U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–162 PDF 2012

HHS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: EXAMINING

THE POLITICIZATION OF GRANTS (MINORITY

DAY OF HEARING)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 14, 2011

Serial No. 112–104

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

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform
(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on December 14, 2011 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Burke, Florrie, consultant, Anti-Human Trafficking/Human Rights/Collaborations, Chair Emeritus, Freedom Network USA, UNODC Global

Training Initiative; and Andrea Powell, executive director and co-founder, Fair Girls ................................................................................................. 10

Burke, Florrie ............................................................................................ 10

Powell, Andrea ........................................................................................... 21

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Burke, Florrie, consultant, Anti-Human Trafficking/Human Rights/Collaborations, Chair Emeritus, Freedom Network USA, UNODC Global

Training Initiative, prepared statement of ................................................. 13

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia:

Letter dated December 14, 2011 .............................................................. 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Maryland:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of Comprehensive Reproductive Health Information and Services for Victims of Trafficking ........................................ 3

Powell, Andrea, executive director and co-founder, Fair Girls, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 24

(1)

HHS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: EXAMINING THE POLITICIZATION OF GRANTS

(MINORITY DAY OF HEARING)

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa, Platts, Labrador, Meehan, Gowdy,

Cummings, Towns, Norton, Connolly, and Quigley.

Staff present: Alexia Ardolina and Drew Colliatie, staff assistants; Michael R. Bebeau, assistant clerk; Robert Borden, general

counsel; Molly Boyl, parliamentarian; John Cuaderes, deputy staff

director; Linda Good, chief clerk; Christopher Hixon, deputy chief

counsel, oversight; Sery E. Kim, counsel; Mark D. Marin, director

of oversight; Christine Martin, counsel; Ashley Etienne, minority

director of communications; Jennifer Hoffman, minority press secretary; Carla Hultberg; minority chief clerk; and Cecelia Thomas

and Ellen Zeng, minority counsels.

Chairman ISSA. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the

committee will come to order.

Today’s hearing, a minority day, is on HHS and the Catholic

Church: Examining the Politicization of Grants, a minority day

hearing.

The Oversight Committee’s mission statement is we exist to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to

know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent;

and second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government

that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government

Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government.

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to

deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform

to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission statement.

Pursuant to the request by the minority, today is a minority

hearing. For that reason, I will ask the ranking member to begin

by making his opening statement. The gentleman from Maryland

is recognized.

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

thank you very much for agreeing to hold today’s minority day of
2

hearings so quickly after our full committee hearing on December

1st.

I would also like to extend my thanks to your staff for their cooperation in scheduling this hearing, and working with us to accommodate today’s witnesses.

I am very grateful for all of these efforts. The reason I feel so

strongly about today’s hearing is because I want to make sure our

committee gives a voice to the victims of human trafficking, forced

prostitution, and sexual slavery.

In our last hearing, we invited only witnesses from the Department of Health and Human Services, who discussed the formal procedures for grant applications. We were missing witnesses who

could testify in more detail about who these victims are, what they

go through, and why reproductive health services are so critical for

their recovery.

Unfortunately, at the last hearing, several Members of the Republican side accused HHS of having an anti-Catholic bias. They

argued that HHS should have awarded a grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, even though the bishops refused to

allow any grant funds to be used for family planning services, such

as abortion and contraceptives.

At the last hearing, George Sheldon, the principal HHS witness,

testified that he made his decision based on what was, ‘‘in the best

interests of these victims.’’ He explained that referrals for reproductive health services were critical for these victims. He stated, ‘‘I

have talked to victims, as well as experts in this field, who have

indicated that referral for the full range of gynecological services

is an appropriate requirement for these individuals who have been

victimized and forced into prostitution.’’

He also said this: ‘‘Ultimately, it is that victim that we are trying

to empower. It is the victim that will decide what services they will

avail themselves to or what services they will deny.’’

If our goal is to analyze this grant program in a responsible manner, we cannot ignore the voices of these human trafficking victims,

many of whom are very young women who have been exploited and

raped by their persecutors.

For these reasons, I am very thankful that Ms. Florrie Burke

and Ms. Andrea Powell are here today to share their experiences

in helping these victims escape their exploitive conditions and put

their lives back together. They will explain why these victims need

a full range of referral services that includes reproductive health

services, and they will explain why limits placed on those referrals

fail to meet the needs of trafficking victims they serve on a daily

basis.

I would also like to enter into the record, with unanimous consent, a statement that was submitted by a coalition of nearly two

dozen organizations in support of comprehensive reproductive

health information services for female victims of human trafficking.

These organizations all fully support HHS’s decision.

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]
3
4
5
6

Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, Mr. Chairman, at the broadest level, I

believe Congress should do as much as possible to enhance efforts

to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Indeed, at our last hearing, you stated that this is an area

where, ‘‘there is never enough attention by Congress.’’

And I really do thank you, because I know you are very concerned about this issue. And I know of your work in the past with

regard to it. And I hope we can work together in a bipartisan manner.

And I believe I speak for the entire committee when I commend

our witnesses for the work that each of them performs.

With that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]
7
8
9

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize myself for an abbreviated opening statement.

I join with the ranking member in believing that in fact victims

deserve the best services providers can offer. On December 1st, our

hearing focused on the action by HHS political appointees in what

we believed to be an abuse of the grant process.

It may well be, as your unanimous consent indicates, and many

of the statements made last week, that a full range of health care

reproductive health care solutions may be needed. Notwithstanding

that, the previous hearing showed clearly that in fact in the grant

process HHS, knowing full well that under Catholic theology, they

could not provide those services, that they ultimately decided to

deny the grant on. That is why the committee’s hearing did concentrate on Catholicism, a religious belief, which includes a prohibition on contraception or abortion, found themselves rated with an

89, with 5 years of successful—and we may hear differently today,

but we didn’t in previous weeks—successful execution of this contract.

Having said that, the law is clear, denying based on religious beliefs is prohibited under the law. Two weeks ago, the grant process

abuse appeared to clearly deny based on that. There certainly were

well demonstrated opportunities for HHS to find work arounds, allowing for those individuals to receive, when they were receiving

ordinary health care treatment from licensed physicians, to receive

referrals or some other accommodation. That was not explored. It

did not come to mind. And ultimately, the process was left to ask

Catholic Bishops to say how they would pay for abortions and pretend not to. Ultimately, they could not do that. It would be outside

the teachings of their faith and prohibited.

Therefore, today’s hearing, although it will concentrate on, and

rightfully so, shedding light on these victims—and I approve the

wide variety of questions that will undoubtedly be asked, and I

have seen the witnesses’ opening testimony, and I understand that

it will concentrate on the victims. This series of hearings on grant

abuse will continue asking not whether a particular policy or ideology is the case, but rather, under the current law, was a grant

properly executed based on a system that is predictable and accountable to the taxpayers?

Having said that, although I don’t believe that will be the case,

and nothing will change that today, I join with the ranking member in recognizing that we have a panel of human rights advocates

who are here today to inform us further on a problem which this

committee, on a bipartisan basis, wants to explore.

With that, I yield back, and would now like to recognize, without

taking a breath, our first panel.

Ms. Burke is a consultant for anti-human trafficking, human

rights, and collaborations, and is chair emeritus of Freedom Network USA.

Ms. Andrea Powell is executive director and co-founder of FAIR

Girls.

Ladies, pursuant to the committee rules, I would ask that you

please now rise to take the oath. And please, raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]
10

Chairman ISSA. Let the record indicate both witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

Please take your seats. I am going to tell you this is my first minority hearing. But fortunately, it is not my first time to the rodeo.

Everything is the same in a minority hearing as it is in any other

hearing.

So you will have a green light in front of you, a countdown.

Please understand that both of your opening statements will be

placed in the record completely. So abbreviate, go off of it. Quite

frankly, extend or tell us things that were not in your statement

and you will be adding to the information we have. When it gets

to the end of 5 minutes, please try to wrap up as expeditiously as

possible.

Ms. Burke.

STATEMENTS OF FLORRIE BURKE, CONSULTANT, ANTIHUMAN TRAFFICKING/HUMAN RIGHTS/COLLABORATIONS,

CHAIR EMERITUS, FREEDOM NETWORK USA, UNODC GLOBAL TRAINING INITIATIVE; AND ANDREA POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER, FAIR Girls

STATEMENT OF FLORRIE BURKE

Ms. BURKE. Chairman Issa, Representative Cummings, distinguished Members of Congress and staff, thank you for the invitation to provide testimony regarding the reproductive health needs

of survivors of human trafficking.

Thank you also for your interest and ongoing commitment to the

services for victims.

I have been working with these survivors since 1997. Since that

time, I have worked providing direct services, creating programs,

supervising staff, and now as an independent consultant to both

governmental and nongovernmental entities.

I also serve as an expert witness and am asked to testify on the

psychological impact of human trafficking and the climate of fear

that surrounds the victims of this horrendous crime.

Additionally, I provide training on victim-centered care, both nationally and internationally.

During the various aspects of my work, I have had the privilege

of interviewing hundreds of survivors of human trafficking. And it

is this direct experience that informs the remarks I will make

today and in my written testimony. My intent is to convey the accounts provided to me by survivors in their own words, not based

on theory, supposition, or ideology.

I have not experienced trafficking myself, but these survivors

have, and their stories have made a lasting impression on me. I

think it is imperative that the distinguished members of this committee understand the import and urgency reflected in the physical

and mental health needs of survivors. I am not a medical expert.

But as a licensed mental health clinician with advanced degrees in

clinical psychology, I am considered an expert in the mental health

needs of victims and the efficacy of victim-centered care.

I have worked with survivors who have been enslaved for days,

months, or years. It is rare that traffickers will allow their victims

to receive any health care during the period of enslavement. A
11

more common occurrence is that after victims are rescued or escape, they come into contact with service providers.

Case management programs are tasked with assessment and referral as well as providing practical support. It is their job to assist

the survivor in determining what a trafficked person needs in all

areas. If the screening assessment of case management programs

reveals the need for health care services, referrals are made.

A victim-centered approach means that all necessary information

and options are provided to the survivor, who then makes decisions

for him or herself.

The age range of trafficked persons is staggering, from very

young children to elderly persons. All are vulnerable to serious

health consequences. To illustrate, I would like to cite a few examples from my experience. Two teenagers were forced to work in a

brothel, and I was introduced to them the day after their escape,

when they went through the back door of a clinic the trafficker had

taken them to when one became ill and couldn’t work.

They told me they had been subjected to multiple sex acts without condoms and were fearful of disease. The young woman with

the infection told me she was not given medication. This seemed

odd to me. And upon further questioning, she did produce a crumpled up prescription. Due to the language issues, she hadn’t understood that this was an order for medication.

Another group of teenage girls were brought into this country

and forced to work as bar girls. This included commercial sex acts

and rape for many of them. One became pregnant and was given

liquid and pills by the trafficker to force a miscarriage. These

means were not effective until late in the pregnancy, when after repeated forced ingestion of this so-called medication, she endured a

very painful and dangerous forced abortion at the hands of the

traffickers.

The other women were coerced into observing her and instructed

that the same thing could happen to them. The young woman was

then subjected to psychological torture by being forced to keep the

result of the late-term miscarriage in close physical proximity for

several days.

When the young women from this case were finally rescued, this

individual was hospitalized for physical and psychiatric care. She

was suicidal and remained in care for several years to deal with

the trauma of the abuse of the traffickers, the painful forced abortion without medical care, and the resulting situation.

Another survivor who was older had been forced to work as a domestic servant for up to 6 years. She was repeatedly raped by her

employer, her employer’s son, and some friends of the employer’s.

At no time were condoms used. When she was finally free, she told

these experiences to the case manager and was referred to a clinic

for a complete gynecological workup.

The clinic staff determined that because of longstanding untreated STDs, she had sustained permanent damage and probable

loss of fertility. The case manager had to provide support and seek

counseling for this woman to help her deal with this devastating

diagnosis.

Those of us in this room cannot know the feeling of individuals

forced into degrading and physically and mentally dangerous situa-
12

tions like those I have just described. We cannot imagine the stress

of knowing something is wrong but being powerless to get help, to

get information, to get treatment, to get care.

These crimes are taking place here in our country, to our citizens

and to others who have come here in pursuit of a better life. Our

laws are designed to protect and punish.

The TVPA has done much to aid in the care and protection of victims and the prosecution of traffickers. The law states that victims

are entitled to social services. This must include the full range of

services in order to mitigate the harm of what has occurred.

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Burke, I see you have many more pages, and

you are already 2 minutes over.

Ms. BURKE. Not too many.

Chairman ISSA. Can you wrap up? Like I say, you are heading

toward twice the allotted time, if you don’t mind.

Ms. BURKE. Okay.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

Ms. BURKE. Yes, sir.

We must provide information about, and people will make their

own choices. We must protect them, not punish them further by

withholding options that might aid in their recovery and health. I

was going to speak about the HHS grants.

Chairman ISSA. I am sure we will get to that. I appreciate it.

And your entire record is placed in the record.

Ms. BURKE. Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. Trust me, it will be cited many times in the days

to come.

Ms. BURKE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Powell.

STATEMENT OF ANDREA POWELL

Ms. POWELL. Thank you. Chairman Issa, Representative

Cummings, and Oversight and Government Reform Committee

members, staff, and others who are here today, I appreciate and

am honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about the complexities of the social service needs of human trafficking victims

here in the United States.

I would particularly like to thank both Chairman Issa and Representative Cummings for their dedication to the needs of victims

of human trafficking, including victims of forced labor and sexual

servitude.

Since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in

2000, the U.S. Congress has advanced policies to ensure that victims of this horrible crime of human trafficking are offered comprehensive services that are designed to protect their rights and restore their dignity.

I am the co-founding executive director of FAIR Girls, formerly

known as FAIR Fund. We are a nonprofit agency based here in

Washington, DC. We have offices and programs in Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Russia, and Uganda. We serve adolescent girls between the ages of 11 and 21, to provide them both prevention education and long-term compassionate care, so that they can stay safe

from or overcome situations of sex trafficking, forced labor, and

other forms of exploitation.

The majority of our clients who have been trafficked for labor

and all of our clients who have been sold for sex have been raped,

resulting in serious medical and emotional trauma. It is for them

that I am acting as their voice today before you.

In addition to our direct services, FAIR Girls offers prevention,

education, and training to social service providers and law enforcement and others who should be able and are able to identify victims of trafficking.

I wanted to make four key points, and then I am going to elaborate on some of the case examples that I shared in my original

written testimony. First, I would like to state that all victims of

human trafficking need medical services, particularly women and

girls forced into sex trafficking situations.

Second, victims of human trafficking are denied this medical

treatment during their enslavement, thus making access to immediate medical care critical and urgent, and frankly, one of the very

first things that we do as an agency.

Third, and I think this is very important to keep in mind, victims

of forced labor trafficking also need medical attention for harm as

a result of hazardous labor, long hours and, in some cases, sexual

abuse and rape by their traffickers. Their traffickers do not look at

the situation as I am only trafficking for a certain purpose. If they

believe they own an individual, particularly a vulnerable child,

they are going do whatever they want with them. And that often

includes rape.

Finally, service providers for victims of trafficking are there to

restore the dignity and freedom of our clients. We are not there to

prescribe any type of judgment or to force our own opinions and be-
22

liefs on our clients. We are there to be, if you will, the door to open

them to dignity and restoring their life as they would like to live

it.

I wanted to speak just a bit to the complexities of the issue of

human trafficking. Under the TVPA, the definition of the severe

forms of human trafficking is categorized into two areas, labor trafficking and sex trafficking. I would like to point out while forced

labor trafficking always needs to have the element of proving force,

fraud, and coercion, any young person under the age of 18 induced

to commit a commercial sex act, whether they are seemingly giving

consent or not, is automatically considered a victim of sex trafficking.

Traffickers prey upon the vulnerability of victims. And in fact,

when we do outreach education to kids in the schools here in the

D.C. area, we have them learn two main words, vulnerability and

exploitation. Traffickers know who to take advantage of. Victims

are predominantly already victims of exploitation, poverty, homelessness, and other forms of abuse.

I now want to share a few of our case examples that I believe

are very important. Two years ago, we were reached out to by a

local hospital that had one of our outreach brochures. They identified a teenage girl who they believed to be pregnant, who they also

believed to be a victim of trafficking. We found out that her trafficker was able to sell her to up to 20 men a night by utilizing online Web site advertising companies, like Backpage and Craigslist.

Therefore, she was being forced to be raped and exploited day in

and day out, to the point that she wasn’t allowed to eat or sleep.

This young woman, when she came to us, did in fact appear to

be pregnant. We were able to get her a full medical assessment

that day. And we found that instead of being pregnant, her trafficker had stuck a kitchen sponge inside her body to keep her from

bleeding during menstruation. It had grown to the size of a football. And the toxins inside her body nearly killed her. Had we not

had the capacity and the resources that we pulled together from

our own agency’s general fund to protect this young woman, it is

very likely that she would have died in the next few days.

In another case, to illustrate the connection between labor trafficking and the importance of reproductive health care, we had a

young woman come to us a couple of years ago who was the victim

of forced labor trafficking. We noticed that when she was speaking

to us in the initial assessment that she was holding her arms in

a very protective way. Eventually, she showed us all of the bruises

and the scrapes and the battering that had gone on on her arms

and her back. What had happened was her trafficker had beaten

her several times because she had fallen asleep on the job. The

wounds had become infected because the clothing had become embedded inside of her wounds. She also had been raped multiple

times by the owner of the establishment, as well as many of the

friends. This young woman suffered several sexually transmitted

diseases and many more emotional and mental health scars that

we cannot even begin to understand as we are not ourselves in that

situation.

I would like to finally summarize with one key point. In the

United States, many of us are well aware that when there is a vic-
23

tim of rape, not just sex trafficking but any type of victim of rape,

the first thing that we think is they need to get to the doctor. They

need an assessment. What are the injuries? Do they have sexually

transmitted diseases? Law enforcement takes them there. Social

service providers take them there. It has become the norm.

It is very important to understand that when a victim of trafficking is forced to have sex, this is also rape. It should also be the

norm that any young person, old person, anyone who is a victim

of trafficking should have the access that they need to make sure

that they get an entire medical workup so that they can get on

with recovering, as well as make sure that they address any longterm consequences.

I appreciate the opportunity today to speak before you. And there

are many more stories that I would like to share, as I believe passionately in the rights of the young people that we serve at my

agency. And I am very open to questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Powell follows:]
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony.

Because of the nature of today, I am going to ask the ranking

member to go first. I will hold my questions probably until the very

end as part of a summary.

And with that, I recognize the ranking member for his questions.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Powell and Ms. Burke, thank you for being with us today.

I have heard these victims’ stories, and they are indeed heartwrenching. And they have been horribly exploited. And I commend

you both for the work that you are doing.

Let me pose a fundamental question and let you respond. Your

organizations both work with these victims directly. So you have

this firsthand experience with their needs, as well as understanding of the treatment and services that work.

Ms. Burke, can you please tell us why, in your opinion, it is to

important to ensure that these victims have access to referrals for

reproductive health care services?

Ms. BURKE. I think from the case examples that the two of us

have given, it is obvious the critical needs that trafficking victims

present when service providers meet them. Whether they have

been enslaved in sex trafficking or labor trafficking, it is a common

occurrence that rape is used as a means of control and exploitation.

And when sexually transmitted disease or untreated infections

are allowed to go on, permanent damage, health damage can go on,

not only to cause harm to them but to others. And contraception

is almost never provided by a trafficker. And yet these young

women and older women are expected to endure rape 10, 20 times

a day, without any kind of protection or medical care. And so we

feel that it is so important that people be given information.

And what service providers do is provide a referral to people who

are experts in providing education, information, and services, so

that survivors can make informed choices for themselves.

They have had all ability to make a choice about anything taken

away from them by the traffickers. And we need to restore this

sense of personal freedom and choice about what is good for them

and what they will pursue.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Powell, what about you, your organization?

Ms. POWELL. Absolutely. I believe that it is very important for

all victims of human trafficking, regardless of what type of trafficking, to have immediate access to the reproductive health services and full range of medical services that they need.

In fact, just yesterday, I was sitting before a new client, and

within the first 5 minutes she asked me if I could get her to a doctor as quickly as possible because she was terrified of the consequences of being forced to have sex with dozens of men a day.

This is not something that happens just on occasion. It is not a

rare occurrence. Every single client that comes to us, whether referred by law enforcement in the middle of the night or being someone that was referred to us by child protective services, they all

want and they all need this service.

And furthermore, I would like to point out that I am not a medical professional, and most of my colleagues who are social service

providers are also not medical professionals. Therefore, it is not in
32

the best interests of our clients, nor is it ethical for us to presume

what may or may not be going on with a client’s mental or physical

health. It is absolutely important that we utilize the medical community to give that comprehensive services to the victims.

Mr. CUMMINGS. At the previous hearing, some committee members suggested that organizations that receive taxpayer funds to

help these victims should be allowed to prohibit these types of referrals.

Ms. Burke, you have a chance right now to talk directly to some

of those members and make your case. Based on your experience,

should these types of referrals be prohibited? Or if not, why not?

Ms. BURKE. I definitely feel that services need to be comprehensive. Our law allows for a victim-centered approach for protection,

prevention, and prosecution. And we are not protecting victims if

we are not referring them for a full range of services.

The early HHS grants, which first were awarded in 2001, were

awarded directly to case management programs. And these grants

provided for referrals for all necessary services, without restrictions. It was not until 2006, when the U.S. Conference of Catholic

Bishops received the contract, that restrictions around reproductive

health care would not allow these very same agencies that received

initial funding to continue to provide the same inclusive referrals

for care.

It is important to understand that HHS funding is often the only

funding that a service program has. The health and well-being of

clients was compromised when USCCB denied the ability of case

management programs to refer for these services. The restriction

stands in the way of health and healing of countless victims, and

it denies the option of choice, something that had previously been

denied by traffickers and enforcers.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

I see my time has expired.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. See

what happens when you come back early?

Mr. LABRADOR. I came about back a bit early. I yield my time

to——

Chairman ISSA. Okay.

I will go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I thank my friend and colleague from Idaho.

Ms. Burke, do you know what the composite score was for the

Catholic Bishops’ grant application?

Ms. BURKE. I really have no idea about the grant application

process, the scoring process.

Mr. GOWDY. All right. They had the second highest composite

score among all who applied for the grant. And I think the record

will support that they had this grant or contract for a 5-year time

period. I can’t recall a single witness ever providing any evidence

that any of the victims who were helped by the Catholic Bishops

were dissatisfied with their 5-year tenure.

So I think what strikes some of us—and let me say at the outset,

I am a former State and Federal prosecutor who has as little tolerance for crimes against any group, especially the voiceless and the
33

defenseless, as anyone. So I appreciate and applaud what you all

do on behalf of the people who cannot stand up for themselves.

But I am concerned that an entity with a sterling 5-year track

record of providing services also had the second highest composite

score in a grant application and, nevertheless, was not awarded the

grant. It just strikes me that they should have been disqualified,

they should have been told up front because of your religious views

on abortion, you are not going to be eligible to apply for this grant.

But to go through the ruse of letting them apply, have the second

highest score, a 5-year track record, and no complaints from victims, and then not award them the grant just strikes some of us

as being excessively politicized.

What do you think?

Ms. BURKE. I really can’t comment on the grant-making process.

I just am not aware. But I would like to address your question

about victims’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction, if I may.

Mr. GOWDY. Okay.

Ms. BURKE. You said that you have not heard any evidence of

victim dissatisfaction with the work done under the USCCB contract. Was that correct?

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I asked the last panel that was before us if

they had bothered to interview any of the victims to gauge their

level of satisfaction. And they had not even gone through the process of interviewing the very people that we are trying to help.

Ms. BURKE. I would like to address that, if I may.

Mr. GOWDY. Okay.

Ms. BURKE. I would like to try to. I think that if you asked victims about a contract with USCCB, very frankly, I don’t know that

they would understand the nuances of that contract. They are interested in the services that are being provided. They are seeking

services from a case management agency. It would be the providers

who would express the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the contracting restriction.

Mr. GOWDY. Let me stop you there, because unfortunately, despite the very serious nature of this topic that we are discussing,

we are limited to 5 minutes.

You would have no aversion to the Catholic Bishops being able

to handle male human-trafficking victims, so this would not be an

issue. I assume, because of their sterling track record, that if HHS

had the foresight to divide it between male and female victims,

there is nothing disqualifying about the Catholic Bishops with respect to male trafficking victims.

Ms. BURKE. I think that that would create a terribly awkward

system of divisiveness in deciding who is a victim and who is not.

Mr. GOWDY. But you can see the awkwardness of telling a denomination that has a long history of trying to help the weak, the

poor, the disenfranchised groups that nobody else has been historically willing to help, to tell them that because of your religious

views on this issue, you need not apply. Because the next thing

that goes through my mind is what if the Catholic Bishops wanted

to apply for an after-school grant that had nothing do with human

trafficking? If it was just an after-school program, but they might

have female participants in it, would they also be disqualified because of their religious views with respect to abortion? I am trying
34

to get you I guess to answer what HHS would not answer last

time, which is their religious views have disqualified them. They

need not apply for any HHS grants until they change their religious views.

Ms. BURKE. I think that it is not about male and female, because

I think that all victims of trafficking, sex trafficking, labor trafficking are vulnerable to serious health consequences, sexually

transmitted disease, etc. So dividing into genders would not solve

this problem. What we need to do is be inclusive that all health

services are available to all victims.

Mr. GOWDY. So would the Catholic Bishops be disqualified for applying for any grants with any demographic that could be even tangentially related to reproductive services?

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

You may answer, though.

Ms. BURKE. I am not sure that I can answer, because I am not

in the position of making these grants. My overarching responsibility is to see that all—that referrals for all health services can be

made for victims.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now recognize, well, quite frankly, I think Mr. Quigley was

the only one here at the start, Mr. Quigley, for 5 minutes.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Burke, Ms. Powell, again, thanks for the work that you do

and for those in your agencies for the work that they do.

There were news stories alluded to in the previous hearing which

argued the following point, that providing contraception to trafficking victims is sustaining prostitution. The argument being victims being trafficked right now cannot provide informed consent to

an abortion or a regime of contraception because they are under

control of a trafficker. If you do provide these services, all you are

doing is perpetuating modern day sex slavery.

So the question for both of you is, is this correct? Does providing

contraceptives to survivors of trafficking sustain or support prostitution? And based on your experiences in human trafficking, are

victims capable of giving informed consent to family planning services? Fire away.

Ms. POWELL. Okay. I will start. So as a social service provider,

we have never been in the position where we were buying contraceptives for those who are currently being trafficked. I think one

thing to kind of frame this discussion on is that when someone is

a victim of human trafficking, they are in fact enslaved. None of

the money is theirs. They have no agency. They eat when they are

told to eat; they sleep when they are told to sleep. They wear what

they are told to wear. They have absolutely no ability to make

choices. And I am using the word victim very confidently right now,

because in that state, in that situation in which they are enslaved,

they are a victim.

However, when they are referred to us through law enforcement,

when they escape, or when they are rescued, when they come to

us, they then go on this path of becoming a survivor. And part of

being a survivor is having the ability to say what they need and

when they need it, and how they want to have that service pro-
35

vided to them. And it can be as simplistic as wanting a pair of

socks to sleep in, and it can be as complex as legal services and

medical services.

Our job as a social service provider, in particular in those first

24 hours, is to really try to listen, as clearly and without judgment

as possible, to what this individual needs. And that individual can

be a 65-year-old man who is a victim of labor trafficking, and it can

be a 16-year-old girl who is a victim of sex trafficking. Our job is

to listen and to help them get access to those services. And we do

everything in our power, given the resources and the size of our

agency, to do that.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Ms. Burke.

Ms. POWELL. I think you had a second part to your question that

I maybe didn’t answer.

Mr. QUIGLEY. At that point of being survivors, are they in your

mind capable of informed consent on such decisions?

Ms. POWELL. Absolutely.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Ms. Burke.

Ms. BURKE. Yes, I would agree that with proper understanding

of the language, if there is a second language issue, that information needs to be provided in the primary language of the survivor,

first of all. And with proper education and information, certainly

people can make informed consent. They have to have informed

consent to go through the criminal justice process.

The key here is, as Ms. Powell said, that service providers are

not providing contraception or other family planning services. We

are making referrals for those things.

So your question about sustaining or supporting prostitution, I

don’t see the connection between the provision of contraception and

that concept.

Mr. QUIGLEY. And with the limited time I have, how much—you

talk about the health care that you provide. Can you touch a little

bit about the psychological capability—psychological care you can

provide at that point?

Ms. BURKE. Currently, I don’t provide direct services any more.

I am a consultant. So I am involved in training about the need for

psychological experts to provide care for survivors. And this would,

again, be based on the needs of the individual, whether it need to

be some sort of cross-cultural counseling or a group mode of therapy. It depends on the individual.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, if Ms. Powell could take, with

unanimous consent, about 60 seconds to answer the same question,

given the amount of time?

Chairman ISSA. You may answer the same question, please.

Ms. POWELL. Okay. So to answer your question, when a client

comes to us, we have to make a very comprehensive assessment.

And granted, we have very limited time in that first 24 hours to

think about a variety of situations going on. There might be language competency issues at play. And certainly, we work first and

foremost to address that so that we make sure that everything that

is going on is understood by this new survivor so that they are

making the best decisions that they can make.
36

We then try to figure out what other basic needs that they need

to have met simultaneously so that they are feeling comfortable

enough to express what they need.

But we are not putting the words in their mouth. We are not

pushing them toward doing something if they don’t want to do it.

We are doing everything in our power to hear what they need. And

that might mean that they want to immediately get reproductive

health services. It might just mean that they are hungry, and they

need some food. And they might just be tired and need to sleep

first.

And our counseling professional staff in all of our locations are

skilled professionals who can make sure that they are helping that

individual make the most important choices of their life in the way

that they believe that they would like to make them.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is my pleasure to yield my time to my friend and colleague

from Idaho, Mr. Labrador.

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much to the gentleman from

South Carolina.

Ms. Powell, I just—I want to thank both of you, actually, for the

work that you do. I was not a prosecutor, but I was actually a

criminal defense attorney, and I have dealt with some of the issues

that you are dealing with, and I know how hard it is.

I do have some questions, though. According to your testimony,

Ms. Powell, your organization offers each of its clients individualized care, including counseling, advocacy, referrals for housing,

legal and medical services. What percentage of your clients request

counseling?

Ms. POWELL. Most of them request counseling. I don’t have an

exact percentage.

Mr. LABRADOR. Approximate. You say close to a hundred percent?

Ms. POWELL. I would say 85 to 90 percent.

Mr. LABRADOR. What about advocacy?

Ms. POWELL. It depends on whether or not they have been arrested as a result of their trafficking. That might be something

that they need support for. Or if they need support around immigration issues. But I am going to say more like 40 percent.

We actually also serve domestic minor victims of sex trafficking.

And sometimes advocacy for them looks pretty different than someone who is a foreign national victim.

Mr. LABRADOR. What about housing?

Ms. POWELL. Pretty much all of them need housing. And that is

a big challenge.

Mr. LABRADOR. And legal?

Ms. POWELL. It really depends. I would say about half.

Mr. LABRADOR. And medical?

Ms. POWELL. Almost all of them. I would say 98 percent need

some type of medical care referrals from us within the first 48

hours.
37

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. You also state that their medical needs include the treatment of STDs.

Ms. POWELL. Right.

Mr. LABRADOR. Serious gynecological illnesses, including cancer,

kidney damage due to untreated STDs. These treatments are all

within what the U.S. Catholic Bishops do, and they would be willing to provide, but they don’t wish to refer for abortions. How many

of your clients actually ask for services dealing with abortion?

Ms. POWELL. When our clients ask for referrals for reproductive

health care, it is usually within the first 24 hours of us meeting

them. And it is often that they would like to discover. It is not that

they know whether or not they are pregnant or that they know

whether or not that they have a STD. So, by and large, they are

asking for a referral so they can figure out what the damage is to

their body and what they are going to have to do to recover moving

forward.

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you pay for their medical services?

Ms. POWELL. Luckily, we have a community health clinic here in

the D.C. area that offers the initial consultations pro bono, while

we figure out other remedies for payment. On occasion, we have

had to pay for medications, though.

Mr. LABRADOR. So if you look at all the services that you provide,

are you willing to say that providing abortion services is the most

important of all the services that you provide?

Ms. POWELL. It is very important that we are able to provide the

full range of reproductive and medical services that our clients

need.

Mr. LABRADOR. I understand. But we are talking about a lot of

different services. And if one organization provides all the other

services exceptionally well but does not provide one service and is

willing to send people out to provide those services, don’t you think

they are doing a good service to the community?

Ms. POWELL. So my understanding is that for an organization to

be able to provide comprehensive services for victims of trafficking

would actually in fact mean just that; it would have to be the full

range and be comprehensive. So if they are not providing referrals

for this one particular service, then they aren’t in fact comprehensive.

Mr. LABRADOR. That is this administration’s interpretation. But

the Catholic Bishops has been doing this for 5 years without providing the comprehensive services. And in fact, when they were

rated, because you know there was a rating that—when they were

rated, they actually came in with the second highest score when

you looked at the overall responsibility that they had, not just at

this one particular thing. So when they are the second best agency

providing the services, all the other services that we are talking

about, don’t you think it is a disservice that we are not allowing—

that we are not using an organization like that that is actually

doing everything else pretty well?

Ms. POWELL. To be honest, I really only have one interest, and

my interest is not the Catholic Bishops, and it is not the grant

process; it is to make sure our clients have comprehensive services.

As a very small agency that chose not to subcontract with any government contracts with HHS, we did this because we wanted the
38

freedom to make sure that we could provide comprehensive services for our clients.

I can tell you firsthand this is not easy cobbling together the resources and making sure that while you are internally panicking

as to how you are going to pay for this, that you are smiling at

your client, saying it is okay, honey, we are going to be fine, and

thinking, how am I going to explain this to the board that I just

paid for this? So it is a very tricky process. And I think that anyone

who is providing comprehensive services has to do just that. We

can’t pick and choose and part and parcel. We have to do this holistically, just as we would other victims of sex crimes and other

forms of exploitation.

Mr. LABRADOR. And my understanding is that they do it holistically as well, they just don’t pay for the services. But they will

refer to medical providers to do any kind of service that needs to

be done.

But thank you very much for being here today.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York.

I think Mr. Quigley and Mr. Cummings were the only ones here

at the start.

I apologize. You were here. You were so quiet; I missed you.

Mr. TOWNS. I believe we have the yielding program here.

Chairman ISSA. No, no, forget about that yielding thing. I am not

missing a chance to make amends. I now recognize, with great

pleasure, the gentlelady in the District of Columbia, in which we

are all thankful to be, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. At the moment.

Chairman ISSA. At the moment.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing.

My colleague on the other side indicated that if you are second

best at providing some of the services, that ought to be enough,

even if they are not all of the services that are needed. I would say

if you are first best in providing some of the services, but those are

not all of the services that the clients need, that that is not good

enough. If I go to a doctor and he says I am real good at doing X,

but you need X and Y, he is not good for me.

Now, he also listed the services. He went down the services. Did

you notice that contraception was not on that list? And I don’t

know why this discussion has gone off entirely on abortion. I recognize how critical that is. But it is important to get on the record

that once the Bishops had the contract, that these clients, who had

been involved in trafficking, for whom sex had become a way of life,

were not even able to be referred for contraception.

Let us understand what we are talking about. Even if you are

trafficking and you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in

abortion, after the Bishops got the contract, you could not be referred even for contraception, even though you had been involved

in sex exchanges all your life.

Do you understand that going off on abortion hides what we

know every single person who has been involved in the life of trafficking will need, and that is some way to protect him or herself?

Am I exaggerating the importance of contraception or the need to
39

provide contraception services, which were left entirely off of that

list that my colleague provided? I would like to know something

about contraceptive services and the importance of providing them

or not providing them to this set of clients.

Ms. BURKE. I don’t think that you’re exaggerating at all, and I

think that the referral for contraception and emergency contraception is of vital importance for survivors of human trafficking for all

the reasons that we’ve listed. And when USCCB got the contract

in 2006, programs were no longer allowed to refer for the full range

of reproductive health.

Ms. NORTON. You know, some of my colleagues accused those—

some of us on this side, who believe people should have the full

range of services, including contraception and abortion, of antiCatholic bias, even though I believe this was entirely refuted by

the record, which showed the Catholic Church had received some

$50 million in funding in the last 3 years, more than they had received under the prior administration.

And I do want to say for the record, the Framers really did have

this thing right. It is as if you can get the public dollar, the taxpayer money and continue to practice your religion using taxpayer

dollars as you please, regardless of the needs of the client. There’s

no entitlement to a contract in this country.

I want to ask about—I want to ask about, before the Bishops had

the contract. Before the Bishops had the contract, Ms. Burke, were

you able to provide the services, contraception and abortion?

Ms. BURKE. We were able to provide the referrals for the services.

Ms. NORTON. That’s what I mean.

Ms. BURKE. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So when the Bishops no longer had the contract,

all that was happening is that you were going back to the status

quo ante, how it had been before. When you were—when the

Bishops no longer had the contract, you were able to provide the

services. Once they got the contract, you were not?

Ms. BURKE. Correct.

Ms. NORTON. Now under the Bishops’ restrictions, passing out

public money, how did the subcontractor or organization——

Chairman ISSA. I would ask unanimous consent that the

gentlelady have another 30 seconds.

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Under the Bishops’ restrictions, if you needed, you believe somebody needed contraception, I would say that would be everybody,

but forgive me if I think that, that needed contraception or needed

abortion, how would you assure that the client received these services?

Ms. BURKE. For some programs, there were other sources of

funding that were not tied to the contract, subcontract with

USCCB, and those programs could utilize that funding.

Ms. NORTON. Well, suppose you were a subcontractor of the

Bishops?

Ms. BURKE. For programs who were subcontractors with the

Bishops, and that was the only source of their funding?

Ms. NORTON. Yes.
40

Ms. BURKE. That meant that case managers, who work really

long hours at very low pay, had to spend extra time.

Ms. NORTON. Uncompensated time?

Ms. BURKE. Uncompensated time, trying to find a service that

would provide——

Ms. NORTON. Contraception, for example.

Ms. BURKE. Contraception, for example.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady.

We now go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I don’t have any questions, but I appreciate both witnesses for

being here and especially written testimony, because I’m running

between meetings but glad to have your written testimony that I

may be able to take with me and appreciate your work.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PLATTS. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. Let me go through a few questions,

because I have developed some questions while this has been going

on.

Ms. Burke, Ms. Powell, these questions will be sort of for both

of you.

Do both of you have places that you could refer an indigent to

get contraception at no cost to them? It’s pretty straightforward. Do

you have a way outside of Federal funds to get contraception for

people in general, for women in general? It’s kind of an easy yes

or no.

Ms. POWELL. We have——

Chairman ISSA. You have other resources you said you scrapped

together with very little money. I assume you have that, is that

right?

Ms. POWELL. Right. So we’re predominantly using pro bono

sources from the medical community.

Chairman ISSA. Do you also have, if no other source is available,

the ability to get an abortion for somebody in need if no funds are

available.

Ms. POWELL. If we can find a referral for the medical services a

client needs, then we can make that referral. But if we don’t have

the——

Chairman ISSA. No, I understand. And I’ll get to the referral in

a second. I’m sort of building to that, and, you know, in our earlier

hearing—I don’t think either of you were necessarily in the audience—but there were three services, which you are acutely aware

of them, sterilization contraception and abortion.

And abortion, under Federal law, we’re only talking about rape,

incest and the life of the mother. We’re not talking about just because somebody’s pregnant under the Federal law, is that correct?

Okay. So we are talking about a narrow constraint, but it doesn’t

really matter. Those are the three procedures out of 200 medical

procedures.

Did the Catholic Bishops prevent you from referring somebody to

a doctor for gynecological examination, including STDs and the

other full range of things that can happen to somebody who has

been the victim of rape?
41

Ms. BURKE. Yes.

Chairman ISSA. They did?

Ms. BURKE. Yes.

Chairman ISSA. What, other than abortion, contraception and

sterilization, what procedures did they prohibit you from referring

to a doctor for, kidney disease, cancer, STDs, were any of those prohibited?

Ms. BURKE. No.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so you said there, yes, what’s the yes.

What other than those three did they prohibit? In other words, the

same gynecological exam is going to go on for all of these, so I just,

I understand, you sent somebody for a health care referral. You

were not prohibited sending them to somebody who could refer for

an abortion because you didn’t have to send to a Catholic doctor.

You sent to people, I assume, who could come back and say the

woman is pregnant or the woman needs contraception for some reason, right?

You just couldn’t physically get it paid for by the Bishops; is that

right? This is still the same doctor, isn’t it? I’m asking this for a

question, and I’ll get to the question, rather than run you through

questions you are uncomfortable answering.

We are not concerned about abortion here today. We’re concerned

about a contract. So let me go through the whole point.

Had HHS said that, in fact, there was another program outside

of the Catholic Bishops and that under that site fund, if a physician, who you referred for a full range of examination, because,

often you didn’t send somebody in knowing they were pregnant.

The poor woman with a sponge, you thought was pregnant, she

wasn’t pregnant, and ultimately, you still referred here.

So if you sent somebody in and there was a site that said if it

comes back in these three categories by the doctor, that referral

goes to this site fund of Federal dollars, Ms. Powell, something

similar to when you had the State Department funding directly

that you had.

If you had another site fund, you would have been able to refer

them under that other site fund, is that correct, just as you could

have been referred them under pro bono work, is that right?

Ms. POWELL. We probably would be able to cobble together different resources to do that.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, but I am saying now if the Federal Government had given you these resources and simply given it to you

on another site fund, provided it under the contract to everybody,

you would have had a site fund, you could have done it. You

weren’t prohibited from having multiple contracts.

And the reason I’m asking this is, we asked HHS did they try

a work around? They said no, we went to the Catholic Bishops and

told them to offer us one. This committee is in no small part concerned about differences on the—I’m sorry—on the abortion issue,

but we’re also concerned on the contracting.

So, in the future contract, if Catholic Bishops or any group for

any reason has any concern, if there is an effective work around,

and it appears as though there was an effective work around, or

at least it could have been explored, as people dealing with people

in need, you would have used the multiple site funds or the free
42

over here or that clinic over here that you testified to earlier to,

wouldn’t you, to provide all those services, because the Catholic

Bishops were not providing the services, they were doing referral

and administration, right?

Ms. POWELL. Sounds like a really complicated process, and I’m

not as familiar with the different types of contracting that you’re

referring to.

Chairman ISSA. Well, you’re very, and my—his time has expired,

but you are very familiar with cobbling together money to get what

you want.

Ms. POWELL. True.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, you’d have cobbled it together. Our problem here on the dais is we have a law that prohibits religious beliefs from making somebody ineligible, and yet we didn’t have any

attempt to work around. So that’s why the question—I apologize

for going over.

And I guess I’m now going to the former chairman of the full

committee, who has been very patiently waiting, the gentleman

from Brooklyn, Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me thank you and the ranking committee chair for having

this hearing. I would like to read into the record a statement that

was submitted by another survivor of human trafficking who is on

the verge of success with her life. Her story is one of sadness, but

also one of hope.

We can use hers and other examples as we continue to examine

what services are made available for victims of human sex trafficking and who is capable of providing the services that are necessary to transition back to a normal life as possible.

And let me, this is from Asia Graves, who is 24 years old, college

student, is going to school for political science with a legal studies

concentration.

When I was 17 years old, she said, I was a victim of human trafficking. I was living with my mother, who was addicted to crack cocaine. For safety reasons, I moved in with my father, who was an

alcoholic.

I did not know my life would turn upside down. My dad requested that I pay $900 a month in rent. I got a job working as

many hours as I could to try and pay my rent. I even missed

school. When I could not pay my rent, my father threw me out.

So, with no place to go, I moved in with a group of girls who

were staying in a one-bedroom apartment. They introduced me to

several of their male friends, who I didn’t know were pimps. I was

told I was going to—on a date, but instead I was taken to the

track, a street corner in the middle of a snowstorm, and left there.

They told me that I had to have sex with these men for money, or

I would be homeless.

I didn’t do it, and on my walk home, I met a guy who appeared

to be my age. He told me that I was beautiful, and I could go home

with him. He took care of me and gave me a place to live.

After a week, he told me that he was a pimp, and I was his property. He called an escort service, who took naked pictures of me

and put them on their Web site. Men came to the hotel and had
43

sex with me. I was told that if I did not have sex with them, they

would kill me.

Two weeks later, he took me to the track and made me work. He

said that if I did not, he would kill my family. He sold me to several other pimps that had sex with me and forced me to have sex

with other men.

After being beaten, hit in the head with an iron and sexually assaulted with a hair brush and figuring out that I was pregnant, I

had enough. I tried to run but was held hostage at gun point.

When I finally escaped, I spoke to the first police officer that I

could find. That led to my trafficker’s retaliation against me. The

next morning my trafficker sent four women with steel-toed

Timberland boots to assault me. They knew that I was pregnant,

so they focused their kicks on my face and stomach. They left me

on the sidewalk like a piece of garbage.

I walked to the nearest police station and spoke to a police officer, who sent me to Sergeant Kelley O’Connell. She knew who my

trafficker was.

During our interview, I started to miscarry. She took me to the

emergency room. I was afraid to go to the hospital for the fear that

I wouldn’t be seen due to lack of health insurance. They made sure

that even though I did not have health insurance, I was taken care

of.

After that, I did not know what to do or who to turn to. Thankfully, I was blessed to have a group of investigators who helped me

physically and emotionally. I was also referred to Carol Gomez, director, of course, and she who worked as my victim advocate mentor and counselor. Without her, I would have not have been able

to receive mental health treatment or PTSD physical, as well as

dental help, to fix several teeth that were broken by my traffickers.

I never went to a doctor during that period of my life, during my

life, while I was being held hostage by my pimps. Thankful, since

I got out of this situation and had access to doctors, I have not tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease. I was and am still

scared of not knowing whether I am really am disease-free.

Could I get another 30 seconds added?

Chairman ISSA. Without objection.

Mr. TOWNS. I had a close friend who caught full-blown AIDS

from her pimp. She has died recently. Once I got help from Carol,

I was grateful to be able to have information about access to contraception and condoms to make sure I stayed healthy and to protect my partner.

Carol also took me to the doctor to make sure my sexual health

was in good standing. I am relatively healthy, but doctors don’t

know yet if I will ever be able to have children as a result of the

beatings and assaults I suffered.

And had I not miscarried right after I escaped my traffickers,

Carol would have given me information about options on pregnancy. She would have helped me access prenatal care or abortion

services, depending on what I decided was best for me.

I owe Carol everything. Thanks to her and what she did for me.

Once I escaped my trafficker, I am nearing college graduation. I

plan to attend law school so that 1 day I will be able to advocate

for women who are going through what I went through. We need
44

programs to help provide us with services, and we need to make

sure we get all of the services we need.

I thank both of you for coming to testify and for the work that

you are doing. I appreciate it. I want you to know, you are making

a difference in the lives of so many. Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5

minutes.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to thank, particularly Mr. Cummings, the ranking

member, for requesting this hearing. I’m still—I can actually hear

from the providers of services to victims of human trafficking as

sort of a follow-up to the earlier hearing.

And assertions to the contrary, notwithstanding, in the first

hearing, we had on the subject from my point of view, the witness

we had, Mr. Sheldon in particular, made it very clear that there

was no politicization or anti-religious bias in the decision not to

award this particular contract of services to victims of human trafficking to the U.S. Catholic Bishops.

In fact, the record made very clear that the U.S. Catholic Bishops

received several grants subsequent to the denial of this one, and

that the Catholic Church, Catholic entities, including Catholic

Charities, including Catholic Relief Services, receive hundreds of

millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer assistance because of the wonderful work they do, whether it be internationally or domestically.

Some of the smear, the suggestion, that there is a bias against my

church is false.

The question came down to what the nature of the grant was,

what services were to be provided. Mr. Sheldon gave, I thought, eloquent testimony before this committee that we know more now

about the victims of human trafficking, and that one of the essential services, absolutely essential—and I’m going to ask you whether you concur—but in terms of services for the victims, most of

whom are women, often young girls, who have been multiply, you

know, abused sexually, raped, physically mistreated, are gynecological services, precisely the services the U.S. Catholic Bishops, as

a matter of conscience, chose not to provide. That is their right.

But if that’s the nature of the services needed, and that’s the nature of the grant designed, then you give it to somebody who can

and will provide those services.

It was a fairly straightforward proposition, not politicized at all

until it came to this committee.

Now I want to know, if I may, Ms. Burke and Ms. Powell, from

your point of view, is it essential that the full range of gynecological services be provided to the victims who would be served by

such grants?

Ms. BURKE. I can’t stress enough how important I think it is that

the full range of services be available, that service providers be

able to refer for these services.

It’s been borne out in years of experience on my behalf that

there—it’s not just contraception, abortion or other services, but it’s

the education that goes along with it, that victims are often young,

victims are often undereducated, victims often come with a different primary language and don’t really understand their own sex-
45

ual health. They don’t understand the functions of their body, and

they are very vulnerable to illness and disease. And we wouldn’t

consider not referring clients who suffer from a diagnosis of cancer,

diabetes or heart disease, and yet it has been the practice of the

last 5 years to prohibit referrals for reproductive health care that

also helps to halt disease and prevent long-term health issues.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Ms. Burke.

Ms. Powell, why, I mean, what’s the harm, in skipping that part?

Ms. POWELL. It’s absolutely critical that we have the ability, and

we must be able to provide comprehensive referrals for all forms

of reproductive health needs. And I’d like to buildupon——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why? Why is it important? You just assert it’s

important, but why is it important?

Ms. POWELL. It’s important for their lives. It’s not just about

whether or not we think they might need it. These individuals absolutely need the ability to have these referrals, just like the example that I gave of a young woman who had a kitchen sponge the

size of a football in her stomach; she would have died had we not

been able to get her to care. And this is not the only scenario that

was like this.

This is a very common tactic of traffickers to put a foreign object

in a woman’s body or a girl’s body so that he can maximize his

profit by using her, even during menstruation.

Mr. CONNOLLY. So if I understand you correctly, this isn’t just a

matter of—well, as a matter of conscience I don’t really like that—

so I’m going to make a little exception and not provide that service.

Absent that kind of service, we might unintentionally, of course, actually be jeopardizing lives.

Ms. POWELL. Right. And as a service provider, I can’t be in that

position. I must be able to provide my clients to all of the services

that they need.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, my time is up.

Mr. Chairman, might I also ask that a letter from Catholics for

Choice, addressed to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, be entered into the record at this time?

Chairman ISSA. They didn’t send one to me?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Pardon me? I don’t know. You know, they sent

one to me. I don’t know whether——

Chairman ISSA. I’m shocked, I’m shocked. Yes, without objection

it will be included.

[The information referred to follows:]
46
47
48

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, knowing how hurt your feelings

are, I will make sure they send you one.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I’ll get you one.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the former chairman.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

And I’ll combine a close with my 5 minutes.

You’ve been helpful today. This hearing was one that I told the

ranking member I wanted to have anyway, although his insistence

made a huge difference in how fast we had it.

I want to go through a couple of things.

Ms. Powell, have you had any other contracts, Federal contracts

or subcontracts, other than the State Department? Did you do any

work under the Catholic Bishops?

Ms. POWELL. We have not done any work with the Catholic

Bishops, no.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So you don’t have any knowledge of what

they would or wouldn’t do?

Ms. POWELL. My case manager and program director worked for

another agency, and she has given me multiple examples, but I

personally don’t have direct knowledge.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Well, we don’t have her here today so

that’s why I’m asking.

Ms. Burke, you haven’t done any work with the Catholic Bishops

under a Federal contract, have you?

Ms. BURKE. Not since 2007.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Let me ask just a couple of questions to

sort of clear up things that I didn’t hear asked or answered.

Catholic Bishops pay for well baby treatment? Did—would they

provide pregnant mothers with healthy exams to help with making

sure their baby was delivered in a healthy way? In other words, did

pregnant women under the Catholic Bishops get referred to anybody? I assume they didn’t just deny them health care.

Ms. BURKE. No.

Chairman ISSA. So they would deny—they would allow them to

have the baby get an ultrasound, the mother get an ultrasound of

the baby.

Ms. BURKE. I think so, yes.

Chairman ISSA. So they would have found that sponge, right, or

found that it wasn’t a baby? I just want to make the point that

maybe people would misunderstand in this hearing and think that

that woman with a sponge inside of her body would die under

Catholic Bishops care—and it doesn’t appear as though they would

have—if someone thought she was pregnant, she still would have

gotten a referral. It would not have been a referral to get an abortion, but it would have been a referral for normal, healthy—normal

questions, especially if the baby didn’t kick and she kept swelling,

right?

Ms. POWELL. We had about 2 hours with our client before we

made that referral because she was in so much pain.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, let’s follow up on that. Catholic Bishops’

administration, the people they paid to do it for them, Ms. Burke,

maybe, before 2007, if a woman was in pain, you just, Ms. Burke,

that woman in pain with a sponge in her uterus or wherever it was
49

trapped, she would have gone to the hospital under the Catholic

Bishops, wouldn’t she? You wouldn’t have been prohibited from

taking a woman in pain to the hospital, even if she was distended

and looked like she was pregnant?

Ms. BURKE. No, we wouldn’t.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, I just want to make the point because I

think it’s important that there were differences, perhaps, in what

they administered, but I think there’s no question—and I sometimes object when Catholic Charities, Catholic priests, Catholic everything, they willingly and knowingly house illegal immigrants.

They provide all kinds of around the government because they’re

so caring and so liberal that will they don’t recognize U.S. borders.

So I’m not going to tell you that the Catholic Church is perfect

at all times, they have been part of sanctuaries for people who they

knew were not here legally, and they didn’t care. That’s part of

how compassionate they are.

So, certainly, no administrator on behalf of the Bishops would

have denied health care that they thought was life threatening to

somebody. They would have gotten them to the doctor. You can all

agree to that, can’t we?

Okay. In closing, I understand, Ms. Powell, you thought it was

cumbersome if the contract had been let differently. But if I told

you what the first hearing told us, which was it is illegal to deny

them, based on their religious beliefs, and it is, in fact, true that

the contract never said you will be denied this contract because you

do not offer abortion, sterilization or birth control pills and the like,

that the contract had a certain flaw.

You’ve testified today, both of you, that what you called the full

range of health care—and we called the last three of 200 that are

listed—but suffice to say, they don’t provide those as a matter of

conscience. The contract implied that they could win, and they got

an 89 and somebody with a 69 got the contract instead.

So I think you would all agree, you both I hope would agree, that

the process of letting them go through the bidding and then not receive it was inherently flawed because if, as I understand correctly,

you think that—and I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just asking,

you think that, in fact, it should have been, a, look, if you don’t do

it, you don’t get the contract, right? That’s what you’ve testified to

pretty much. Okay.

That is one of the challenges, and I’ll close now, for this committee, is to figure out how the grant process can be honest and

legal up front so that nobody enters knowing that there is a

trapped door at the end and so that from the remaining people,

whoever are eligible, they receive contracts in a fair and impartial

fashion.

The term ‘‘competitive grant’’ always bothers me when I find out

that the competition at the end of it all is somebody’s individual

decision.

So I want to thank you for your testimony. I think it was illustrative, far beyond just the question of grant process. I think you

both have been excellent witnesses, and I thank you for your being

here.
50

I have no doubt that Congress will look to have you back on this

subject including, perhaps, this committee, and we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly follows:]
51Æ