cities. I knew if I tried to escape I would

not get far because everything was unfamiliar. The bosses said that if we escaped

they would get their money from our families.

I was enslaved for several months, other women were enslaved for up to a year.

Our enslavement finally ended when the INS, FBI, and local law enforcement raided the brothels and rescued us. From the moment I arrived to the United States

I have gone through so much. After I was released from my captors, I cooperated

with the government to send them to jail. Some of them are serving sentences in

the United States but unfortunately others are free in Mexico threatening our families.

Meanwhile I continue to wait for my ‘‘S’’ visa and the one for my daughter. She

will be six years old. I have not seen her since I left my country when she was only

a year and half. I never thought this process would take so long. Seven of our captors were successfully prosecuted in 1999. 2001 is coming to its end and we are all

waiting for a status that would allow us to remain safe in the United States and

also to give us the opportunity to reunite with our love ones. My desire to see my

daughter and the chance to give her a better life keep me going. But how long do

we have to wait?

If I would have had the opportunity to apply for a ‘‘T’’ visa, I understand that

the transition to the life I lead now in this country would have been significantly

less burdensome. Once INS gave me work authorization, I went out looking for employment, without knowing the city, without speaking the language, without any

guidance. My goal was to obtain honest employment immediately to send money to

my parents for my daughter’s upbringing. From that day I have not stopped. I continue to work for the same company that hired me when I was most desperate. I

am learning English and I hold a position that demands responsibility.

But my story is not the story of most of the women and girls that were enslaved

by the Cadena family. Most of the women are struggling to rebuild their lives. Some

are mothers that do not count with any form of assistance with day care because

of their present immigration status and that of their children. They do not have any

74

special training that would help them obtain employment, employment that would

provided for day care. Our temporary status needs to be renewed yearly. Most of

us have not been able to reunite with our loved ones and worry for their safety.

I did not come to the United States to be a prostitute. I came to find a better

future for my family. No woman or child would want to be a sex slave and endure

the evil that I have gone through. The men we helped put in jail harmed us and

possible many others before us. Please help us and do not let this happen to anyone

else. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Vi, if you continue.

STATEMENT OF ‘‘VI,’’ TRAFFICKING VICTIM FROM VIETNAM

[The following was delivered through an interpreter.]

VI. My name is Vi. And I am 28 years old. I arrived in American

Samoa on July 22nd, 1999. Two other groups of Vietnamese workers had been brought to this island before us. When I signed the

contract to a Company 12, they told me that I would go to the U.S.

And its Deputy Director promised that I would get paid $408 a

month. I had to borrow $4,000 to pay to Company 12 and another

$2,000 to pay the company official in charge of recruitment.

We were taken to American Samoa and not the U.S. As soon as

we landed our passports were confiscated. At a Daewoosa shop, I

had to work from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. and sometimes to 7 a.m. the next

day, and also on Saturdays and Sunday without being paid. We

had no money to buy food, amenities or soap. We had to pay $200

for room and board, which they said that they would provide according to the contract.

Meals at Daewoosa consisted of a few cabbage leaves, potatoes

cooked with a lot of water. Those who were at the head of the line

could get some cabbage and potato, later comers got only water.

Hungry, we planted some vegetables to supplement our meals, but

Mr. Lee, President of Daewoosa, destroyed our garden. Undernourished, I lost 35 pounds within 1 year.

Working and living conditions at Daewoosa were very suffocating. There was no air ventilation. Workers slept right next to

each other. The temperature in the rooms sometime went up to

over 100 degrees. We were not allowed to step out for fresh air. The

supervisor even kept count on how many times we went to the toilet.

We lived 36 people in one room. Another worker and I share one

tiny bed. We can only sleep on our side, we can’t—if we lay on our

back, we would pile on top of each other.

Most of us were women. At night Mr. Lee often came into our

room and lay next to whoever he liked. Once he forced me to give

him a massage right in our bedroom.

He called pretty ones into his office and forced them to have sex

with him. Three women have publicly denounced him for that.

Once, several of his customers arrived in American Samoa. Mr. Lee

pressed several female workers to sleep with them. They resisted.

At the workplace, he regularly groped and kissed female workers

in front of everyone.

There were three among us who were pregnant women. Mr. Lee

demanded that they have an abortion. He fired them when they refused. Evicted from Daewoosa, they had to seek refuge at a local

church.

75

Movement at Daewoosa was very restricted. Everyone leaving

the compound was searched by American Samoan guards. Female

workers were groped all over their bodies. Those who protested

were strip-searched. Those coming back from the compound after

9 p.m. were beaten up. I was once slapped.

Mr. Lee used big American Samoan guards to terrorize us. Once

several workers staged a strike because they were not paid. He

threatened that he would send these guards to short-circuit electric

cables and cause a fire to kill us all. Everyone was fearful because

two female workers, Nga and Dung, involved in the lawsuits

against Mr. Lee had just disappeared.

On November 23 of last year, there was a dispute between the

supervisor and a female worker. Mr. Lee ordered the supervisor: ‘‘If

you beat her to death, I will take the blame.’’ The supervisor

dragged the female worker by the chest. Other workers came to her

rescue. The American Samoan guards, already holding sticks and

scissors, jumped in and beat them. Everyone was so frightened. We

ran for our lives. Mr. Lee ran after to beat the fleeing workers. We

were terrorized for days after that.

The guards paid special attention to the five or six workers

known to have supported the lawsuit against Mr. Lee. They beat

them the hardest. Ms. Quyen, the key witness in this lawsuit, was

held by her arms on two sides by two guards. A third guard

thrusted a pointed stick into her eyes. As a result, she lost sight

of one eye.

A guard beat a male worker with a stick, breaking his front teeth

and bleeding his mouth.

Another male worker was pinned down to the floor and repeatedly beaten at his temple. His blood was spilling all over the floor.

The next day, the FBI agent took pictures of the bloodstains.

During the assault, Daewoosa’s lawyer and the police were there

but did nothing. Only when the lawyer representing the workers

showed up did the guards stop the beating.

From 1999 to the above incident, Tour Company 12 and the

international manpower supply, another Vietnamese company hiring workers for Daewoosa, forced us to continue working without

pay and threatened to send us back to Vietnam if we disobeyed.

Everyone was deeply in debt. If we got sent back, how could we pay

our debt?

Since my arrival to the U.S., I have sent every dollar earned

back to Vietnam to pay my debt. However, this has barely made

a dent because the interest rate is so high, 50 percent. My parents

in Vietnam are very worried. Their hair turned all gray. They told

me that it is fortunate that I have come to the U.S.; otherwise, we

would be in a hopeless situation.

If sent back, it would be hard for me to find employment. My

previous workplace will not take me back. Because of my involvement in the prosecution of Mr. Lee, I am afraid of running into

trouble with the government if repatriated to Vietnam.

I am getting used to life in the U.S. Here I am free to choose

where I want to work. If dissatisfied with one workplace, I can always go to another one.

I have been thoroughly helped in my first step toward a normal

life, and I find everyone to be very kind. I now live with a VietVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:21 Mar 04, 2002 Jkt 076351 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\112901\76351 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
76

namese family without having to pay rent. That family offers me

employment. They take care of my food, transportation and other

things. They also give me a phone card to call my family in Vietnam once a week.

Staying with me are six female workers from American Samoa.

Two of them are here today.

I have received a certification letter from the Department of

Health and Human Services for public benefits. I have a temporary

visa which will expire on October 30, 2002, and a work permit. I

work at a nail salon in DC to pay my debts. If allowed to remain

in the U.S., I would like to go back to school because in Vietnam

I had to stop schooling at 7th grade. I also wish to be reunited with

my child left behind in Vietnam.

I am thankful to everyone who has helped me get out of American Samoa and everyone who has assisted me in this new life in

the U.S.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Vi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ‘‘VI,’’ TRAFFICKING VICTIM FROM VIETNAM

I arrived in American Samoa on July 22, 1999. Two other groups of Vietnamese

workers had been brought to this island before us.

When I signed the contract, Tour Company 12 (TC12) told me that I would go to the U.S. and its Deputy Director promised that I would be paid $408 a month.

I had to borrow 4 thousand dollars to pay TC12 and another 2 thousand to pay the

company official in charge of recruitment.

We were taken to American Samoa, not the U.S. As soon as we landed, our passports were confiscated.

At Daewoosa I had to work from 7 a.m. often to 2 a.m. and sometimes to 7 a.m.

the following day and also on Saturdays and Sundays, without pay. We had no

money to buy soap, amenities, or food. We had to pay about $200 per month for meals, which Daewoosa should have provided according to the contract.

Meals at Daewoosa consisted of a few cabbage leaves and potatoes cooked with

a lot of water. Those who were at the head of the line could get some cabbage and

potato; latecomers got only water. Hungry, we planted some vegetables to supplement our meager diet but Mr. Lee, President of Daewoosa, destroyed our garden.

Undernourished, I lost 35 lbs and weighed only 78 lbs.

Working and living conditions at Daewoosa were very suffocating. There was no

ventilation. Workers sat next to each other. It was very hot. We were not allowed

to step out for fresh air. The supervisor even kept count of how many times we went

to the toilet.

We lived 36 people per room. Another worker and I shared one tiny bed. We could

only sleep on our side. If we lay on our back, we would pile up on each other.

Most of us were women. At night Mr. Lee often came to our room and lay next

to whomever he liked. Once he forced me to give him a massage right in our bedroom. He called pretty ones into his office and forced them to have sex with him. Three

women have publicly denounced him for that. Once, several of his customers arrived

in American Samoa; Mr. Lee pressed several female workers to sleep with them.

They resisted.

At the workplace, he regularly groped and kissed female workers in front of every

one.

There were three pregnant women among us. Mr. Lee demanded that they undergo abortion. He fired them when they refused. Evicted from Daewoosa, they had to

seek refuge at a local church.

Movement at Daewoosa was very restricted. Everyone leaving the compound was

searched by American Samoan guards. Female workers were groped all over their

body. Those who protested were strip-searched. Those coming back to the compound

after 9 p.m. were beaten up. Once I was slapped.

Mr. Lee used big American Samoan guards to terrorize us. Once several workers

staged a strike because they were not paid. He threatened that he would send these

guards to short-circuit the electric cables and cause a fire to kill all of us. Everyone

77

was fearful because two female workers, Nga and Dung, involved in a lawsuit

against Mr. Lee had just disappeared.

On November 28 of last year, there was a dispute between the supervisor and a

female worker. Mr. Lee ordered the supervisor: ‘‘If you beat her to death, I will take

the blame.’’ The supervisor dragged the female worker out. Other workers came to

her rescue. The American Samoan guards, already holding sticks and scissors,

jumped in and beat us. Everyone was so frightened. We ran for our life.

The guards paid special attention to the 5 or 6 workers known to have supported

the lawsuit against Mr. Lee. They beat them the hardest. Ms. Quyen, the key witness in this lawsuit, was held by her arms on two sides by two guards; a third

guard thrusted a pointed stick into her eye. She has now lost that eye.

A guard beat a male worker with a stick, breaking his front teeth and bleeding

his mouth.

Another male worker was pinned to the floor and repeatedly beaten at the temple,

his blood spilling all over the floor. The next day, FBI agents took picture of the

bloodstains.

During the assault, Daewoosa’s lawyer and the police were there but did nothing.

Only when the lawyer representing the workers showed up, did the guards stop the

beating.

From 1999 to the above incident, TC12 and International Manpower Supply—an- other Vietnamese company hiring workers for Daewoosa—forced us to continue

working without pay and threatened to send us back to Vietnam if we disobeyed.

Everyone was deeply in debt; if sent back to Vietnam, how could we pay our debt?

Since my arrival to the US I have sent every dollar earned back to Vietnam to

pay my debt. However this has barely made a dent because the interest rate is so

high, 50% per year. My parents in Vietnam are very worried; their hair has turned

all grey. They told me that it is fortunate that I have come to the US; otherwise

we would be in a hopeless sittuation.

If sent back, it would be hard for me to find employment. My previous workplace

will not take me back. Because of my involvement in the prosecution of Mr. Lee I

am afraid of running into trouble with the government if repatriated to Vietnam.

I am getting used to life in the U.S. Here I am free to choose where to work. If

dissatisfied with one workplace, I can always go to another one. I have been thoroughly helped in my first steps towards a normal life. I find everyone to be kind.

I now live with a Vietnamese family without having to pay rent. That family offers me employment. They take care of my food, transportation and other things.

They also give me a phone card to call my family in Vietnam once a week.

I have received the certification letter from the Department of Health and Human

Services for public benefits. I have a temporary visa which will expire on October

30, 2002 and a work permit. I work at a nail salon in DC to pay my debt. If allowed

to remain in the U.S., I would like to go back to school because in Vietnam I had

to stop schooling at 7th grade. I also wish to be reunited with my child left behind

in Vietnam.

I am thankful to everyone who has helped get me out of American Samoa and

everyone who has assisted me in my new life in the U.S.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Vi, thank you very much, and

Maria. Thank you both. And I want to note that, as painful as it

obviously is to recount these terrible details of cruelty that you

have suffered, it does spur us to action. It was hearing the sordid

details of other trafficking victims as well that gave all of us the

tools that we needed to convince a great number of indifferent people that the legislation and the initiative and the money, because

money is policy, needed to be used and directed on behalf of trafficked persons. So I thank you for your bravery in coming forward.

And I want to just to make note that the sooner we get the visa

situation resolved, the T Visas, the sooner your situation with your

child can be made hopefully whole in terms of an end, Maria, that

would go for you as well. So all the more reason why OMB and the

Department of Justice needs to move as expeditiously as possible,

two more reasons, if you will, to get that resolved and to implement

the law effectively.

Let me say to our two witnesses, Ms. Neuwirth and Mr. Haugen,

and I would ask you to respond to this. It has been my experience

78

as a Member of Congress for the last 21 years, and I do travel

quite extensively on human rights issues, that with some notable

exceptions human rights in general are often relegated to obligatory talking points and delegated to junior Foreign Service officers

in many of the countries. Trade suffers no such shyness. Everyone

is on board when they are talking about trade and more trade.

What has been your experience in dealing with our missions

abroad? I know you do travel extensively. I am sure you routinely

talk to our Ambassadors and our DCMs. Are they sensitized to this

issue? Do they have a sense that this is a war that they need to

prosecute? Everyone is talking terrorism now, and that certainly is

a very important part of the portfolio, but what about the traffic

victims? Ms. Neuwirth and Mr. Haugen?

Ms. NEUWIRTH. Just briefly, I think everything you said about

human rights would be even more applicable to women’s rights.

Even though there is a section in the Human Rights Report in the

State Department on women’s rights, it does tend to get relegated

to, as you said, lower level officials and it doesn’t often get relegated to the high level, often very closed discussions.

To the extent that we have women Ambassadors, often that we

see that that makes a tremendous difference. Trafficking, among

the issues that we work on, has gotten I think some more attention

than others, but it needs much, much more.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Haugen.

Mr. HAUGEN. Mr. Vice Chairman, I would say it is the difference

between what is a good idea and an urgent priority. There are a

lot of good ideas that the State Department is supposed to be implementing, but you get time and resources and energy and political will behind the things that they understand to be the urgent

priorities. Little girls and little boys and impoverished women who

are being trafficked by the hundreds of thousands—who could repeat these stories again and again before this Committee days on

end—do not have a substantial political constituency. No one loses

tremendously if hundreds of thousands of children are trafficked

into forced prostitution unless somebody steps up and makes it a

political priority, and I would say my assessment thus far is that

it is a good idea, not an urgent priority.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. In the three countries that IJM visited that you characterize as Tier 3 countries, and I think your

point that you add them to victimizations, it exceeds the number

of all the Tier 3 countries combined—that is quite a telling remark.

Mr. HAUGEN. Correct.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. What was the response of our own

embassy personnel to this information?

Mr. HAUGEN. We have had, like what you had, constructive dialogue with embassies about these things. I think they are growing

in their sense of priority. Certainly the passage of the legislation

has been very important for them to get a sense that this is an important priority, but now they are going to look at what can we get

by with, because we have to understand there is an institutional

bias against getting into a confrontational position with the host

government, especially with the host government’s police. That is

no fun for the State Department at all.

79

So what other ways—if you look at the narratives from each of

the countries in the report—and they come from the embassies,

they tend to read like a lawyer—and I have done this, what are

all the things I can admit without having to actually admit the

things that will get me in trouble? So you can start to read it as,

okay, we agree we are not doing so great on this, but here are the

few things that are being done which should get us out of Tier 3

and on to Tier 2.

We need to understand there will be a bias on the part of the

embassies to keep their country off of Tier 3, and there will be a

political will and priority in the U.S. Government, the Congress

and the Executive, to make sure that that priority is articulated

clearly and acted upon with consequence.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just note the report, which

all of us have read, pointed out by the State Department as required by law is one of the things that I hope to do and, I am sure

other Members of the Committee will want to do, would be to look

more in depth as to how they came to those conclusions. This is basically a summary sheet. I think it was well-intentioned and it was

put together in goodwill, but there are a number of things, and you

pointed out some yourself—pervasive corruption and those kinds of

words used—but still they remain on Tier 2. I think we want to

look at more of the source documentation that led to that final outcome and final ranking as we go forward. When we do have further

hearings on this especially as it relates to the report, I know that

my questions will go to the heart of how did you get there and my

hope is this is a work in progress and it will be a much better product going forward.

Mr. HAUGEN. If I may, just to make clear, the International Justice Mission doesn’t say this is not a serious effort, but it is a first

effort. The task force and the office would benefit greatly from seeing how this could be done better. So there are huge embarrassing

omissions at the end of the day.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. One thing, Ms. Neuwirth, I think you

may have been here when I asked—and Mr. Pitts had a similar

line of questioning to Under Secretary Dobriansky with regards to

neutrality—and you said this in your testimony with regards to

prostitution and the commercial sex industry, as to the Administration’s position, were you satisfied with their answer?

Ms. NEUWIRTH. We were very pleased with the answer. I think

the challenge, though, is to get that answer from everyone in the

State Department and everyone in the embassies. That is why we

would really like to see some kind of formal policy articulated.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, our colleague has got another commitment, so I am going to let her ask questions before

me.

Ms. WATSON. I appreciate that, and I am sitting here seething

with anger, so thank you for letting me spout.

First, I want to say to Maria and Vi, it takes a great amount of

courage to come before this body and before the public and state

your circumstances. I commend you. I am someone that absolutely,

positively will work as hard as I can to see that we move every

80

country off of Tier 3, Tier 2 and Tier 1 and to protect the rights

of women and girls and young boys. It is absolutely horrendous to

me that this is going on anywhere in the world, and I am shocked

to think that American Samoa is carrying this on as well.

Now, my question to any of the panelists that would like to respond is, how do we get away with it? As we sit here this afternoon

and we talk about protecting women, children from trafficking and

sex, we, the United States, condemning these other countries and

put them in a status—and this is going on in American Samoa?

And then I also am further appalled to think that the State Department is not cooperating to give these victims status immediately so they could assume some kind of normalcy, these young

women can have some kind of young life and take care of their children and their families and pay off this debt.

So we are sitting here in judgment, but what are we doing particularly in American Samoa, whoever would like to respond?

Ms. NEUWIRTH. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is just American

Samoa.

Ms. WATSON. The reason I mentioned it is because it is America.

Ms. NEUWIRTH. In even in the United States you have given us

this great tool which is the law, and I think a concern that we

have, which I mentioned, is that it is not being used very aggressively. Maybe that is just a function of start-up delay, but, in general, I think one of the reasons that we wanted this law was so we

would see more prosecutions everywhere in the United States because trafficking is coming into the United States in many different

places in great volume. So I think that is an important question

for the Justice Department.

Ms. WATSON. I would hope, Mr. Chairman and Members, that we

could get down to some of the fundamental factors in giving you

this new tool, because I see a problem with the State Department.

And I know as an Ambassador, and I wish I had been in some of

those places, we stepped up to the base and did some things that

weren’t quite in agreement with law enforcement and the country

in which I was hosted. But we were the United States, we were

there officially, and we had certain things to do.

What I cannot understand is why the State Department is dragging its feet. I know how they place priorities. I have been a victim

of that myself. But we have got to make the case—if I don’t do anything else while I am here as a Congressperson—I will be making

the case to the State Department that they have to think outside

the box. If we as a Congress passed this law to protect young

women and young boys and all that we need to start with ourselves,too.

Mr. Chairman, I wish all of you would join me in the anger that

I am feeling right now that how dare us start to strategize other

countries and we have got lots to do right here on our own. So all

these organization representatives that are here, I hope you will

continue to work with us as we try to implement this law, as we

try to save these young lives. There is not any more greater offense

and horrendous offense as to use a person’s body against their will

and for sex and particularly a young person. We must start with

ourselves and clean it out wherever it is, here in territorial or in

81

continental United States and territorial United States and our different agencies.

I want to say to the Chair and the Members that I pledge my

assistance to you, and I commend you for starting this, and I am

just appalled that we haven’t gotten any further than this.

Mr. HAUGEN. Mr. Vice Chairman, can I respond very briefly? I

think the key element in terms of our own domestic enforcement

is clearly the way we deal with the victims, that cooperation of victims in law enforcement is the most basic principle of effective investigation and prosecution. If we make them feel further threatened by that process we won’t succeed the way we would like to.

In regard to the State Department and this notion of not applying principles we do here at home to things abroad, the one thing

I think we have failed to do at the State Department is to not

apply our prosecutorial vigor. The question, well, how many bad

guys are getting in trouble which we easily ask about our own

home situation because we hear those stories and say, for heaven’s

sake, someone should go to jail for that, we don’t ask that same

question about those other countries overseas.

The State Department, it seems from this report, is simple too

loathe to ask, is anybody going to jail? Is anybody getting fired

from the police force because of that? When that shift of thinking

happens, I believe you will see a dramatic change of sex trafficking

in these countries.

Ms. NEUWIRTH. If I could add one other point that came up about

what can we do here that will help us in our case abroad, the

United States invested very much in the negotiation of the protocol

on trafficking, and I think the question was raised earlier about

the ratification process. We should ratify that protocol as quickly

as possible, and then we will be in a much better position to urge

other countries to ratify. There are only a handful so far. So the

protocol hasn’t yet come into force, and that is another powerful

tool on the international level that needs to be activated.

Ms. WATSON. If I might respond, and this will be the last comment, that the question was raised on how rapidly we could do it.

So we are going to continue after the Justice Department to see

that they then review so we can pass those provisions on to the

Senate, and what I would like to do is untie the hands of those that

will implement so that we can really show our commitment behind

this law, this act that we did pass. So, working together, I think

we might be able to make a difference and move this along. I would

hesitate to condemn these other countries while we still have these

issues pending and we haven’t been able to expedite them.

So we have got some steps to take before we can move out into

the world and——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Would the gentlelady yield on that

point?

I agree, and one of the aspects that we tried to incorporate into

this bill was the idea that if we do not have adequate and very

strong law enforcement—and that is to say 20-year sentences rather than the previous 10 which often meant a 2-year or slap on the

wrist for those who engage in these practices—while simultaneously protecting the victim. We want to put anyone who is part

of that spectrum—whether they be harboring, transporting,

82

seducing by way of providing or using coercion or lies or deception

and then to go to the end game exploiter, that is to say the escort

service or whatever—and throwing the full book at them.

That is why the question to Mr. Boyd earlier about prosecutions

and the U.S. Attorneys—there is prosecutorial, as we all know, discretion. If our U.S. Attorneys have it on this low end of the totem

pole, this kind of exploitation continues unabated. That is why

these hearings and making sure every tool is out there—but also,

as Mr. Haugen has said, it all comes down to our political will. It

is all in place. Now just do it. And we have to make sure we have

enough money there.

One of the other aspects about this law was that during the conference we melded in the Violence Against Women Act and other

important protections for women, especially for immigrant women

who could be battered, and then you hear the batterer or the person raping her say I will just turn you in to INS and you will be

out of here in a minute. So domestic help or so-called domestic help

were further exploited.

So we have got tools. We just want to make sure this Administration does not fall down on the job, and we look forward to working with you on that. We are right at a point, and I ask your help

with this, with Nita Lowey and with the Foreign Operations Appropriations staff, Mr. Lantos, all of us have signed letters that they

go with the full $30 million.

That ball is in our court now. Shame on us if we come up with something less than the $30 million to implement this legislation.

So thank you for your help.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

First, I want to compliment Ms. Neuwirth and Mr. Haugen for

their excellent presentations and certainly commend both of you for

the outstanding work and the services that you have rendered for

all these past years in addressing this very serious issue. I thought

your analysis, Mr. Haugen, of the current law was excellent.

As my colleague from California said, category three—I would

like to see category ten to really put real teeth in their problems.

The Chairman, of which I am always appreciative of, is always

seeking improvements in the current law. Like you said, we can

put it in the books and the law, but if any Administration is given

discretionary authority whether to put it in a high or low priority,

then nothing gets done. That is something we have to be very

watchful for.

I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks and concerns expressed by my colleague from California, especially for

Maria and also for Ms. Vi. I would like to ask unanimous consent—

Mr. Chairman, I would like the translator for Ms. Vi to say it in

Vietnamese—at least for the benefit of our Vietnamese community,

so I can explain other aspects of the situation that affected the life

of Ms. Vi. In order to give at least some understanding also of what

happened there in American Samoa.

First of all, I served as a veteran in Vietnam and I have nothing

but the greatest fondness and affection for the Vietnamese people.

I would never know whether I was going to be among the 58,000

body bags that were going to be coming back, and by the grace of

God I am here, but this has never changed my mind. What this

83

country went through was a very divisive time period in our history. I still carry that very strong bitterness in terms of our national policies, what we did, our failure to do what we should have

done or we could have done. But, beside all of that, I want Ms. Vi

to know, if it is any consolation to her, I was directly involved in

trying to work the solution to the problems that affected not only

her but the Vietnamese women and men who were employed there

by that company.

Could you translate? You can say it loudly on the mike, please,

for purpose of reception.

[Interpreter speaking in Vietnamese.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What had happened here was that Company

12—which is a Vietnamese—which is a semi-independent agency

run by the government Vietnam. They contracted this employment

system with the Vietnamese workers, with this Korean gentleman

Kil Soo Lee who is from South Korea, and that contractual relationship brought the Vietnamese workers over to American Samoa

with the promises that Ms. Vi had stated earlier.

I want her to know that, because of the current enforcement of

the law, that with the investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Kil Soo Lee is now in jail. Pending his

prosecution or trial, that will be coming up in the months ahead,

probably sometime in the first part of next year. What happened

here was that there was a failure on the part of the Immigration

Board on the government of American Samoa to enforce the laws

that pertains to protection of the rights of workers that were working there in the territory.

While recovering from an operation in the hospital, I had a 3-

hour meeting with Mr. Kil Soo Lee and also the Chairman of Company 12. They came from Vietnam in trying to diffuse the situation

of these contractual problems affecting the rights of the Vietnamese workers with those of Daewoosa Company. And whatever

the situation now, the court, pending the prosecution trial of Mr.

Kil Soo Lee as well as to the rights that were given to the Vietnamese workers who were brought here under the T Visa basis,

this is all part of the Federal law that is now being implemented.

Because a lot of our people did not understand what was going

on in the vicinity of where the Vietnamese workers were being employed—I hope Ms. Vi will understand also that there were many

of our church leaders, community people who extended their home

and also helping them when they were in this kind of a situation—

and the situation that I felt very resentful was that there were

some inaccurate reports given to the media suggesting that

Samoans are very violent people. They may be big, but they are not

necessarily violent. It is true we love to play rugby, we love to play

football. Just don’t provoke us.

VI. I didn’t think Samoans were mean people. They were just following orders of Mr. Lee to beat the workers, that is all.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I appreciate that very much, Ms. Vi; and I

do want to say that, with the help of the Chairman, of the Members of this Committee, this tape is going to be rebroadcast in

American Samoa so that the people there will know what is going

on. Like I said, this gentleman is in jail right now pending his

84

prosecution and the court trial that is now pending in Federal district court.

So, again, I want to offer my most profound apologies to Ms. Vi

and the members of the Vietnamese community that were affected

by this unfortunate situation under the management of Mr. Kil Soo

Lee, and I promise, Ms. Vi, this will never happen again.

VI. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Chair recognizes General Counsel Joseph Rees.

Mr. REES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to add to

what Congressman Faleomavaega said.

I went to American Samoa in January to investigate this situation on behalf of the Committee, and I lived in American Samoa

for 5 years earlier, as I think Congressman Faleomavaega mentioned earlier.

First of all, this was not a case of American Samoa against the

Vietnamese workers. Many of the Samoan people opened their

homes and hearts to the workers as soon as they began to find out

all the terrible things that were being done to them. And also the

good news is that the case is being prosecuted. That is the difference between something like this happening under the American

flag and happening somewhere else is that, in fact, people are

going to jail, the victims are being protected. It hasn’t all happened

as quickly or as seamlessly as we would like, but it is happening.

Even before the Federal Government got involved the American

Samoa legal system was acting to protect the rights of some of the

workers. They had brought a civil suit, and so things weren’t working perfectly. We all wish this hadn’t happened, but, in fact, it has

been to some extent a success story, and I wanted to second the

remarks that Congressman Faleomavaega made.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would the Chairman yield?

We talk about forced prostitution and forced employment and

problems we have with drug trafficking. I recall the words by the

former President of Colombia, the Republic of Colombia, why we

have such a serious problem of drug trafficking in our country. The

response of the President was, well, if there wasn’t so much a demand by Americans, maybe we wouldn’t grow as much of the drugs

or produce as much of the drugs to supply them for their consumption demand for this.

But, ultimately, my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is that more than

anything it is the traffickers, and if anything—if the law—if it is

ever to become meaningful, it is the traffickers. They are the ones

we should really be focusing on, not only as a national policy but

the commitment of the agencies responsible for implementing the

provisions of the law. And I have always held that belief. It is not

the victims. It is the traffickers and the brokers and the middle

guys here in our own country who are responsible for this kind of

activity. I just wanted to share that with the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of our panel,

for their testimony.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would just add the legislation

makes it very clear that the traffickers will—if there is a political

will and the prosecution strategy is in place—they will be held accountable. They will go to jail, hopefully for at least 20 years or up

85

to life imprisonment, in some instances. But we also need to hold

to account the customers, and that is certainly where the demand

aspect of this is so apparent, and so we will continue to work on

that as well.

Would any of you like to add anything? We are near the end of

this hearing.

Mr. HAUGEN. I will just add a brief thought on the demand question. The demand certainly comes from those who visit the brothels

for sex, but the brothel keeper can meet that demand through two

different labor sources. They can entice with money or they can enslave with force, and to enslave with force is cheaper. So as long

as they have a viable option of using a slave labor force, they will

choose to do that. But in order to do that, it will have to have the

complicity of the police to do it, because it requires major felonies

to be committed and to be committed continuously in openness to

the public because they want the public to come to the place to purchase the sex.

So it is not something hard to find. It is not something hard to

fight. But someone has to have the political will to make it a priority.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you.

Ms. Neuwirth.

Ms. NEUWIRTH. Yes. But I guess I would add that this question

of demand should be dealt with in a holistic way. You mentioned,

and I think, the law also envisions room for additional activities

that could be undertaken to try to address problems like sex tourism, the mail order bride industry, and all of these other areas that

may not be immediately addressed in the law and yet are feeding

into the industry—which is then resulting in an increase in trafficking.

Mr. HAUGEN. Just to follow up, I would definitely affirm that certainly the places we visit, that western customers are no strangers

to these places, and they are part of the demand problem.

Part of our emphasis is also to point out, if you shut down the

brothel, the brothel is the place that creates the demand for the

trafficker. The trafficker has no place to bring their merchandise

if they don’t have a reliable market to go to. So if you do something

to constrain the reliable market, the traffickers will have to find

something else to do business with because there won’t be a market

for the merchandise they are trying to bring. So it is a strategy

that is indispensable.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I want to thank our witnesses for—

did you want to add something?

VI. I would like to add something. I wanted to thank——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I can’t hear you.

VI. I would like to say something. I want to thank the panel for

giving me a chance to speak up today. I am relieved that Mr. Lee

is in jail. I just hope that none of this situation would happen to

anybody else in the future.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, and again we want to

thank you for your courage. It will help in mitigating and hopefully

ending this egregious practice by your being here and further sensitizing us and giving us further insight into just how bad it is.

86

I would like to thank our panelists. This has been a very enlightening hearing, and it will not be the last. We will have more. And

as you come forward or have additional legislative ideas as well as

funding ideas, don’t be a stranger, as I know you will not be.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HAUGEN. Thank you, sir.

[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ