19–006

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–264 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 2

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION 

ACT OF 2003

SEPTEMBER 29, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

[To accompany H.R. 2620] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2620) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 

2005 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

The amendment adopted by this committee is identical to the 

text reported by the Committee on International Relations shown 

in their report filed September 5, 2003 (Rept. 108–264, Part 1).

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 7

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 7

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 7

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 7

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 11

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 11

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 11

Agency Views ........................................................................................................... 13

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 20

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 20

2

1Pub. L. No. 106–386. 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary is 

identical to the text reported by the Committee on International 

Relations shown in their report filed September 5, 2003 (H. Rept 

No. 108–264, Part 1). 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2620 authorizes appropriations for, and makes minor modifications to, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, which 

was intended to prevent trafficking in persons, to ensure punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

BACKGROUND

Trafficking of persons has been a growing phenomenon within 

and across international borders, including those of the United 

States. Many trafficked persons are forced into the sex industry. 

The rapid expansion of the sex industry and the low status of 

women in many parts of the world have contributed to a burgeoning of the trafficking industry. Trafficking of persons also involves forced labor, involuntary servitude, or slavery. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 1 (‘‘TVPA’’) was 

enacted to combat the trafficking of persons, especially into the sex 

trade and slavery in the U.S. and countries around the world 

through prosecution of traffickers and through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking. 

The TVPA created a new nonimmigrant ‘‘T’’ visa for persons who: 

(1) are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons (sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or 

coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such acts has 

not attained 18 years of age, or 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, 

(2) are in the U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry on account of such 

trafficking, (3) have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking or 

have not attained 15 years of age, and (4) would suffer extreme 

hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from 

the U.S. The TVPA also permits the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’) to grant a T visa, if necessary to avoid extreme 

hardship, to the victim’s spouse, children, and parents if the victim 

is under 21 years of age, and the victim’s spouse and children if 

the victim is 21 years of age or older. 

The TVPA precludes anyone from receiving a T visa if there is 

substantial reason to believe that the person has committed an act 

of a severe form of trafficking in persons. It also places an annual 

cap of 5,000 on T visas for trafficking victims and permits DHS to 

waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. 

The TVPA requires DHS to grant a trafficking victim authorization to engage in employment in the United States during the peVerDate jul 14 2003 18:33 Oct 02, 2003 Jkt 019066 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR264P2.XXX HR264P2
3

2 H.R. Rep. No. 106–487, pt. II, at 17 (2000). 3 67 Fed. Reg. 4784 (2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. sec. 214.11). 

4Data provided by DHS. 

5 67 Fed. Reg. at 4787.

riod the alien is in lawful temporary resident status as a trafficking victim. It provides that DHS is not prohibited from instituting removal proceedings against an alien admitted with a T visa 

for conduct committed after the alien’s admission into the U.S., or 

for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed to DHS prior to 

the alien’s admission. 

The TVPA permits DHS to adjust the status of a T visa holder 

to that of a permanent resident if the alien: (1) has been physically 

present in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least three years 

since the date of admission, (2) has throughout such period been 

a person of good moral character, and (3) has, during such period, 

complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, or would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal 

from the U.S. It also permits DHS to adjust the status of the victim’s spouse, parent, or child, if admitted with a T visa, to that of 

an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. DHS may 

waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. An annual cap of 5,000 is 

placed on adjustments of status for trafficking victims. 

Finally, the TVPA excludes significant traffickers, persons who 

knowingly assist them, and their spouses, sons, or daughters who 

knowingly benefit from the proceeds of their trafficking activities 

from entry into the U.S. A son or daughter who was a child at the 

time he or she received the benefit is exempt from such exclusion 

from the U.S. 

It would be valuable at this point to recall language from the Judiciary Committee’s report on the TVPA:

Each year, tens of thousands of aliens pay smugglers to 

be brought to the United States. Once here, they must 

work long hours to pay off their smuggling debts of tens 

of thousands of dollars. It is not the committee’s intent 

that such people receive the new nonimmigrant ‘‘T’’ visa 

created by [the TVPA] or the permanent residence provided by the [TVPA]. Otherwise, [the TVPA] would become 

a general amnesty for aliens who, we must remember, voluntarily sought out smugglers to bring them illegally to 

the United States. Additionally, the [TVPA] would actually 

encourage alien smuggling by providing the expectation of 

eventual amnesty.2

What has been the experience with T visas since enactment of 

the TVPA? In January of 2002, the INS issued interim regulation 

establishing the T visa program.3 Since the regulation has gone 

into effect, and as of June 30, 2003, 172 T visas have been granted 

to applicants and 13 have been denied and 238 applications are 

currently pending.4

The commentary to the regulations states that ‘‘[i]n most cases, 

aliens who are voluntarily smuggled into the United States will not 

be considered victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons.’’ 5

This is consistent with the intent of the Committee. Then, the commentary states that: 

4

6 Id.

7 A child who was sold to a smuggler by his or her parents would not be considered to have 

voluntarily come to the U.S. 8 67 Fed. Reg. at 4785. 

9See id. at 4819–20. 10 Id. at 4788. See 8 C.F.R. sec. 214.11(h).

However, individuals who are voluntarily smuggled into 

the United States in order to be used for labor or services 

may become victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons, if, for example, after arrival the smuggler uses 

threats of serious harm or physical restraint to force the 

individual into involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.6

Such a situation might be justification for the granting of a T 

visa under certain circumstances. In order to give more guidance 

as to which circumstances merit the granting of a T visa, and 

which do not, the intent of the Judiciary Committee is as follows: 

an alien who voluntarily comes to the U.S.—an alien who makes 

use of a smuggler 7—would only be eligible for a T visa if he or she 

was then forced upon arrival in the U.S. to perform labor which 

was illegal, such as prostitution or trafficking in controlled substances, or was upon arrival in the U.S. forcibly detained on a 

round the clock basis with no prospect of release. 

The regulations provide that ‘‘the [INS] has determined that applicants may apply individually for T–1 nonimmigrant status without requiring third party sponsorship from a law enforcement agency, as is the case for the existing S nonimmigrant status for alien 

witnesses and informants.’’ 8 The Judiciary Committee is quite concerned about this decision. If the primary goal of the T visa is the 

prosecution of traffickers, and an alien is only eligible for a T visa 

if he or she has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of his or her traffickers, 

the Committee finds it hard to think of a situation that would 

merit the granting of a T visa where the investigating or prosecuting law enforcement agency was not willing to sponsor the 

alien for a visa. Because the Committee cannot rule out that such 

a situation might exist, it will not require that T visa applications 

be filed by a law enforcement agency. 

However, if the aliens themselves are to be the applicants, it is 

crucial that a law enforcement agency officially certifies that the 

alien has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in 

the investigation or prosecution of the alien’s traffickers. In drafting the regulations, the INS created a ‘‘Supplement B, Declaration 

of a Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, 

of Form I–914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status,9 in which 

the investigating or prosecuting law enforcement agency certifies 

that an alien has complied with any reasonable request for assistance. The commentary to the regulations states that: 

A [law enforcement agency] endorsement is not a mandatory part of a T–1 nonimmigrant status application. 

* * * If the applicant chooses not to include an * * * endorsement, the [DHS] will make an independent assessment of any credible evidence presented * * * to determine if the applicant meets the cooperation with law enforcement requirement.10

5

11 H.R. 2620 allows a state or local law enforcement agency, as well as a federal agency, to 

be the investigating or prosecuting agency. Since immigration is a purely federal function, DHS 

will retain the right to decide that an alien has not complied with any reasonable request for 

assistance even if a state or local law enforcement agency has submitted a form certifying that 

such assistance has been provided. 12The regulations provide that DHS may require a personal interview of the T visa applicant. 

See 8 C.F.R. 214.11(d)(6). It is the intent of the Committee that such an interview be required. 

This is inconsistent with the intent of the Judiciary Committee. 

If the investigating or prosecuting agency does not believe that the 

alien has provided adequate assistance, the alien will not be eligible for a T visa. In order to be eligible for a T visa, an applicant 

must include with his or her application a form, such as Supplement B, in which the investigating or prosecuting law enforcement 

agency has certified that the alien has complied with any reasonable request for assistance.11

Finally, it is the intent of the Committee that applications for T 

visas be adjudicated at the district office level, and not by a service 

center. A district office possesses distinct advantages: for instance, 

it is situated near where the trafficking crime has taken place and 

is in a better position to have knowledge of the trafficking activities 

in the area, and it can easily interview in person all the relevant 

parties.12

H.R. 2620 

H.R. 2620 authorizes appropriations for, and makes minor modifications to, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. 

Immigration provisions 

H.R. 2620 would make the following modifications to the immigration provisions of the TVPA: 

• Aliens could qualify for T visas by cooperating with state and 

local law enforcement agencies well as federal agencies. The state 

or local agency would have to be investigating or prosecuting the 

alien’s traffickers through relevant state law, such as anti-trafficking or kidnapping laws. 

• The age of aliens who could receive T visas without cooperating with law enforcement authorities would be raised from under 

15 years of age to under 18 years of age. 

• If an alien receiving a T visa was under 21, unmarried siblings 

under 21 would be added to the list of family members who could 

also receive T visas. 

• The public charge ground of inadmissibility would never apply 

to aliens seeking T visas. 

• In order to protect traffickers from obtaining the applications 

for T visas of the aliens they trafficked, the dissemination of information that relates to an applicant would be extremely limited. 

The State Department and DHS could not permit use by or disclosure to anyone other than a sworn officer or employee of the two 

departments for legitimate departmental purposes of such information. Certain exceptions are made, such as disclosure to a judicial 

body or to law enforcement officials to be used for legitimate law 

enforcement purposes. 

Criminal law provisions 

H.R. 2620 would make the following modifications to the criminal law provisions in the TVPA: 

6

• The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. sec. 1591, dealing with the 

prosecution of traffickers, by striking ‘‘in or affecting interstate 

commerce and inserting ‘‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 

the United States.’’ This change is an expansion of Federal jurisdiction to cover foreign commerce situations and open seas situations. 

• Currently the law provides that ‘‘whoever knowingly * * * recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any 

means a person * * * knowing that force, fraud, or coercions will 

be used to have the person engage in a commercial sex act’’ has 

committed a crime. However, currently punishment is only provided for in certain instances if the alien was transported for the 

purposes of trafficking. The subsection clarifies that punishment is 

provided for if the alien has been recruited, enticed, harbored, 

transported, provided, or obtained, for the purposes of trafficking 

• The bill adds three new predicate crimes to the RICO statute. 

The first relates to forced labor, the second relates to slavery, and 

the third relates to sex trafficking of children. Congress enacted the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) provisions 

as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 to increase civil 

and criminal consequences for crimes under certain circumstances. 

RICO was created to cover those activities which Congress characterized as organized crime. RICO crimes are punishable by fines, 

forfeiture, and imprisonment for not more than 20 years or life if 

a predicate offense carries such a penalty. Civil RICO allows the 

injured person to recover treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

Courts provisions 

H.R. 2620 makes the following modification to the courts provisions of the TVPA: 

• Three provisions of title 18 of the U.S. Code criminalize specific acts of trafficking. Section 1589 prohibits coercion and other 

acts resulting in forced labor; section 1590 forbids trafficking with 

respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor; 

and section 1591 forbids sex trafficking. Transgressors convicted of 

any of these offenses may be fined or imprisoned or both under 

title 18. The bill creates a civil cause of action for any victim of a 

violation of sections 1589, 1590 or 1591. Under the provision, a 

civil suit may be filed ‘‘in any appropriate [U.S.] district court[, 

which would be empowered to] award actual damages, punitive 

damage, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.’’

HEARINGS

No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 

H.R. 2620. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 24, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2620 with an amendment 

by voice vote, a quorum being present.

7

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of 

H.R. 2620. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because the provisions of H.R. 2620 within 

the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee do not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

H.R. 2620, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 26, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2620, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Sunita D’Monte (for 

federal costs), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the private-sector impact). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2620—Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 

2003

Summary: H.R. 2620 would reauthorize several programs within 

the Departments of State, Labor, Justice, and Health and Human 

Services, and within other agencies that combat trafficking in persons. It would expand the current federal prohibitions against such 

trafficking and would make more victims of trafficking and their 

relatives eligible to enter and remain in the United States. 

8

The bill would authorize appropriations of almost $106 million a 

year in 2004 and 2005. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would cost $197 million over the 2004–2008 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. The bill also contains provisions that would affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates these provisions would not have a significant effect. 

H.R. 2620 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on airlines organized 

under the laws of the United States and other airlines that operate 

in the United States. CBO expects that the direct costs of the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established by 

UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation). H.R. 

2620 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2610 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 150 (international affairs), 500 (education, employment, training, and social services), 

550 (health), 600 (income security), and 750 (administration of justice).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 1

Overseas Assistance: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 61 61 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 8 32 37 21 10

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 15 15 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 5 10 8 4 2

Department of Justice: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 15 15 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 4 10 11 5 0

Department of Labor: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 10 10 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ * 4 9 6 1

Department of State: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 5 5 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 4 5 1 * *

Total: 

Authorization Level ............................................................................... 106 106 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 21 61 66 36 13

1 In addition to effects on spending subject to appropriation, CBO estimates enacting H.R. 2620 would have an insignificant effect on direct spending and receipts.

Note.—*=less than $500,000. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

The bill would authorize appropriations of about $106 million a 

year in 2004 and 2005 for various programs to combat trafficking 

in persons. This compares to less than $60 million in funding for 

similar programs in 2003, not counting spending by the Department of Labor that may benefit individual victims of trafficking 

under more general authority. Assuming that H.R. 2620 will be enacted late in calendar year 2003, that the amounts authorized are 

appropriated near the start of each fiscal year, and that outlays follow historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that implementing 

9

the bill would cost $21 million in 2004 and $197 million over the 

2004–2008 period. 

Overseas Assistance. The bill would authorize appropriations in 2004 and 2005 of $30 million a year to the Secretary of State and 

$30 million a year to the President for programs to prevent trafficking in persons, to protect victims of trafficking, and to assist 

foreign states in meeting minimum standards for the elimination 

of trafficking. In addition, the bill would authorize $0.3 million a 

year in 2004 and 2005 for voluntary contributions to international 

organizations to prevent such trafficking and assist in related legal 

reform, $0.25 million a year in 2004 and 2005 for training at the 

International Law Enforcement Academies, and $0.3 million a year 

in 2004 and 2005 for research on domestic and international trafficking in persons. CBO estimates that implementing these provisions would cost $8 million in 2004 and $108 million over the 

2004–2008 period. 

Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also would authorize appropriations of $15 million in 2004 and 2005 for refugee assistance to trafficking victims. Under current law, the department plans to spend $10 million for these activities in 2003. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts and that spending from the authorized amounts would be similar to the larger refugee assistance programs administered by the department, CBO 

estimates that this assistance would cost $5 million in 2004 and 

$29 million over the 2004–2008 period. 

Department of Justice. Section 7 would authorize appropriations of $15 million a year in 2004 and 2005 for the Attorney General 

to provide assistance to victims of trafficking living in the United 

States. CBO estimates that implementing this section would cost 

$30 million over the 2004–2008 period, assuming appropriation of 

the authorized amounts. 

Department of Labor. H.R. 2620 would authorize appropriations of $10 million in 2004 and 2005 for services to trafficking victims. 

Services for these refugees are currently provided through the Employment and Training Administration, and CBO assumes that 

spending from the authorized amounts would be similar to those 

employment and training programs. Assuming appropriation of the 

authorized amounts, CBO estimates that providing these services 

would cost $500,000 in 2004 and $20 million over the 2004–2008 

period. 

Department of State. Section 7 would authorize appropriations of 

$5 million each year in 2004 and 2005 to the State Department for 

the expenses of monitoring, combating, and reporting on trafficking 

in persons. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, 

CBO estimates that implementing this section would cost $10 million over the 2004–2008 period.

Direct spending and revenues 

Enacting H.R. 2620 also could affect direct spending and revenues; but CBO estimates that any such changes would not be significant. 

Medicaid and Other Entitlement Benefits. Certifications under 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act have averaged fewer than 15 

individuals a month since the program began early in fiscal year 

2001. Only a minority of persons certified in 2001 applied for beneVerDate jul 14 2003 16:27 Oct 02, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR264P2.XXX HR264P2
10

fits in that year—the only year for which these data are available—and fewer still actually received Medicaid, Food Stamps, or 

other entitlement benefits. Although the provisions in H.R. 2620 

could increase the number of individuals applying for and becoming 

entitled to certain federal public benefits, CBO expects the changes 

would result in few new beneficiaries for these benefits. Thus, CBO 

estimates that under H.R. 2620 any increase in direct spending for 

these benefit programs would not be significant. 

Immigration Status for Certain Victims. The bill would make it 

easier for more victims of trafficking and their relatives to enter 

and remain in the United States. Costs to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudicating such cases would be 

funded from fees collected by the agency. CBO estimates that any 

such costs would not be significant because of the relatively small 

number of trafficking victims likely to be involved. 

Civil and Criminal Fines. The bill would expand the current federal crimes relating to trafficking in persons. Because those prosecuted and convicted under the bill could be subject to civil and 

criminal fines, the government might collect additional fines if the 

bill is enacted. Collection of civil fines are recorded in the budget 

as governmental receipts (revenues) and are deposited in the general fund. Collections of criminal fines are recorded as receipts and 

are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any additional receipts and direct spending would not be 

significant. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2620 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2620 would impose 

a new private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on airlines organized under the laws of the United States and other airlines that 

operate in the United States. The bill would require such airlines 

to develop and disseminate materials alerting travelers that sex 

tourism, as defined in the bill, is illegal, will be prosecuted, and 

presents dangers to those involved. Based on information from industry and government sources, CBO expects that the direct costs 

of the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established by UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Previous CBO estimate: On August 13, 2003, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for H.R. 2620, the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the House 

Committee on International Relations on July 23, 2003. The two 

versions of the bill and their estimated costs are identical. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Department of State—

Sunita D’Monte; Overseas Assistance—Joseph C. Whitehill; Immigration and Department of Justice—Mark Grabowicz; Medicaid—

Eric Rollins; and Other Programs—Paul R. Cullinan. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on 

the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

11

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee believes that the funding 

authorized should be used to eliminate trafficking and assist its 

victims. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following is a discussion of the most important of the provisions of the bill that fall within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction. A full section by section analysis can be found in the report 

of the Committee on International Relations (H. Rept. No. 108–264, 

pt. 1). 

Section 4. Enhancing protection for trafficking victims 

Subsection (a)(4) creates a civil cause of action for any victim of 

a violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1589 (forced labor), 1590 (trafficking) , or 1591 (sex trafficking). Under the provision, a civil suit 

may be filed ‘‘in any appropriate [U.S.] district court[, which would 

be empowered to] award actual damages, punitive damage, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.’’ Subsection (b)(1) amends section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act to clarify that the assistance an alien seeking 

a T visa provides in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking may be made to state and local, as well as to federal, law 

enforcement agencies; to raise the age of aliens who can receive T 

visas without having provided assistance in the investigation or 

prosecution of acts of trafficking from under 15 years of age to 

under 18 years of age; and to provide T visas where necessary to 

avoid extreme hardship to unmarried siblings under 18 years of 

age of primary T visa recipients who are under 21 years of age. 

Subsection (b)(2) amends section 214(n)(3) of the INA to clarify 

that the 5,000 annual visa cap for T visa recipients does not apply 

to the siblings of primary T visa recipients. 

Subsection (b)(3) amends section 245(l) of the INA to provide that 

an alien provided a T visa as the sibling of a primary T visa recipient can have his or her status adjusted to permanent residence if 

meeting certain criteria. 

Subsection (c) amends section 214(n) of the INA to provide that 

an alien may receive a T visa regardless of his or her inadmissibility as a public charge (section 212(a)(4) of the INA). 

Subsection (c) also amends section 214(n) of the INA to provide 

that in no case may the State Department or the Homeland Security Department permit use by, or disclosure to, anyone, other than 

a sworn officer or employee of one of such Departments for legitimate Department purposes, of any information that relates to an 

alien who has properly filed a bona fide application for, or been 

granted, a T visa. This limitation shall not apply if the alien is an 

adult and has waived the limitation, and it shall terminate when 

the application is denied and all opportunities for appeal have been 

12

exhausted. The two Departments may each provide for the disclosure of such information in the same manner and circumstances as 

census information may be disclosed by the Commerce Department 

under section 8 of title 13, U.S. Code, to law enforcement officials 

to be used solely for a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and in 

connection with judicial review for a determination in a manner 

that protects its confidentiality. These amendments shall not be 

construed to supersede section 222(f) of the INA (regarding records 

of the State Department and of diplomatic and consular offices). 

Whoever willfully uses, publishes, or permits information to be disclosed in violation of these restrictions shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action and subject to a civil monetary penalty of 

not more than $5,000 for each violation. 

Section 5. Enhancing prosecutions of traffickers 

Section (5)(a), dealing with the prosecution of traffickers, amends 

18 U.S.C. section 1591 by striking ‘‘in or affecting interstate commerce’’ and inserting ‘‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 

the United States.’’ This change is an expansion of Federal jurisdiction to cover foreign commerce situations and open seas situations. 

The subsection also makes a conforming amendment. Currently the 

law provides that ‘‘whoever knowingly * * * recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person * * * 

knowing that force, fraud, or coercions will be used to have the person engage in a commercial sex act’’ has committed a crime. However, currently, punishment is only provided for in certain instances if the alien was transported for the purposes of trafficking. 

The subsection clarifies that punishment is provided for if the alien 

has been recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained, for the purposes of trafficking. 

Section (5)(b) adds three new predicate crimes to the RICO statute. Section 1589 of title 18, U.S. Code, prohibits coercion and 

other acts resulting in forced labor; section 1590 forbids trafficking 

with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced 

labor; and section 1591 forbids sex trafficking. 

Section 7. Authorization of appropriations; related matters 

Section 7 provides authorization for the State Department to 

carry out section 134 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize International Law Enforcement Academies (‘‘ILEA’’) to 

train prosecutors and law enforcement regarding trafficking. ILEAs 

offer a law enforcement program targeted at mid-level officials in 

the police and criminal justice services of countries throughout the 

world. The Department of State works with the Departments of 

Justice and Treasury in running these programs. The Bureau for 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs runs the 

State ILEA programs. 

Section 8. Technical corrections 

Subsection 8(a) makes technical changes in the INA. 

Subsection 8(b) makes a technical change in the TVPA to a reference to the INA. 

13

1The Departments of State and Justice articulated their plans for U.S. Government anti-trafficking training responsibilities in the Federal Register. See 66 Fed. Reg. 38514 (July 24, 2001). 

AGENCY VIEWS

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, September 24, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 2620, the ‘‘Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003.’’ We support reauthorization of 

this important program, which is aimed at strengthening our efforts to combat trafficking in persons. However, we have several 

concerns about the bill, particularly the way it would alter the current statutory standard for certifying trafficking victims as eligible 

to receive benefits and services, the need for confidentiality provisions in T visa applications, and a new private right of action provision. In addition, we recommend adding the new trafficking 

crimes as RICO predicates and providing for the death penalty in 

human trafficking cases where the death of a victim results. 

Subsection 3(a): Border Interdiction 

Subsection 3(a) would amend section 106 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (‘‘TVPA’’), Pub. L. 106–386, Div. A, to 

require the President to make grants to non-governmental organizations (‘‘NGOs’’) to fund training for trafficking survivors who, in 

turn, would ‘‘educate and train border guards and officials, and 

other local law enforcement officials.* * *’’ Specifically, this subsection would establish grants to monitor ‘‘the implementation of 

border interdiction programs, including helping in the identification of such victims.* * *’’

While we support training border and local officials in the identification of trafficking victims, we believe that subsection 3(a) is unnecessary and would potentially undermine the ability of Federal 

law enforcement to conduct border interdiction. We would therefore 

urge striking this subsection from the bill. Border security and intelligence gathering are Federal law enforcement functions. The 

TVPA mandated training for border officials and other Federal law 

enforcement officers on the identification of and assistance to trafficking victims, and the U.S. Government carriers it out.1 While 

NGOs have an important role to play in helping trafficking victims, 

it remains nonetheless the purview of Federal law enforcement, 

while carrying out their law enforcement duties, to identify victims 

at the border. 

In addition, we do not believe that monitoring border interdiction 

programs is the most effective use of Federal funding. Because it 

is not always clear who at the border is a ‘‘trafficking victim,’’ as 

a victim must be destined for an exploitative labor or commercial 

sexual situation in order to have been ‘‘trafficked,’’ the money appropriated for interdiction programs would be better spent enhancing our official border control efforts and increasing our ability to 

investigate and prosecute human trafficking. 

14

The provision does not clarify to what extent NGOs would monitor these programs or what authority NGOs would have to attempt to influence these programs. The lack of specificity makes it 

unclear as to how these functions would implicate the exercise of 

Federal law enforcement authority by civilians and/or local law enforcement officials. Additionally, it is not clear whether training 

will be provided to such organizations, and whether principles such 

as agency law and vicarious liability will apply to any functions 

performed by such organizations or local law enforcement. 

We note that use of the term ‘‘transit shelter’’ implies that the 

victims are passing through the United States temporarily and will 

be returning to their countries of origin. This has not been the U.S. 

Government’s experience with the majority of trafficking victims 

who have been identified. Most of them choose to access immigration relief available under the TVPA, rather than self-repatriation. 

If Congress chooses to proceed with this provision despite our opposition, we suggest amending the section on border interdiction by 

inserting (in the bill, following the first occurrence of the word 

‘‘interdiction’’ in the first sentence) ‘‘, including’’, thereby authorizing support to NGO programs, while not strictly limiting such 

programs solely to NGOs. 

Subsection 3(a) also would ‘‘ensure that any program established 

under this subsection provides the opportunity for any trafficking 

victims who is freed to return to his or her previous residence if 

the victim so chooses.’’ Guaranteeing immediate return could undermine law enforcement needs, which often will require the presence of the victim in the country as a material witness or for other 

purposes. In the event the Committee retains this subsection, we 

urge that it contain a mechanism to ensure that the interests of 

law enforcement be protected in any provision for the return of 

trafficking victims to their own or third countries.

Subsection 3(b): Termination of Certain Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements 

The State Department will be submitting a separate views letter 

on H.R. 2620, in which it will address concerns regarding subsection 3(b). We simply note that we defer to, and concur in, the 

State Department’s position. 

Subsections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(1)(a): State and Local Law Enforcement 

Subsection 4(a)(3) would broaden the availability of certification 

of trafficking victims (as would section 4(b)(1)(a) in similar ways) 

by permitting individuals to obtain certification as trafficking victims based on endorsements made by State and local law enforcement agencies (in addition to Federal law enforcement). We have 

reservations about altering the current statutory standard for the 

certification of victims to receive benefits and services. 

In our experience, accurate certification requires some investigation to determine whether the victim actually has suffered as the 

result of conduct that satisfies the elements of the TVPA. This investigation is best performed by trained investigators who are familiar with the TVPA. Currently, the Attorney General is consulted 

on whether a trafficking victim is assisting in an investigation or 

prosecution of human trafficking and a Federal law enforcement 

15

agency is in charge of the investigation and prosecution. We are 

concerned that State and local agencies may lack the resources or 

expertise to conduct the necessary inquiry. Only two States (Washington and Texas) have passed anti-trafficking laws. Hence, the 

vast majority of State and local law enforcement officials do not 

have the jurisdiction to investigate human trafficking. It is unclear 

whether State and local officials could determine that victims were 

cooperating with the investigation or prosecution of human trafficking, because the investigation would most likely be Federal. 

Further confusion may arise due to overlapping jurisdiction in 

cases in which State and local officials could be investigating activity that might constitute human trafficking under the Federal definition but that under State law would violate only non-trafficking 

laws, such as kidnaping. 

We do not believe that these changes would result in substantial 

benefits in enforcing the anti-trafficking laws. Moreover, we are 

concerned about forcing the Department of Health and Human 

Services, when certifying trafficking victims, to reconcile possibly 

conflicting factual conclusions made by various Federal, State and 

local law enforcement authorities. For example, an individual 

might be cooperating with local law enforcement in a human trafficking investigation, but the Federal prosecutors, who are investigating the underlying activities, might have information that the 

victim does not meet the definition of a victim of a ‘‘severe form of 

trafficking in persons,’’ the statutory standard for receipt of benefits. We note that the bill would continue to require the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to consult with the Attorney General in making trafficking victim certifications, which we strongly 

support. Continuing to limit the endorsements to Federal law enforcement is more efficient and ensures uniformity in determining 

whether victims are cooperating with (the likely) Federal investigation or prosecution. 

Congress may be looking to the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000, § 1512 (regarding the U visa), Pub. L. 106–386, 

Div. B., Tit. V, as a model for allowing Federal, State or local officials to determine victimization and cooperation. Unlike that Act, 

where crimes related to battery are also crimes at the State level, 

enforcement against human trafficking remains predominantly a 

Federal sphere of activity. In many cases, it may be easier for State 

and local law enforcement to identify a crime that also violates 

State law than it would be to identify human trafficking. Therefore, 

we do not believe the U visa to be an analogous situation or a valid 

model to follow in trafficking cases. 

We also are wary that this subsection would create the potential 

for forum shopping. We already are aware of persons who claim to 

be victims contacting multiple Federal agencies in the hope that 

one of them will support that person’s request for certification from 

the Department of Health and Human Services. Extending the authority to determine that an individual meets one of the key criteria for certification to the 17,000 State and local law enforcement 

agencies in the country will exacerbate this situation. Under current law, Federal law enforcement analyzes claims of victimization 

and cooperation with law enforcement and ensures that certification is requested for legitimate, cooperating victims, so that such 

victims can receive the benefits mandated by the TVPA. 

16

We believe this provision would cause confusion and potentially 

place Federal law enforcement against State and local law enforcement in determinations regarding cooperation in what is likely to 

be a Federal preserve. 

Subsection 4(a)(4): Private Right of Action 

The Department of Justice opposes the private right of action 

that would be established by subsection 4(a)(4), because it is unnecessary and could be accomplished by amending the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–

1594). 

Creation of a private right of action is a complex undertaking 

that should be approached only after careful consideration of collateral consequences and the appropriate standard for establishing a 

civil violation. It is common for civil rights violations to give rise 

to both civil and criminal sanctions. While these arrangements 

have produced some complexity in criminal prosecutions, Congress 

has concluded that the additional enforcement activity resulting 

from private civil actions is worthwhile. However, many such statutory schemes establish different elements for civil and criminal violations. If Congress believes that a civil action for human trafficking might be appropriate, it should consider in depth the conduct that should trigger a civil violation and the processes that 

would be helpful in protecting criminal enforcement. 

We note that the amendment to the RICO Act included in H.R. 

2620 would allow civil RICO claims for human trafficking, which 

may cover the universe of civil proceedings Congress is intending 

to extend to trafficking victims. 

The creation of a federal civil remedy, one that would include treble damages, is best accomplished through the amendment to 

RICO. If the purpose is to establish a new Federal tort, we question the need for it. The entire range of trafficking behaviors is already captured under State tort law, under which a victim may already recover. We do not see a need to recreate such a scheme at 

the Federal level. 

If Congress concludes that a private right of action beyond RICO 

is warranted in these circumstances, we suggest several improvements to this subsection. The subsection does not indicate who can 

be sued. For example, the class of defendants needs to be defined. 

Foreign governments with lax border enforcement policies could be 

called into court under the provision, as could anyone linked to the 

trafficking. Even prosecutors could face a civil suit if a trafficking 

victim believed that the prosecutor did not pursue the trafficking 

prosecution with sufficient diligence. Presumably the traffickers 

who knew (or ought to have known) about the victim’s plight would 

be the intended class of defendants. 

The subsection should stay all pending civil actions in the wake 

of a criminal prosecution. Notably, in the context of 18 USC § 2255 

(‘‘civil remedy for personal injuries’’), all civil actions are stayed 

pending the completion of a criminal action. See also 18 USC 

§ 3509(k) (‘‘child victims’ and child witnesses’ rights’’) (‘‘If, at any 

time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage 

or injury to * * * a child exists, a criminal action is pending which 

arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the vicVerDate jul 14 2003 16:27 Oct 02, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR264P2.XXX HR264P2
17

tim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of 

the criminal action.* * *’’). 

Without delineating who can be sued and whether the suit would 

be stayed until a prosecution was complete, this provision would 

provide unbridled discretion to trafficking victims to sue whomever 

they feel has victimized them and could hinder prosecutors’ abilities to try a case unfettered by the complications of civil discovery. 

While perhaps unlikely, this provision could become an incentive 

for victims to skip criminal prosecution and go directly to Federal 

court to sue their traffickers for damages. We believe that prosecutions should take priority over civil redress and that prosecutions 

should be complete prior to going forward with civil suits. 

Subsection 4(c): Waiver of Public Charge Ground for Inadmissibility 

It is not clear what benefits would accrue from the amendments 

subsection 4(c) would make to § 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to disallow consideration of the ‘‘public charge’’ grounds for inadmissibility to the United States based on an approved T visa. The TVPA allows the Attorney General (now the 

Secretary of Homeland Security) to grant waivers generously for 

the public charge grounds of inadmissibility under § 212(d) of the 

INA and does not require that the public charge activity be linked 

to the trafficking victimization (as it did with regard to the criminal grounds, see 212(d)(13)(B)(ii)). That having been said, we believe the drafters probably intended to amend § 212(d)(13)(B)(i) to 

require DHS to waive the public charge ground in determining 

whether to grant the T visa application, rather than subsection 

214(n). 

Subsection 4(c): Penalties for Unlawful Disclosure of Information 

We strongly oppose the new provisions governing confidentiality 

of T visa applications, and consequent penalties for unlawful disclosure of information, as unnecessary and inappropriate. Section 

222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act already deems as 

confidential (with certain exceptions) information related to the 

issuance or denial of visas. 

We are unaware of any inappropriate disclosures of information 

during the T visa process. That said, this provision does appear to 

preclude Federal law enforcement officials from reviewing T visa 

applications for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting human 

trafficking crimes. Proposed INA subsection 214(n)(5) states that 

‘‘in no case’’ may DHS or Department of State officials ‘‘permit use 

by, or disclosure to, anyone, other than a sworn officer or employee 

of one of such Departments for legitimate Department purposes, of 

any information that relates to an alien’’ who has filed a T visa application. 

This provision has the potential to derail our prosecutions when 

T visa applicants are prosecution witnesses, given prosecutors’ discovery responsibilities. There is language in subparagraph (n)(5)(D) 

that may cover prosecutors’ discovery obligations (‘‘may each provide, in each Secretary’s discretion, for the disclosure of information described in subparagraph (A) to law enforcement officials to 

be used solely for a legitimate law enforcement purpose’’ [followed 

by a series of examples unrelated to prosecutors’ discovery obligations]). However, it is not clear that this would allow for disclosure 

18

to defense counsel. And if it does not, then it might result in dismissal of the indictment because prosecutors could not comply with 

disclosure obligations. Moreover, it is unclear whether such a provision would require regulations to be issued by DHS or the State 

Department, that could potentially affect prosecutors’ abilities to 

meet discovery obligations. 

This provision does not appear to permit compliance with a 

judge’s order to produce certain ‘‘confidential’’ information. Subparagraph (E) states ‘‘Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as 

preventing disclosure of information in connection with judicial review of a determination in a manner that protects the confidentiality of such information.’’ This language appears to provide for 

review of records in the case of judicial review of the applications, 

but not was regard to other forms of judicial requests. 

Finally, these confidentiality provisions allow a penalty of $5,000 

for each disclosure. We believe it unwise to subject prosecutors (or 

DHS or State Department personnel who allow them access) to 

these sanctions if they legitimately disclose information in the 

course of a prosecution that is not deemed to be a ‘‘law enforcement 

purpose.’’

If this provision is to remain, in carrying out the certification responsibilities in section 107(b)(1)(E) of the TVPA, the Department 

of Health and Human Services must be able to receive information 

from DHS regarding a person’s bona fide application for a T via. 

We recommend that a new subparagraph (I) be added to section 

214(n)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by the 

bill. The new subparagraph would read as follows:

‘‘(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security may disclose information described in subparagraph (A) to the Department of Health and Human Services for the purposes of 

implementing section 107(b)(1)(E) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.’’.

In summary, provisions and safeguards exist for sharing visa information for routine law enforcement activity. The provisions of 

this subsection would impede domestic and international criminal 

investigations to identify and gather evidence against traffickers. 

Section 5: Enhancing Prosecutions of Traffickers (18 USC Amendments) 

Subsection 5(a) would extend the jurisdictional nexus of 18 

U.S.C. § 1591 to include foreign commerce and the special maritime 

jurisdiction of the United States; these changes are technical fixes 

to the original TVPA. We welcome these jurisdictional changes that 

will enhance prosecutors’ ability to bring human trafficking cases. 

Trafficking Crimes as RICO Predicates 

We support the inclusion of human trafficking crimes as RICO 

predicates. These crimes occasionally are perpetrated by organized 

groups that RICO was intended to target. Indeed, the RICO predicate list in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) includes various offenses that overlap with human trafficking offenses, including the substantive offenses in the peonage and slavery chapter of the criminal code (18 

U.S.C. §§ 1581–88) and the main prostitution offenses (18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2421–24). This existing offense coverage under RICO is useful. 

19

Furthermore, we believe adding human trafficking offenses to 

RICO’s coverage would prove to be beneficial. 

We would suggest two changes to the RICO section as currently 

drafted. In section 5(b),which amends 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (definition of ‘‘racketeering activity’’) by adding the three criminal offenses related to trafficking in persons, we suggest that the amendatory language be inserted in section 1961(1) after ‘‘sections 1581– 1588 (relating to peonage and slavery),’’ instead of after ‘‘murderfor-hire),’’ as proposed. The offenses that define ‘‘racketeering activity’’ should be placed in numerical order and with offenses in the 

same chapter of title 18 of easy reference. As proposed, the three 

offenses found in Chapter 77 (peonage and slavery) of title 18 have 

been inexplicably inserted in the list of statutes without consideration of their subject matter. Instead of being inserted to follow 

other offenses in Chapter 77, they have been inserted after ‘‘section 

18 U.S.C. 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in 

the commission of murder-for-hire),’’ an offense in Chapter 95 of 

title 18. We would also suggest that the Chapter 77 offenses be listed together. Therefore section 5(b) would now read:

‘‘(b) DEFINITION OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.—Section 

1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

striking ‘sections 1581–1588 (relating to peonage and slavery)’ and by inserting after ‘section 1546 (relating to fraud 

and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents)’ the 

following: ‘‘section 1581–1591 (relating to peonage, slavery, 

and trafficking in persons,’’. 

Title of Chapter 77

As a final edit to Chapter 77, we would suggest adding ‘‘trafficking in persons’’ to its title, which would now read ‘‘CHAPTER

77—PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS’’. Parallel 

edits would also have to be made to the ‘‘TITLE 18 CRIMES AND

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE’’ list of ‘‘PART 1—CRIMES’’. 

Death Penalty for Trafficking Crimes 

Questions also have arisen regarding the justification for the discrepancy between alien smuggling crimes and human trafficking 

crimes with regard to death penalty eligibility. Because we do not 

see a logical justification for the discrepancy, we support equalizing 

the penalties between the two. Therefore, we would suggest that 

this bill include amended criminal provisions extending death penalty eligibility to the relevant human trafficking crimes that result 

in the deaths of trafficking victims, namely 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581, 

1583, 1584, 1587, 1589, 1590, and 1591. We recognize that these 

provisions would have to interact with 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (‘‘sentence 

of death’’). 

Subsection 7(7): Restriction on Organizations 

While we are not prepared to take the position that subsection 

7(7) (proposed section 113(g)(2) of the TVPA) in unconstitutional, 

we do think that it raises serious First Amendment concerns and 

may not withstand judicial scrutiny. We therefore recommend that 

this provision be struck from the bill. 

The Federal Government may, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit private organizations from using Federal funds to 

20

promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 196–198 (1991). There 

is substantial doubt, however, as to whether the Federal Government may restrict a domestic grant recipient participating in a 

Federal anti-trafficking program from using its own private, segregated funds to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or 

practice of prostitution, even if such a restriction applies only to 

those grant recipients providing assistance to victims of severe 

forms of trafficking. See Rust, 500 U.S. at 197; FCC v. League of 

Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 399–401 (1984). As a result, because 

this provision of H.R. 2620 would, in effect, prevent any organization receiving Federal funds to implement a program targeting victims of severe forms of trafficking from using its own private funds 

to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution, we believe that there is serious doubt as to whether that 

provision would survive judicial scrutiny I challenged in court. In 

particular, we note that the prohibition on grant recipients using 

their own private, segregated funds to promote the legalization of 

prostitution, as opposed to the practice of prostitution, would be 

particularly vulnerable to legal challenge. 

* * * * * * *

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If we 

may be of additional assistance, we trust that you will not hesitate 

to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget has advised 

that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration’s program to the presentation of this report. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM E. MOSCHELLA, Assistant Attorney General. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The bill was referred to this committee for consideration of such 

provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction 

of this committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of Rule X of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives. The changes made to existing law 

by the amendment reported by the Committee on International Relations are shown in the report filed by that committee (Rept. 108–

264, Part 1). 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WASHINGTON, DC

Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 2620, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, for purposes of 

markup and moves it favorable recommendation to the House. 

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for 

amendment at any point, and the text as reported by the Committee on International Relations, which the members have before 

them, will be considered as read, considered as the original text for 

purposes of amendment, open for amendment at any point. 

[H.R. 2620 follows:]

21


Insert graphic folio 30 HR264.001
22


Insert graphic folio 31 HR264.002
23


Insert graphic folio 32 HR264.003
24


Insert graphic folio 33 HR264.004
25


Insert graphic folio 34 HR264.005
26


Insert graphic folio 35 HR264.006
27


Insert graphic folio 36 HR264.007
28


Insert graphic folio 37 HR264.008
29


Insert graphic folio 38 HR264.009
30


Insert graphic folio 39 HR264.010
31


Insert graphic folio 40 HR264.011
32


Insert graphic folio 41 HR264.012
33


Insert graphic folio 42 HR264.013
34


Insert graphic folio 43 HR264.014
35


Insert graphic folio 44 HR264.015
36


Insert graphic folio 45 HR264.016
37


Insert graphic folio 46 HR264.017
38


Insert graphic folio 47 HR264.018
39


Insert graphic folio 48 HR264.019
40


Insert graphic folio 49 HR264.020
41


Insert graphic folio 50 HR264.021
42


Insert graphic folio 51 HR264.022
43


Insert graphic folio 52 HR264.023
44


Insert graphic folio 53 HR264.024
45


Insert graphic folio 54 HR264.025
46


Insert graphic folio 55 HR264.026
47


Insert graphic folio 56 HR264.027
48

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes to explain the bill. 

The State Department has estimated that 50,000 women and 

children are trafficked annually to the U.S. for the sex trade the 

slave-like labor. Others estimate that 100,000 aliens are smuggled 

into the U.S. annually from China alone and are forced into slavelike labor to pay off their smuggling debt of tens of thousands of 

dollars. 

The bill combats the trafficking of persons around the world 

through prosecution of traffickers and protection and assistance of 

victims of trafficking. Today’s legislation authorizes appropriations 

under the act for the next 2 fiscal years and makes a number of 

modifications to the act. I have a more extensive opening statement, which I will put into the record at this point in time and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

STATEMENT OF F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

The State Department has estimated that 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually to the U.S. for the sex trade and slave-like labor. Others estimate 

that 100,000 aliens are smuggled into the U.S. annually from China alone and are 

forced into ‘‘slave-like’’ labor to pay off their smuggling debt of tens of thousands 

of dollars. 

The Trafficking Victims Protections Act of 2000 combats trafficking of persons 

around the world through prosecution of traffickers and through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking. Today’s legislation, H.R. 2620, authorizes appropriations for programs under the Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and makes a 

number of modifications to the Act. 

Among the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act that are within the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary are immigration law sections that: 

• Make available ‘‘T’’ non-immigrant visas to victims of a severe form of trafficking who have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigations or prosecution of acts of trafficking (unless they are younger than 

15) and who would suffer extreme hardship upon removal; visas are also available to the victims’ spouses, children, and parents if the victims are under 21, 

and to the spouse and children if the victims are over 21, and

• Grant such aliens permanent residence after three years if they have been 

of good moral character and if they have complied with any reasonable request 

for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking or if they 

would suffer extreme hardship upon removal from the U.S. 

H.R. 2620, as passed by the International Relations committee, modifies these 

provisions by providing that: 

• Aliens can qualify to T visas by cooperating with state and local law enforcement agencies as well as federal agencies, 

• The age of aliens who can receive T visas without cooperating with law enforcement would be raised from under 15 to under 18, 

• If an alien receiving a T visa is under 21, unmarried siblings under 21 

would be added to the list of family members who can receive visas, 

• The ‘‘public charge’’ ground of inadmissibility would not apply to aliens 

seeking T visas, and 

• In order to prevent traffickers from obtaining information contain in applications for T visas filed by trafficking victims, the dissemination of information 

that relates to an applicant would be extremely limited. 

H.R. 2602 also makes a number of other modifications to the provisions in the 

TVPA within the jurisdiction of the Committee, such as: 

• Adding three new predicate crimes to the RICO statute, relating to forced 

labor, slavery, and the sex trafficking of children; RICO crimes are punishable 

by fines, forfeiture, and imprisonment for not more than 20 years or life if a 

predicate offense carries such a penalty and civil RICO allows the injured person to recover treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, and 

• Authorizing International Law Enforcement Academies, which are targeted 

at mid-level officials in the police and criminal justice services of countries 

throughout the world, to train prosecutors and law enforcement regarding trafficking. 

49

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I would point out that the sequential 

expires on this bill on Monday, and its is unlikely that we will get 

an extension. So we are going to have to figure out how to get this 

bill out before the next vote; otherwise, we’ll lose jurisdiction. 

The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. I have a record—a statement to put in the record, 

not a record to put in the statement. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, whatever the gentleman wants to put in the record will be done. 

[The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

Of all the human rights violations currently occurring in our world, the trafficking 

of human beings, predominantly women and children, has to be one of the most horrific practices of our time. At its core, the international trade in women and children 

is about abduction, coercion, violence and exploitation in the most reprehensible 

ways. 

In the 106th Congress, we passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 

in a modest effort to eradicate this form of modern day slavery. At that time, thousands of men and women were being forced to labor in our fields without pay, to 

work endless hours in sweatshops, and to serve in sexual slavery in cities across 

this country. And U.S. prosecution of traffickers faltered because attorneys in our 

Department of Justice did not have the right tools to pursue the new forms of trafficking. 

Today the picture is visibly brighter. Because of the enactment of the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act of 2000, the Attorney General is prosecuting cases from 

American Samoa to Massachusetts. And victims are coming forward because of the 

federal benefits we are offering to them, treating them like the refugees that they 

are. But we need to do more. The legislation before us today, the Trafficking Victims 

Reauthorization Act of 2003, takes us one step further in our commitment to ending 

modern day slavery. 

This bill authorizes new strategies for prevention, including using trafficking victims to identify traffickers at the borders and deterring sex tourism, which is part 

of the fuel of sex slavery around the world. 

It increases protection by making measured expansions of the visa category for 

trafficking victims. And it enhances prosecution of traffickers by, ensuring that trafficking is treated like the organized crime that it is. 

This is good bi-partisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And without objection, all members 

may put opening statements into the record at this point. 

Are there amendments? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question. Looking 

through the bill, it looks like there are a lot of grant programs that 

are extended—that are extended. Are there any changes in criminal law in the bill? Criminal penalties? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes, there are some changes in criminal law. 

Mr. SCOTT. And could you——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, there are 

RICO provisions that are added to this bill, and they add them as 

predicate offenses as well for sex trafficking. 

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

50

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Other amendments? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Hostettler. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2620, offered by Mr. Hostettler. 

Page 9, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the following—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 

it be considered as read. 

[The amendment of Mr. Hostettler follows:]

51


Insert graphic folio 68 HR264.028
52


Insert graphic folio 69 HR264.029
53

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. The 

gentleman’s recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a simple but important 

clarification to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. 

Under the act, temporary visas and eventual permanent residency 

are available to aliens who are found to be victims of trafficking. 

A T visa is available to a victim of a severe form of trafficking in 

persons who, if 15 or older, has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of 

trafficking and who would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual or severe harm upon removal. 

A severe form of trafficking means, when not in the context of 

sex trafficking, ‘‘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 of involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.’’ But what is the difference between aliens who are smuggled into 

the U.S. and aliens who are trafficked into the U.S.? What is to 

prevent an alien who sought out a smuggler and promised to pay 

the smuggler tens of thousands of dollars after being smuggled into 

the United States from then turning around and claiming he deserves a victim of trafficking visa? 

What if he claimed that he was subjected to debt bondage or peonage because he was put to work by the smuggler? After all, most 

illegal aliens from countries such as China agree to these very sort 

of deals when their smugglers—with their smugglers in order to 

obtain passage. This perverse result is all too possible under the 

trafficking Act as it now exists. 

The T visa regulations demonstrate the trouble the INS had in 

differentiating smuggled and trafficked aliens. The commentary on 

the regulation states that, ‘‘Unlike alien smuggling, severe forms of 

trafficking in persons must involve both a particular means, such 

as the use of force, fraud, or coercion, and a particular ends, such 

as involuntary servitude or a commercial sex act.’’

Well, this is not much help because much alien smuggling involves these very things. The commentary then states that, ‘‘Individuals who are voluntarily smuggled into the U.S. in order to be 

used for labor or services may become victims of a severe form of 

trafficking in persons if, for example, after arrival the smuggler 

uses threats of serious harm or physical restraint to force the individual into involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. Federal law prohibits forced labor, regardless of the victim’s 

initial consent to work.’’

This is exactly what I was worried about, aliens who sought out 

their smugglers and now claim to be victims of trafficking. My 

amendment simply clarifies that adult aliens who are voluntarily 

smuggled into the U.S. are not eligible for trafficking T visas. 

Those with unclean hands should not be rewarded for their deeds. 

The real victims of trafficking, aliens who are brought here against 

their will or children—they are children who are sold into bondage 

by their parents will continue to be eligible for visas and permanent residence under my amendment. Without this crucial amendment, abuse of the T visa will only grow as legions of immigration 

attorneys become familiar with its benefits for their smuggled cliVerDate jul 14 2003 16:27 Oct 02, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR264P2.XXX HR264P2
54

ents. Smuggling will become an even more attractive option than 

it already is, as prospective illegal aliens learn that they can receive visas and amnesty once being smuggled into the U.S. and 

forced into work. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I had amendments at the desk 

that I thought were extremely important regarding age-out provisions, but I’m prepared to work—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on—— Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. With my colleague—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The current pending amendment is 

the Hostettler amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then I’m speaking to that, then, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, these visas are for victims of 

abuse, victims of violent acts. I believe when you start trying to decipher how someone came into the country who is being abused, 

who may be in the process of seeking legalization, you make this 

extremely difficult. The victims are not the culprits. They’re not the 

perpetrators of violence. And they may be in the country and be 

utilized in a trafficking aspect. They may come into that situation. 

They may come into prostitution. They may come into a situation 

where they cannot get out of in terms of slave employment, if you 

will. 

And so I would ask that we not have a limitation like this with 

respect to this visa because we are trying to help people, and the 

help then is limited by the restriction of this particular amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on—the gentleman 

from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment, people who come in and are forced into slavery after they get here 

would lose their protection under the Act. I think that’s going in 

the wrong direction, and I would hope that we would defeat the 

amendment. 

Mr. HYDE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I’ll yield. 

Mr. HYDE. I think a lot of these women are fraudulently lured 

into the country. You can’t say they are forcibly moved into the 

country. But when they’re promised a job, when they’re promised 

all sorts of benefits, when they come over they find themselves 

working in a sweatshop or in the business of prostitution, they 

have been deceived and they ought to have the benefit of the—of 

the law and not be excluded because they were induced and seduced to come in through fraud. I think that is just as heinous as 

55

forcibly kidnapping them. So I—and, again, I don’t think you’re 

talking about a substantial number of people, but I think in all 

fairness they are truly victims and ought to be protected. So I respectfully will vote no on the amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, those are exactly the kinds of 

people that would lose protection under this amendment, and I 

don’t think we ought to victimize the victims as this amendment 

might do. 

Mr. CANNON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I’ll yield. 

Mr. CANNON. Let me just add—associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Illinois and add that in his speech to 

the UN, the President focused directly on this issue. I don’t know 

how we can possibly expect other nations to work with us and follow suit and track down this pernicious, ancient evil if we ourselves gut our enforcement processes here and refuse protection to 

those people who are defrauded into coming to America. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back. The

question is on the Hostettler amendment. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman has already been recognized. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. A unanimous consent request. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. State your request. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I, unanimous consent, ask to 

revise my amendment, to amend the amendment to state in line 

6, ‘‘(V) did not voluntarily, unless found to be a victim of sex trafficking, come to the United States.’’ And then on page 2, line 11, ‘‘sibling, or parent did not voluntarily’’—once again insert it—‘‘unless found to be a victim of sex trafficking.’’ Mr. WATT. Reserving the right to object. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WATT. Reserving the right to object. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina 

reserves the right to object. 

Mr. WATT. I may not object, but I would like to get a clarification 

on who would make this finding. Unless they are found to be by 

whom? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The immigration authorities, immigration 

judge. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is there objection? 

Ms. WATERS. Objection. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Objection is heard. The question is 

on the Hostettler amendment, not as modified. Those in favor will 

say aye? Opposed, no? 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? If not, a reporting quorum— Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

56

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Amendment 140. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the Committee Print to H.R. 2620, offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Page 9, strike lines 15 through 

18 and insert the following: (2) Admission of Nonimmigrants. Section 214(n) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

57


Insert graphic folio 78 HR264.030
58

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentlewoman’s recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have amendments 

140, 141, and 142 that are dealing with issues of age-out. I would 

like to be able to—I see the chairman of the International Relations Committee here. I would like to be able to work with Mr. 

Hyde on this. 

Mr. Hyde, this has to do with a parent having a 20-year-old or 

a 19-year-old getting classification and then that 20-year-old not 

being able to come under that visa because they might age out. I 

think that is something that we need to consider, and I’d appreciate if we’d have the opportunity to work on this, possibly before 

we went to the floor of the House. 

With that, I’ll withdraw the amendment. 

[Statements of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee follows:]

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE ON CHILD AGE-OUT

PROTECTION AMENDMENT NO. 140 

Under current law, a trafficking victim who has T visa status may be able to accord derivative T visa status to a child. Sometimes, however, the children of trafficking victims age-out during the approval process. For instance, consider the case 

of a mother who files a T visa application while her daughter is 20 years old. Subsequently, the mother’s application is approved and her daughter now applies for a 

derivative T visa as the child of a trafficking victim. While the daughter’s application is being processed, she turns 21 and her eligibility expires. She ages out of the 

child category. Under current law, the daughter is then ineligible for derivative T 

visa status. 

This can be a disaster in the case of a derivative T visa. The child waiting for 

derivative status is only eligible for the T visa in the first place if DHS has determined that granting the visa is necessary to avoid extreme hardship. My amendment would avoid extreme hardship in such cases by providing age-out protection. 

If the daughter was under the age of 21 when the mother applied for T visa status 

for herself, the daughter will continue to satisfy this age requirement even if she 

reaches the age of 21 before she can be granted derivative T visa status. 

I urge you to vote for this amendment to avoid such unnecessary and unwarranted consequences. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE ON PARENT STATUS

PROTECTION AMENDMENT NO. 141 

Under current law, a trafficking victim with T visa status who is under the age 

of 21 may accord derivative T visa status to a parent. Sometimes, however, the trafficking victim ages-out during the approval process. For instance, consider the case 

of a daughter who files a T visa application while she is 20 years old. When her 

application is approved, she applies for derivative T visa status for her mother. 

While the application is being processed, the daughter turns 21 and her eligibility 

to accord derivative status to her mother expires. Under current law, the mother 

is then ineligible for derivative T visa status. 

This can be a disaster in the case of a derivative T visa. The mother waiting for 

derivative status is only eligible for derivative T visa status in the first place if DHS 

has determined that granting the derivative visa is necessary to avoid extreme 

hardship. My amendment would avoid extreme hardship in such cases by providing 

age-out protection. If the daughter was under the age of 21 when the applied for 

T visa status for herself, the daughter will continue to satisfy this age requirement 

even if she reaches the age of 21 before her mother can be granted derivative T visa 

status. 

I urge you to vote for this amendment to avoid such unnecessary and unwarranted hardships to the parents of trafficking victims. 

59

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE ON A T-VISA RENEWAL

AMENDMENT

Trafficking victims may be able to obtain temporary status in this country if the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that they meet the requirements for a nonimmigrant T visa under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. These requirements include being a victim of a severe form of trafficking, being willing to comply with any reasonable request for assistance in the 

investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, and a finding by DHS that the 

alien would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from the United States. When such a visa is issued to a trafficking victim, 

his or her immediate family members (spouses, children, or parents) may be eligible 

to receive a derivative T visa if DHS considers this necessary to avoid extreme hardship. 

When a trafficking victim has been present in the United States for a continuous 

period of at least 3 years on the basis of a T visa, DHS has discretionary authority 

to adjust the status of the trafficking victim and his or her immediate family members who have T visas too. DHS can grant them lawful permanent resident status 

if the trafficking victim continues to satisfy the requirements for the initial issuance 

of the T visa and has been a person of good moral character throughout his or her 

period of residence in the United States. Among other things, this means that DHS 

would have to find again that the trafficking victim would suffer extreme hardship 

involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from the United States. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not limit the duration of T visas. The 

former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), however, promulgated a regulation that limits T visa status to a 3-year period and specifies that the status cannot be renewed. Consequently, when a trafficking victim with T visa status has resided in the United States for 3 years, he or she must file for permanent residency 

or return to his or her country of origin. 

I question whether the INS had the authority to impose such a limit on the duration of T visa status. In any case, I am concerned about the fact that trafficking 

victims may have provided information about trafficking operations as a condition 

for maintaining their T via status. In such cases, the possibility of retribution could 

make it too dangerous for them to return until the traffickers are incarcerated, yet 

they may not want to remain in the United States permanently. Many of them were 

taken by force from their families and would like to go home when it is safe for 

them to do so. 

My amendment would avoid this problem by permitting DHS to grant a 3-year 

extension on T via status for trafficking victims and family members. This authority 

would be limited to the cases of trafficking victims and their family members who 

can satisfy the same hardship requirements that they had to satisfy to obtain their 

initial grants of T via status, which almost certainly would be the case where serious retribution is feared. 

I urge you to vote for my amendment. Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn. 

Are there further amendments? If not, a reporting quorum is 

present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 

2620 favorably. All those in favor will say aye, those opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House Rules. Without objection, the staff is 

directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all 

members may be given 2 days as provided by the House Rules in 

which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority 

views.

Æ