[Senate Hearing 110-142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-142
LEGAL OPTIONS TO STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2007
__________
Serial No. J-110-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-695 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Michael O'Neill, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel
Mary Harned, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 68
WITNESSES
Becker, Grace Chung, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C........ 4
Burkhalter, Holly J., Vice President for Government Relations,
International Justice Mission, Washington, D.C................. 11
Kaufka, Katherine, Supervising Attorney, Counter-Trafficking
Services Program, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago,
Illlinois...................................................... 5
Vandenberg, Martina E., Attorney, Jenner & Block, LLP,
Washington, D.C................................................ 8
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Grace Chung Becker to questions submitted by Senator
Durbin......................................................... 31
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Civil Liberties Union, Women's Rights Project and
Washington Legislative Office, statement....................... 38
Becker, Grace Chung, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
statement...................................................... 44
Burkhalter, Holly J., Vice President for Government Relations,
International Justice Mission, Washington, D.C., statement..... 57
Department of Justice, Inspector General, Arlington, Virginia,
memorandum..................................................... 65
Kaufka, Katherine, Supervising Attorney, Counter-Trafficking
Services Program, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago,
Illinois, statement............................................ 71
Vandenberg, Martina E., Attorney, Jenner & Block, LLP,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 75
LEGAL OPTIONS TO STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. Good afternoon. The meeting of the Human
Rights and Law Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee
will come to order.
Unfortunately, my Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, had
alerted me in advance that he had a difficult day and wasn't
sure he could make it back today. He is completely interested
in this subject and I know will follow through his staff and
otherwise on the findings of this hearing, and I'm sure other
members of the Subcommittee will as well. But he has, from my
point of view, an excused absence because of scheduling, which
happens to us from time to time.
This is the first time in the history of the Senate that we
have created a Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. I
think it's crucial at this point in time. Repressive regimes
that violate human rights create fertile breeding for
terrorism, war, poverty, and exploitation. Our Nation and our
world will never be fully secure as long as fundamental human
rights are not honored.
Our first hearing was just last month. We addressed the
issue of genocide and the rule of law, focusing on the mass
killings and genocide in Darfur. I'm proud to say that, as a
result of that hearing, we've introduced bipartisan legislation
to promote divestment in Sudan and to expand the reach of U.S.
law so that we can prosecute non-U.S. nationals who are in this
country for crimes of genocide they committed abroad. We will
continue to try to make this a Subcommittee that focuses on
legislation, not just lamentations.
Today we're going to take up a topic which may be as old as
mankind. From the beginning of time there has been evidence of
exploitation and slavery. We haven't been spared in our
generation.
At today's hearing, we will consider the issue of human
trafficking. Few issues in the world today raise as many human
rights implications as this insidious practice. It's estimated
that one million people are trafficked across international
borders each year, pressed into labor, servitude, or commercial
sex by the use of force, fraud, and coercion.
Human trafficking represents commerce in human misery. As
an introduction to today's hearing, I would like to show a very
brief video on human trafficking. It begins with a short public
service announcement put together by the United Nations to help
raise awareness of the issue.
The second part of the video is an interview with a
trafficking victim from Cambodia. The purpose of these videos
is to put a human face on the issue that we will talk about
today.
[Whereupon, a video was played.]
Chairman Durbin. Former General Secretary Kofi Annan has
said: ``The world is now wrestling with a new form of slavery,
trafficking in human beings, in which many vulnerable people
are virtually abandoned by legal and social systems into a
sordid realm of exploitation and abuse.''
If there's any silver lining to this problem, it's that the
world is now beginning to open its eyes. There are 117
signatories to the United Nations' trafficking protocol, and
many of these countries have passed tough anti-trafficking laws
in the past few years.
The United States passed its first major anti-trafficking
law in 2000. We cannot discuss this issue in the U.S. Senate
without mentioning the visionary leadership of the late Senator
Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone called the trafficking of
human beings ``one of the most horrendous human rights
violations of our time.''
On the day Congress passed the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act on October 11, 2000, Senator Wellstone went to
the floor of the Senate. He was very happy that day, and you
could tell when Paul Wellstone was happy.
He praised his lead co-sponsor, Senator Sam Brownback, who
has been a great champion of human rights for years. Senator
Wellstone praised the broad coalition of groups that came
together for the bill: human rights groups, women's rights,
evangelical and Jewish groups, and members of the Clinton
administration.
This is what Paul said: ``I believe with passage of this
legislation...we are lighting a candle. We are lighting a
candle for these women and girls and sometimes men forced into
forced labor.... This is the beginning of an international
effort to go after this trafficking, to go after this major,
god-awful human rights abuse.''
Senator Wellstone's commitment to stopping human
trafficking and other human rights abuses stands as one of his
most enduring legacies, despite his untimely passing a little
over 4 years ago.
The candle Senator Wellstone lit nearly 7 years ago is
burning bright and we rekindle it today. Thanks to the passage
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the legal
tools that Senator Wellstone gave us, we have made progress.
The State Department, under the leadership of my friend and
former colleague in the House, John Miller, pushed recalcitrant
countries around the globe to pass anti-trafficking laws and to
help victims.
John called and regretted that he couldn't be with us
today, but he's here in spirit. Of course, human trafficking is
not just happening in far-off lands, it's happening right here
in the United States.
The Department of Justice has done an admirable job of
investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases. These cases
are often very difficult to bring because trafficking victims
are isolated, trapped, and frightened. If victims are able to
break free, they are often reluctant to talk to law enforcement
out of fear of deportation, arrest, or prison.
For this reason, the role of victim and legal service
providers is especially important in this fight against human
trafficking. Organizations like the National Immigrant Justice
Center in Chicago, which I am honored to represent, are trusted
sources of aid for trafficking victims. These groups work
closely with prosecutors to gain the trust of victims and make
the case.
At today's hearing we will ask, 7 years after the passage
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, what progress has
the U.S. Government made in combatting human trafficking in the
United States and overseas? What are we doing right, and what
can we do better?
What aspects of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and
its 2003 and 2005 reauthorizations, should be changed or
strengthened? Should Congress amend the law to make it easier
and quicker for trafficking victims in the U.S. and their
family members to receive a ``T visa'' and other government
benefits?
We're also going to ask some hard questions. Why hasn't the
United States done more to punish U.S. contractors in Iraq and
other foreign countries who engage in human trafficking? How
can we hold foreign diplomats in the United States responsible
for trafficking when we're up against diplomatic immunity?
I intend to introduce legislation that will address some of
the problems after we've talked about them at this hearing and
I've discussed them with my colleagues. Several parts of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act are set to expire at the end
of this year, so this is a good time to look carefully at this
law and figure out what we need to do to further the fight
against human trafficking.
At this point in time we're going to turn to our
distinguished panel of witnesses and ask each of them to make
an opening statement of about 5 minutes. Their complete written
testimony I commend to all who are here, because each one of
them has taken the time to write a very good and probing
statement about this issue.
Will the witnesses, at this point, please stand and raise
their right hands to be sworn?
[Whereupon, the witnesses were duly sworn.]
Chairman Durbin. Let the record reflect that all four
witnesses have replied in the affirmative.
The first witness is Grace Chung Becker. Thank you, Ms.
Becker, for being here. She represents the Department of
Justice. She's a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil
Rights Division and helps supervise the Division's human
trafficking prosecutions. Before that, she worked at the
Defense Department as Associate Deputy General Counsel.
Before that, she worked right here, probably in this room,
at the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was counsel to then-
Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch in the 108th Congress. She served
as a law clerk to two Federal judges here in Washington, and is
a graduate of an outstanding law school, Georgetown, and the
University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Finance.
Ms. Becker?
STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Becker. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. Good
afternoon, Chairman Durbin. It's an honor and privilege to
appear before the Committee today.
For decades, the Civil Rights Division has been charged
with enforcing statutes prohibiting slavery, involuntary
servitude, and peonage.
Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that
touches virtually every community in America, urban or rural,
affluent neighborhoods, as well as poor communities. This is a
crime that can occur anywhere, anytime, and against any
vulnerable victim.
Traffickers prey on U.S. citizens as well as foreigners.
They use force, fraud or coercion against prostitutes, domestic
servants, factory machinists, and migrant farm laborers.
Victims have included college students coerced into commercial
sex in Atlanta, homeless men forced to work as farm laborers in
Florida, and individuals with hearing impairments forced to
peddle sign language cards in the New York City subways.
Human trafficking is a priority for the President and the
Attorney General and I am pleased to report that the Civil
Rights Division has adopted an aggressive strategy to fight
this invidious crime.
The Attorney General recently announced the formation of a
Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit in the Criminal Section of
the Civil Rights Division. The unit consists of an elite group
of expert prosecutors who will provide investigative and
prosecutorial assistance, as well as coordination.
This unit is necessary because we're seeing more complex
cases involving multiple jurisdictions, multiple law
enforcement agencies, and financial or organized crimes. The
unit also serves as a resource for training, outreach, and
policy development.
The unit works closely with prosecutors within the section,
as well as with U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and Human Trafficking
Task Forces around the country. These task forces reflect the
Civil Rights Division's victim-centered approach.
They are comprised of members from Federal, State, and
local law enforcement, and they also include representatives
from non-governmental organizations who provide much-needed
services to restore the victims of this terrible crime.
We work together to ensure that the victim's safety and
housing needs are taken care of, to see that their medical and
psychiatric needs are also taken care of, and for our foreign
victims, to cooperate in normalizing their immigration status.
This victim-centered approach works. In conjunction with
U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country, the Civil Rights
Division has increased by 600 percent the number of human
trafficking cases filed in court in the last 6 years.
From 2001 till today, we've initiated about 725
investigations. Last year, we received one of the highest
sentences ever in a sex trafficking case for two of our lead
defendants: 50 years of imprisonment. We also received one of
the highest orders of restitution, over $900,000, for a labor
trafficking prosecution in Milwaukee.
Let me just give you one example. The victim in this case
was just 9 years old--that's the same age as my daughter--when
her parents were sold into servitude in Egypt. When she was 12,
she was brought to the United States and forced to work as a
domestic servant in Orange County, California.
She was forced to cook for a family of seven, clean the
entire house, and baby-sit the younger children. Meanwhile, the
young girl could only eat leftovers and was forced to live in
the squalor of the garage. The defendants controlled the child,
who could not speak English, by taking her passport, assaulting
her, forbidding her to make friends or to go to school.
The defendants also threatened to report her older sister
to the police in Egypt for previously stealing from the
defendants if the victim ever tried to leave their employ. The
defendants are now in prison and will likely be deported to
Egypt after serving their sentence. They've paid $78,000 in
restitution. By contrast, the victim is now studying in high
school and can use her restitution money to achieve her dreams
of going to college.
But there is much more work to be done, and that is why I
support the President's request for an additional $1.7 million
for the Civil Rights Division. As the Civil Rights Division
turns 50 years old, it remains committed to supporting the
values of our Nation, including the liberty promised by the
Thirteenth Amendment of our Constitution.
Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Becker appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. We will now hear from Katherine Kaufka.
She works in Chicago at the National Immigrant Justice Center.
She's the supervising attorney for Counter-Trafficking
Services, and she's worked with many victims in Illinois and
across the country.
She's a member of the Chicago Task Force on Human
Trafficking and the Freedom Network USA, which is an important
national network of service providers and attorneys who work
with victims.
Ms. Kaufka has written articles about trafficking victims'
services and has helped trained Federal prosecutors. She is a
graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School and the
University of Michigan.
Ms. Kaufka?
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE KAUFKA, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, COUNTER-
TRAFFICKING SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
CENTER, HEARTLAND ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN NEEDS & HUMAN RIGHTS,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Kaufka. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. Thank you for the
privilege of testifying today on behalf of survivors of human
trafficking who are victims of some of the most horrific human
rights violations that we see today.
I have represented dozens of trafficking victims at the
National Immigrant Justice Center, a leading national advocate
for the protection of human rights of non-citizens.
Current anti-trafficking laws help victims every day, and
we are grateful to Members of Congress for their critical
support of these statutes. Nonetheless, the laws can be
improved. In my testimony today I will address three areas of
the law that fail to provide adequate protections for human
trafficking victims.
First, providing greater protections for victims and their
families is critical. Second, the laws must ensure that victims
who make an effort to cooperate with law enforcement are
adequately protected. Third, we must recongnize the importance
of responding to the special needs of children who are victims
of human trafficking.
Approximately 15,000 to 18,000 men, women, and children are
trafficked to the United States every year. However, since the
passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act over 6 years
ago, almost 400 cases have been prosecuted on human trafficking
charges and approximately 1,500 trafficking visas have been
issued.
While it was the intent of the statute to punish
traffickers and protect victims, these statistics show that we
have failed to fulfill our goals. We believe that a principal
cause of this failure is that the burdens placed upon victims
are simply too high.
The first area I would like to discuss is the need to
provide greater protection to trafficking victims and their
families. Many victims are intimidated by the traffickers with
threats against the safety and livelihood of immediate family.
The victim's fear of harm to his or her family often prevents
the victim from reporting the trafficking crime to authorities.
One client that we represent, whom I will call Anuja, was
trafficked to a suburb of Chicago from a small Indian village
when she was about 11 years old. She was forced to cook, clean,
and take care of two small boys around the clock.
Four years later, she managed to escape. Anuja was
interviewed by law enforcement, but she was reluctant at first
to tell her full story because she was afraid that the
traffickers would hurt her little sisters in India, a threat
that they had made to her many times. Anuja would have been
better able to assist law enforcement if she knew her family
was safe and if they could have supported her during the
prosecution of her abusers in the United States.
We recommend that victims of trafficking who cooperate with
law enforcement have the option to be united with family to
support them through the legal process. If those family members
reside outside the United States, they should be allowed to
enter the United States temporarily to aid the prosecution's
efforts. This change to the law will not only enhance victim
protection, it would lead to more successful prosecution of
criminal traffickers.
The second issue that I want to address is the need to
ensure full protection for victims who make an effort to assist
law enforcement. Under current law, if authorities fail to
respond or open an investigation, the trafficking victim who
reported the crime will have no further opportunity to assist
authorities and access protection.
We represent a woman, Padma, and her two daughters who were
brought from India to Countryside, Illinois in 1998 and forced
to work at a restaurant. Padma and her daughters escaped in
2001 and lived in hiding for years. They were too frightened to
seek assistance until 2005, when a women's shelter referred
them to the National Immigrant Justice Center.
Once she learned she could play a role in her case, Padma
wanted justice for her family. We immediately reported the
crimes to the Department of Justice and to the Chicago FBI
office.
However, it took Federal authorities a year to interview
Padma and, consequently, it took a year for Padma and her
daughters to be legally recognized as victims and to receive
the protections and services that they needed. Padma's earlier
attempts to cooperate with law enforcement were not enough for
her to be recognized as a victim under the law.
We recommend that the survivor of human trafficking who
makes a good-faith attempt to cooperate with law enforcement
should be eligible for a trafficking visa. Where the victim
tries to assist but law enforcement takes no action, the victim
should not be denied protection.
Finally, I want to speak about the need to enhance
protection for victims of human trafficking who are
unaccompanied children. These are, indeed, the most vulnerable
of our victim population. Unfortunately, all too often
authorities fail to recognize potential trafficking victims and
treat children as alleged criminals.
A client from El Salvador, whom I will call Sonia, was just
15 years old when Federal agents discovered her in a brothel.
She was interrogated for hours. Sonia was ashamed and fearful
of both the traffickers and the Federal agents, so she said
that at first nothing happened when she was in the brothel.
Sonia was held in custody in Chicago and immediately placed in
deportation proceedings.
Sonia's case demonstrates the great sensitivity that must
be applied to cases involving children. We recommend that
whenever authorities encounter a child in an environment that
involves forced labor or commercial sex, officials should
assume that the child is a victim of trafficking. At that point
they should immediately refer the child to the Department of
Health and Human Services for appropriate services and counsel.
Let me sum up by reiterating the three critical
improvements we recommend that you make to the current law.
Providing protection not only to victims but also to their
immediate family members will help these victims better assist
law enforcement in prosecuting the traffickers. We must offer
protection to victims who make a good-faith attempt to aid
authorities in the investigation and prosecution of human
trafficking cases. To deny these victims protection is unjust.
Finally, potential child trafficking victims must be
immediately referred to the Department of Health and Human
Services, provided appropriate services and guaranteed access
to legal counsel.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kaufka appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Martina Vandenberg is an attorney in
the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Jenner & Block.
Last year, Ms. Vandenberg was the recipient of her law firm's
Pro Bono Award for her legal representation of trafficking
victims, and her advocacy to end impunity for U.S. contractors
who engage in human trafficking while serving with U.N.
peacekeeping missions abroad.
Ms. Vandenberg previously worked as the European researcher
at Human Rights Watch, where she conducted extensive research
and wrote reports on human trafficking in Bosnia, Herzegovina,
Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kosovo.
Ms. Vandenberg has taught at American University and has
spoken nationally and internationally on women's human rights
issues and human trafficking. She is a graduate of Columbia Law
School, Pomona College, and Oxford University, where she was a
Rhodes scholar.
Ms. Vandenberg?
STATEMENT OF MARTINA E. VANDENBERG, ATTORNEY, JENNER & BLOCK,
LLP WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Vandenberg. Thank you, Senator Durbin. It's an honor to
testify before you today on a grave, grave violation of human
rights, trafficking in persons.
Over the past decade, Congress, the executive branch, and
the non-governmental community, we've worked together to
develop innovative criminal and civil remedies for
traffickers--to bring traffickers to justice. But these gaps--
gaps still do exist, and traffickers continue to operate with
impunity, violating the human rights of trafficking victims
every day.
I'd like to focus briefly this afternoon on three concrete
trafficking cases that illustrate these gaps. I'll begin with
the human rights norms, the substantive international law on
trafficking, and then turn to case studies, one in Iraq, one in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one in our own backyard just
outside Washington, D.C.
Trafficking in persons is a gruesome human rights
violation, trapping men, women, and children in debt bondage,
forced labor, and forced prostitution. Article 3(a) of the
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children, defines trafficking as
the recruitment, transportation, harboring, and receipt of
persons by threat or use of force, or any other means, for the
purpose of exploitation.
Research by Human Rights Watch and other human rights
organizations has shown historically that States have treated
victims of trafficking as illegal migrants, as criminals, or
both, generally detaining them, prosecuting them, and then
summarily deporting them. And while we do see some progress
toward more victim and rights-focused policies, there's still
much to be done.
On August 19, 2004, insurgents kidnapped 12 Nepalese men
traveling on the road from Amman to Baghdad. All 12 were later
executed. A Chicago Tribune reporter, Cam Simpson, launched a
6-month investigation into the events leading up to their
abduction and deaths.
The Chicago Tribune series, ``Pipeline to Peril,'' and I
have a copy for you today, uncovered a trafficking network that
stretched from the remote mountains of Kathmandu to U.S.
military bases in Iraq.
The chain began with recruiters in the men's villages who
promised the men lucrative jobs in five-star hotels in Amman,
Jordan. In exchange, they demanded enormous sums for up-front
payments. Their families, desperate for the sons to find jobs
abroad, took out loans, mortgaged the family farms, and paid
interest rates of up to 36 percent per month.
But the men, upon arriving in Jordan, instead of the luxury
hotel jobs that they had expected, found that they were on
their way to Iraq. They were stripped of their passports and
held in apartments.
They were passed from recruiter, to trafficker, to
trafficker, and finally sent on the road to Iraq to serve at a
U.S. military base for a subcontractor. Insurgents killed the
Nepalese workers before they actually arrived at the U.S. base.
The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General
launched an investigation. But, troublingly, that investigation
concluded that while it would appear that some foreign-based
companies are using false pretenses to provide laborers to
Halliburton subcontractors in Iraq, none of the allegations are
against U.S. persons or U.S. contractors.
There's no indication that the Inspector General actually
delved into the issue of criminal complicity, or even criminal
conspiracy, by U.S. persons or contractors. Indeed, there is no
hint of any investigation into the involvement by any of these
U.S. contractors.
Instead, there's a conflation of criminal and civil law
principles, a finding that there are ``no privities of contact
between DoD and the foreign companies allegedly guilty of these
trafficking practices, and therefore that the U.S. had no
jurisdiction over the persons or the offenses.''
But that's simply incorrect as a matter of law. Under the
Military Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, the U.S.
Government does have criminal jurisdiction over those who
commit a crime, a felony that would be punished in the United
States by up to a year, including trafficking crimes.
The investigation also uncovered other troubling practices.
Contractors routinely took and held the passports of third
country nationals working on U.S. bases, forced them to live in
substandard housing, and provided them with little decent food.
Then General Casey issued an order demanding that
contractors return the passports of third country nationals.
Unfortunately Colonel Boyles, who was tasked with enforcing
that order, testified before Congress in June 2006 that it was
like pulling teeth to get the contractors to comply.
So the bottom line is impunity, but that is just really
business as usual. I would like to skip now to the case of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is, perhaps, the poster child for
impunity for defense contractors.
Trafficking victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from
Moldova, Ukraine, and other countries of the former Soviet
Union had no idea that they would be trafficked into forced
prostitution to serve trucker drivers, as well as peacekeepers,
in Bosnia.
In a 3-year investigation that I conducted for Human Rights
Watch, researchers uncovered at least eight cases of U.S.
personnel who allegedly purchased--purchased--trafficked women
and girls as chattel. They purchased both their persons and
their passports from local brothel owners.
As in Iraq, the Department of Defense Inspector General
confirmed that the allegations of trafficking were credible. In
fact, their final report states ``the evidence suggests that
DoD contractor employees may have more than a limited role in
human trafficking, but we were unable to gather more evidence
of it precisely because there are no requirements and no
procedures in place compelling contractors to gather such
information regarding their employees, or to report it to U.S.
military authorities.'' That remains the case now years down
the road.
I'd like to now turn, briefly, to a domestic case.
Recently, the ACLU filed a case against a Kuwaiti military
attache here working in Washington, DC for trafficking three
Indian women he enslaved in his home, according to the
complaint. The ACLU has provided a written statement today, and
I commend it to you.
Diplomats who traffic their victims to the United States
under the cover of special visas also engage in slavery and
they do so with near impunity. The bottom line is that
trafficking victims, whether trafficked by diplomats or by
regular U.S. citizens, need attorneys. By our count, only 20
cases nationwide have been brought under 18 U.S.C. 1595, which
is the civil remedy created by the TPRA of 2003.
Sadly, people trafficked by diplomats into the United
States cannot use that as a remedy because those cases are
routinely dismissed on the basis of diplomatic immunity.
So let me just close by asking what is to be done, because
I think that is the fundamental question that you posed at the
beginning of the hearing, Senator Durbin. I have a series of
detailed recommendations in my written testimony, but I'd just
like to highlight a few this afternoon. I'm eager to work with
you and your staff to implement the recommendations in full.
First, we recommend that thorough investigations and, where
appropriate, indictments, be done for trafficking for forced
labor or forced prostitution by contractors and military
personnel serving abroad.
We believe that the T visa system should be amended to
permit victims of trafficking who are the victims of
contractors abroad to come to the United States to testify and
to have access to T visa status with the hope of being able to
adjust to regular immigration status.
We'd like to see senior leadership in the Department of
Defense assigned to combat trafficking, and we'd like to see a
line item in the budget dedicated to trafficking in persons as
well.
We'd also like to call for an investigation of a lack of
compensation for the executed Nepalese victims of trafficking
under the Defense Base Act. Although they were killed several
years ago, their families still have not been able to access
any funds from the U.S. Government.
I'll end there this afternoon, but I'd like to, again,
thank you for inviting me to testify. I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you might have.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. And without objection, the
statement from the American Civil Liberties Union Women's
Rights Project will be made part of the record.
Our last witness is Holly Burkhalter, the vice president of
Government Relations at the International Justice Mission, a
human rights organization that helps rescue trafficking victims
overseas.
Before joining IJM, Ms. Burkhalter was the U.S. policy
director of Physicians for Human Rights, and before that,
Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch.
At the beginning of her career she worked on Capitol Hill
for Senator Tom Harkin, and for the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations.
She is a frequent witness before Congress. We are happy to have
her today. A widely published author on human rights issues,
graduate of Iowa State University. Now I see the Harkin
connection.
Ms. Burkhalter. Yes.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Burkhalter?
STATEMENT OF HOLLY J. BURKHALTER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Burkhalter. It works out that way, though the record
should probably be corrected. I worked for Tom when he was in
the House, which just goes to show that they were employing
child labor on congressional staff in those days.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Chairman Durbin. It's an honor to be here with
my friends who are really the acknowledged experts on these
matters in the United States. I'm honored to be associated with
their testimony, as well as present my own.
I don't know if you knew this, but 200 years ago yesterday,
on March 25, 1807, the abolition of slavery in the British
Empire was enacted into law. It was basically signed into law
by the king. The only way you could have come closer to
commemorate that occasion was to have your hearing on Sunday,
and I appreciate the fact that you did not.
But here we are, 200 years later, to work on completing the
great work that your political ancestor, the great
parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, began. William
Wilberforce--reminding me of Senator Proxmire a little bit--
introduced the anti-slavery bill every year for 16 years until
it was finally passed into law and enacted 200 years ago.
Now, the man who really is dear to my heart was Thomas
Clarkson, who is the father, as far as I'm concerned, of modern
human rights NGO activism. It was his indefatigable campaigning
throughout Europe and the United Kingdom that educated ordinary
citizens about the great crime against humanity that was
slavery.
By the way, he had the task of distilling 2 years of
hearings, over 3,500 pages of hearings, into a short account
that would be accessible to members of parliament. I am feeling
kinship with the man as I sit here, because I have a lot to
say, now, and have about 2 minutes to say it.
But I want to bring your attention, on behalf of IJM--and
in so doing thank my colleague, Kelly Carter, who is a legal
intern with IJM helping me to prepare this testimony--to the
legal tools that are already in our grasp, as is fitting on the
200th anniversary of a very important law that was exacted.
I will discuss the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, that
we've already discussed today, also the U.S. Trade Act with
regard to preferences under the Generalized System of
Preferences, and as well as make mention of the Millennium
Challenge Account. All three are legal tools that are important
instruments for ending modern day slavery.
It is not so much the words of the law that need to be
changed, although I do hear some of the recommendations.
Rather, we need to see full and unvarnished implementation of
the law that we already have.
Let me start with TVPA. In my 25 years in the human rights
field, I think it's probably the most effective human rights
law, of many that have been enacted, that condition U.S.
foreign assistance on the performance of governments that would
be beneficiaries.
I think the most important reason why is that the law does
not require governments to end all crime within their borders.
That is not the standard. They do not put forward an
unattainable standard, nor do they require that poverty be
eradicated in every country in the world where there's a
trafficking program.
The requirement is that there be a good-faith effort to end
trafficking. For my money, a good-faith effort can actually be
measured. It can be monitored, measured, and quantified in the
form of, how is the government responding to the criminals who
engage in the crime of trafficking?
Trafficking is a different kind of crime than other crimes
which my organization works on. We're a service organization
which has field operations in 13 countries. We have all kinds
of human rights cases, a lot of rape cases, a lot of common
sexual violence against women and girls and boys, we do a lot
of police abuse cases.
But this crime is different. This is an economic crime. It
is a crime where there are clear victims and there are clear
perpetrators. The perpetrators are getting rich off of it.
Thus, a deterrence that could be measured in the form of number
of prosecutions and number of people that actually go to jail.
They don't just get a hand-slap, they go to jail, and they
would include officials that are colluding or turning a blind
eye. And because it is an economic crime, the prosecutions have
a disproportionate impact.
Let me explain. If we were to deter rape and sexual
violence in countries where it's just really epidemic, it's
going to take a lot of prosecutions to kind of change the
tolerance of that crime that is not economically motivated, for
the most part. And we're seeking to do that in countries where
that's the bulk of our case work, Guatemala, Uganda, Kenya, and
elsewhere.
But in the crime of trafficking in human beings, a couple
of prosecutions really have a disproportionate impact. And
that's why trying to assess government's alacrity in dealing
with this stain upon the national honor can be measured, and
should be measured, by the number of people that they're going
after and the jail time that they get.
I don't really see that happening. Countries that don't
want to provide information don't provide information. We don't
have any way to judge them. But it seems to me, if they want to
continue to be in good standing under the minimum requirements
in our law, they ought to be held to account in that regard and
we ought to do something about that.
Accordingly, we need more sort of political support to link
the two pieces of work in the GTIP office at the State
Department, the piece of work that is the reports, that are
excellent, getting better every year, and then the piece of
work that is the diplomatic recommendations, the foreign aid
assessments, et cetera.
Let me turn, now, to the Trade Act. Interestingly, a piece
of legislation that I am proud to say I did a little work on
back in 1988, which is the labor rights and worker rights
conditionality on trade benefits, (duty-free treatment for
developing countries to bring their products into the United
States.)
The standards are written differently than the TVPA, but
it's the same category of crimes. It's slavery. It's labor
slavery, it's child prostitution, it's child labor, and it's
debt bondage and forced and bonded labor, almost the exact same
category of crimes as named in the TVPA.
We're not seeing, at the present time, the real,
extraordinarily useful tool of the USTR holding hearings on
some well-known violators and on some extraordinarily important
export products that have been tainted with child labor. We're
not seeing that kind of scrutiny that would really be helpful.
I don't mean to bring a negative tone to the hearing, but
in looking at the latest report that's available from the USTR,
a quick glance indicates that in 2005 there did not appear to
be a single labor rights, or workers' rights, or any slavery
case even taken up for review.
The only cases taken up for review by the Trade
Representative were those brought by economic interests in the
United States. I'm not saying that was an inappropriate thing
to do, I just think we need to have a little support--
bipartisan support for a thorough look at the conditions of
worker rights, and particularly forced labor slavery and child
prostitution in some of our major trading partners. I would
love to see those benefits linked to the tier status that we
already have in motion.
The third--oh, my goodness. I'm way over time. But I want
to just glancingly mention the Millemium Challenge Account,
because it's a lot of money and it goes to countries that have
been found to be good actors in terms of governance. It's an
inspired and brilliant idea to use the good offices of the
United States' foreign assistance in very large amounts to
support reform. Good governance includes anti-corruption
efforts.
The linkage between government corruption and trafficking
and slavery is like this: you cannot traffick in human beings
without the government at least turning a blind eye. In that
way it's different than, say, bringing heroin across borders.
This is people we're talking about, live people, my size.
We've had cases of little girls in prostitution that were
delivered to the people that bought them by the police.
We have, on undercover camera taken by our undercover
operatives posing as customers--our guys will literally
negotiate police protection, you know, with a high-ranking
police officer so as to pretend to take this child out.
We should look carefully at trafficking and the work that
governments are doing, because there are some who are
prosecuting these cases, and jail time is coming to pimps, and
brothel owners, and prosecutors, and labor traffickers, et
cetera. Look at that in the context of MCA and you've really
got something to measure, and a darned incentive for
governments to do well.
Well, in closing, I would just say that--that writing the
good law is just the first step. And making the law live for
the people who need it the most is another matter.
You know, the law that was enacted 200 years ago yesterday
didn't actually start to have value and meaning in the lives of
men, women and children who were chained aboard ships that were
transiting the middle passage until the Government of Great
Britain sent ships out to interdict them, literally.
The difference between life and death and freedom and
slavery was when someone actually sent a ship out there. And
that didn't happen really effectively for many years.
The law was the beginning. The work, the work to save human
lives, is what followed. This hearing's a part of that, and I
thank you very much. Sorry to go over time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burkhalter appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much.
Let me acknowledge, also, the presence of Dr. Helga Konrad,
whom I met earlier. Raise your hand. Thank you for joining us.
She's the former Austrian Federal Minister for Women's Issues
and served as a Special Representative on Combatting
Trafficking in Human Beings at the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe from 2004 to 2006. Thank you so much
for joining us.
My apologies, first, to the panel of witnesses for asking
you to restrict your comments on this to five minutes. It's
almost impossible. It reminds me of the time that I was invited
to speak and the host said: ``Take the first 3 minutes to
highlight your Congressional career.''
[Laughter.]
And I said, ``three minutes? How can I do it in 3 minutes?
'' He said, ``Speak slowly.''
[Laughter.]
I know that each of you could have spoken a lot longer. And
let's hope that during the questioning period, that we can get
into a more in-depth discussion about some of the aspects that
you raised.
Before we get started, Ms. Becker, you made a distinction
which I want to put on the record here between smuggling and
trafficking, two different things. Because many of the things
we've heard here suggests that people are being brought to the
United States illegally and others not illegally. Could you
make that distinction for the record?
Ms. Becker. Yes, Senator. Human smuggling, as you know, is
a crime that involves the deliberate evasion of immigration
laws. In a human smuggling case, you have individuals who are
actually moved across international borders.
In contrast, human trafficking, despite what the name
suggests, does not necessarily involve the movement of people
across an international border, or even across State lines.
Human trafficking is really about force, fraud or coercion, and
that is the key element that describes human trafficking.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Let's get into trafficking victims' services. I think
that's come up several times. Ms. Kaufka recommended that
trafficking victims be eligible for a T visa, Federal benefits,
even if law enforcement declines to investigate or prosecute
the case. Under current law, a victim can generally only
receive Federal benefits if there's an ongoing investigation or
prosecution.
Ms. Becker, would this change in the law help you to have
witnesses step forward and to prosecute cases of trafficking?
Ms. Becker. Let me say at the outset, Senator, that we
think the system currently is working and we are being able to
find victims using our victim-centered approach. And just to
clarify, under the TVPA and the regulations, victims of a
severe form of trafficking who are willing to cooperate with
law enforcement are entitled to: (1) assistance as ``potential
victims'', in other words benefits even before they are
certified by Health and Human Services; and, (2) benefits
whether or not there is a prosecution. There are mechanisms in
place to provide some services to these victims.
In addition, Senator, the anecdote raised by Ms. Kaufka,
which is a disturbing one about Padma, is, in the Justice
Department's viewpoint, not a systemic problem. There may be
individual instances where there has been delay, Senator, but
that is certainly not how we train the thousands of Federal,
State, and local law enforcement and NGOs. That is not the
policy that we are pursuing at the Justice Department.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Kaufka, what is your response?
Ms. Kaufka. It is correct that victims do have access to
some services before they are formally recognized. ``Formally
recognized'' means that they are given what is called
``continued presence'' or a T visa, which make victims eligible
for public benefits, permission to work legally in this
country, and legal status.
These protections are not available to our clients before
they can prove that they have cooperated in an investigation or
prosecution of a case.
There is limited funding available to victims to provide
for emergency care: housing, food, shelter, and some mental
health services. But that is temporary assistance and, in
Padma's case, will expire after a certain period of time.
Chairman Durbin. So while she was waiting, did you say a
year?
Ms. Kaufka. Yes.
Chairman Durbin. From the time that she reported----
Ms. Kaufka. She was ineligible for public benefits, she had
no health insurance, she was not given permission to work, and
she had no legal status.
Chairman Durbin. For a year?
Ms. Kaufka. For a year, both she and her daughters.
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask you about the family members.
You make a good point, that if a victim feels that if their
family members are going to be abused if they speak up, you say
bring the family members, unite them, so that will help the
prosecution in those cases.
Ms. Kaufka. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. Is that your experience?
Ms. Kaufka. Yes. We had a very successful case that was
prosecuted by the Department of Justice recently out of
Milwaukee, with a client who was a victim of domestic
servitude. She was trafficked and enslaved for 19 years. For
almost two decades, she had not seen her family.
Chairman Durbin. Nineteen years?
Ms. Kaufka. Nineteen years. Correct. And there were some
threats made to her family. The Department of Justice assisted
in paroling her parents into the U.S. for the last few months
of the investigation and trial.
Her parents provided an immense amount of support to my
client. She stated that she doesn't know if she would have been
able to do it without her parents here, knowing that they were
safe, and supporting her in the process.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Becker, what do you think about that
suggestion?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I think Ms. Kaufka mentioned the
Calimlim case, which is one where we have been able to bring
families, unite families, as the process is going on. I will
say that we have also done something similar while a victim
is--before the victim has gotten a T visa while they're still
under continued presence.
And also, under current law there is an opportunity for
victims' families to be able to come to the United States as
well an receive a derivative T visa.
Chairman Durbin. They can come to the United States?
Ms. Becker. Yes. You know, the visa program, of course, is
administered by the Department of Homeland Secunty. The Justice
Department's role is very limited. We investigate and prosecute
these cases.
We also, wherever we can, provide supporting documentation
for the victim pursuant to their request for continued presence
or for a T visa. Part of the T visa program provides that they
are able to have an opportunity to request their family come
over.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Kaufka, has that been your experience?
Ms. Kaufka. It is true that, under the statute, individuals
who are eligible for a T visa can also apply for derivative
status for qualifying family members. However, that process,
even the application for a T visa, often comes after the
initial investigation and prosecution of the case, after a
significant period of time. And in the examples that I provide
in the written testimony and talked about today, often that
support from family members needs to come sooner.
Some individuals may not be eligible for derivative status.
For example, in the Calimlim case, because the victim was not a
minor, her parents were not eligible to receive derivative
status. Therefore, at the conclusion of the case they did
return home to the Philippines. But in the meantime, again, the
family members provided a tremendous amount of support to her
and assisted her in providing ongoing cooperation with law
enforcement in the prosecution of the case.
Chairman Durbin. I'd like to ask the panel, but start with
Ms. Kaufka, how do you find these trafficking victims?
Ms. Kaufka. About half of our cases come to our
organization through service providers and half through law
enforcement. We, as well as the other service providers we work
with, provide ongoing training, often in collaboration with the
Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies, to
provide outreach. We offer training on the definitions of
trafficking versus smuggling, and we educate groups on some of
the issues that my colleagues on the panel have discussed.
For example, in Padma's case, it was a women's shelter that
we previously trained that recognized this was a trafficking
case, versus a domestic violence case and referred the client
to us.
Chairman Durbin. I guess I'm a little stunned by the
examples you're giving in Illinois. It just shows how naive I
was going into this hearing that this is happening right in the
State that I represent.
Ms. Kaufka. Right. It's happening in Chicago, in the
suburbs, and in small towns.
Chairman Durbin. Yes. I assume that it's happening in many
other places across the country as well.
Ms. Kaufka. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. What is the scope of this problem in
Illinois, can you say?
Ms. Kaufka. We at the National Immigrant Justice Center
have represented over 70 international victims over the last 3
years. I don't think anyone can actually answer the question of
how many victims there are.
Victims of trafficking are not a self-identifying
population. No one is raising their hand and saying, ``I'm a
victim of slavery and trafficking,'' which is why I think it's
very important for all of us that are here today to continue
doing the work that we're doing. We must enhance victim
protections and prosecute traffickers, and provide good
training and outreach on the issue.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Becker, can you help me? I'm trying to
figure out, if you're on the prosecutorial side of this thing
and you want the cooperation of the victims, you need the
cooperation of the victims for anything to go forward, and yet
the victims may not be eligible for some benefits unless you
have an ongoing investigation or prosecution. So would there--
would it make any sense to eliminate that requirement to
provide some of these services and benefits?
Ms. Becker. Well, Senator, to clarify, the Justice
Department's role is to provide the supporting documentation,
as I said, that the person--that the victim, No. 1, is a victim
of a severe form of trafficking, and No. 2, is cooperative with
reasonable requests by law enforcement during the course of the
investigation.
Even if the case is never prosecuted, that victim is still
entitled to benefits and may apply for a T visa. A T visa is
sought by the victim while continued presence is sought by law
enforcement. Continued presence is one year in duration and a T
visa is now 4 years in duration. Both are renewable.
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask about one other aspect of the
TVPA, and perhaps Ms. Burkhalter or Ms. Vandenberg can speak to
it. The reauthorization in 2003 included a civil cause of
action for trafficking victims to sue the perpetrators in U.S.
courts.
Since that time, over 1,000 victims have received T visas,
but only a handful have brought civil lawsuits. Could anyone on
the panel comment about why there have been so few civil
lawsuits?
Ms. Vandenberg. Senator Durbin, there is--there's an effort
now to try and increase the civil legal resources available to
trafficking victims, but I think it is clear that the service
providers don't have adequate funding to provide the full
panoply of legal services that the victims need.
So while Katherine Kautha and her colleagues do an immense
amount in assisting victims make it through the criminal
process, holding their hands in some sense, there's not enough
funding and not enough manpower or womanpower to actually take
these cases all the way through civil cases. So many of the
service providers now turn to lawyers at law firms and there's
an effort nationwide to try and train pro bono attorneys to
take these cases.
But unfortunately that's not a panacea, because it still
requires quite a lot of the service provider's time to
supervise the outside attorneys and to make sure that they do
the cases appropriately without retraumatizing the victims.
Chairman Durbin. It sounds like there might be a question
as to the status of the plaintiff during the pending civil
lawsuit, whether they're going to be deported or face some
question about whether they can remain in the United States.
Ms. Vandenberg. That's absolutely the case. And in the
trafficking victim cases that I have dealt with, defense
attorneys have actually responded that our client has no
standing because she has no immigration status.
Chairman Durbin. Is the law clear on that issue?
Ms. Vandenberg. I believe it is. I think that that's simply
a red herring, but one that they throw out quite frequently.
On the issue, though, of uncertainty on immigration status,
I believe that it is still the case, and I would be interested
to hear from the Justice Department whether it is still the
case, I don't believe that the regulations have been issued yet
to permit trafficking victims to adjust their status. So T
visas only last for 3 years.
So what happens to those victims after 3 years when they'd
like to turn into permanent residents, but there aren't
regulations appropriate to permit them to do so?
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Becker, is that the case?
Ms. Becker. Senator Durbin, I'm not familiar with the
status--current status of the regulations. I think those may be
under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency.
Chairman Durbin. If you would help us make that a question
on record and make it part of our proceedings.
Let me speak about the issue of unaccompanied children, the
most vulnerable victims. Ms. Kaufka has proposed that whenever
a child is discovered to be a trafficking victim, law
enforcement should promptly contact HHS in order to supply
benefits and assistance. She talked about one of her clients,
Sonia, 15 years old, trafficked into a brothel in the U.S. from
El Salvador.
When Sonia was rescued from the brothel, instead of
receiving Federal assistance she was put into deportation
proceedings. Ms. Kaufka, how long did it take for Sonia to be
taken out of deportation and be referred to your office?
Ms. Kaufka. The entire process took about six to 9 months.
Chairman Durbin. What hoops did a child victim have to jump
through before receiving eligibility for benefits?
Ms. Kaufka. A number of hoops, actually, one even in
identifying her as a victim of human trafficking while she was
at a facility for unaccompanied minors and in deportation
proceedings in addition to building trust with her to learn of
her true circumstances.
Second, we faced a hurdle in convincing the proper
authorities that she was, indeed, a victim. When she was picked
up by authorities, she did not explicitly say that things
happened to her, although she was removed from a known brothel.
In fact, the brothel owner was charged with harboring, and, I
believe, other charges relating to prostitution.
The respective authorities--I believe Department of
Homeland Security--would not recognize her formally as a
victim. We had to go through HHS, which in turn had to consult
with the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland
Security to issue her what's called an eligibility letter to
make her eligible for services, including foster care. This
process did not adress her legal immigration status. It's very
complicated. She was finally able to access foster care and
other services while we were working on her immigration status,
specifically a T visa.
Chairman Durbin. So here you have a frightened 15-year-old
who has been enslaved in a brothel, finally comes forward to
try to find some justice, and runs smack dab into three
different Federal agencies, if not more, that are looking at
her from different perspectives: the Department of Justice, as
a witness in a prosecution; Health and Human Services as a
child; and Homeland Security as someone who's here
undocumented.
Ms. Kaufka. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. Do you have any recommendations on how we
might have made life a little easier for Sonia?
Ms. Kaufka. I think it would have helped to have an
advocate there for her right away. This should be done whenever
law enforcement encounters minors who may be potential victims
of trafficking. In this case, I used a--what I think is an
obvious example of a known brothel, a known pimp, and where a
child is removed from that situation.
However, I also work with a number of other children who
came into contact with law enforcement authorities who did not
recognize the potential trafficking situation and who, I
believe, should have known better. These authorities didn't
have the proper training to conduct a proper screening to
distinguish the child as a victim of human trafficking versus
the criminal activity that they child was subsequently charged
with.
I would recommend prouding an advocate or legal counsel
there immediately in addition to a referral to the Department
of Health and Human Services, which would be the appropriate
agency to deal with children and make the proper referrals.
Chairman Durbin. So there's no guardian-type person who
steps into this situation currently under the law?
Ms. Kaufka. Under the law right now, if there is a person
believed to be an unaccompanied minor, the Office of Refugee
Resettlement would takes custody or guardianship of the child,
while the child is often placed in removal proceedings or is
maybe seeking other types of legal immigration relief.
Chairman Durbin. Let me move to this question of government
contractors. Ms. Vandenberg, you raised that, I think, very
effectively here. I couldn't help think about when I was
reading, particularly the incident involving Bosnia. I couldn't
help think about the current controversy going on in Japan,
where Korean women are asking for an acknowledgement by the
Japanese, that they were exploited during World War II for
Japanese troops. It's obviously a very painful chapter in the
history of both countries.
But when you see these women, now very advanced in age,
talking about their exploitation, it really touched me when you
started talking about American contractors, paid for with
American tax dollars, who are now being found, or being
accused, of exploiting, in the case of Bosnia, women under like
circumstances. Did that parallel strike you?
Ms. Vandenberg. Well, ironically, the comfort women case is
yet another case that was dismissed before the U.S. Federal
courts when the comfort women tried to find a remedy in U.S.
Federal court under the Alien Tort Statute.
But the other parallel that you bring up is the victims.
And I think it's very important to focus on the victims and on
their human rights, and on the perspective that they bring to
this. And I raise that because I found that the investigations
conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina completely ignored the
victims.
The perpetrators, the men who bought women from the
brothels, most of them buying them from a brothel owner named
Debeli, bought their passports, sometimes bought them together
with weapons from the brothel owners. Those men said that they
had ``rescued'' the women, that they had purchased them out of
sexual slavery. No one bothered to actually interview the
women. No one asked them whether they had simply traded one
owner for another owner.
And that is why it is so important--I'd like to echo the
point that Ms. Kaufka just made about training. There is, I
think ineffective training at this point among DoD
investigators who are tasked with investigating these cases.
They need to take more care to interview the victims and to
discover the victims' perspectives.
One woman who was released by a contractor just before he
was repatriated to the United States on weapons charges, not
because he had purchased her but because he had purchased a
weapon alongside her, he was sent home to the United States.
He released her and gave her back her passport before--
before he left. She wandered into a International Police Task
Force station months later and said that she had lived with him
like a prostitute and that she--that he had held her passport
the entire time.
So from her perspective, he was just another trafficker.
And yet, I feel like the Department of Defense investigators
were inclined to believe his story that he was a rescuer.
Chairman Durbin. So the firearm violation, he was being
held responsible on a criminal basis, but not for any violation
relative to this woman?
Ms. Vandenberg. Well, Senator Durbin, to say he was held
responsible for a criminal violation would probably be an
exaggeration.
Chairman Durbin. Overstating.
Ms. Vandenberg. Because there have been no prosecutions
whatsoever. There have been no indictments. The Military
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, already in effect
for 7 years, has been used twice, and not once for a
trafficking case, not once.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Becker, I'm going to ask you a
question in a moment, but I want to recount what we've heard
here from Ms. Vandenberg and others.
In the 2005 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act, jurisdiction was expanded to allow U.S.
prosecutions of U.S. Government employees or contractors who
engage in human trafficking abroad. But as Ms. Vandenberg's
pointed out in her testimony, no one has been prosecuted.
Now, this writer from the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Cam Simpson,
wrote a series of articles in the Tribune about a trafficking
network that stretched from Kathmandu in Nepal to U.S. military
bases in Iraq.
Others have written about a Defense Department contractor
in Bosnia called DynCorp--I hope I pronounced that correctly--
which employed eight people who bought women from brothels in
1999 and 2000 and used them for sexual and domestic services,
and there have been no prosecutions.
Ms. Becker, you worked in the General Counsel's Office at
the Defense Department before joining the Justice Department.
Can you tell us why the U.S. Government hasn't done more to
punish U.S. contractors in Iraq and other foreign countries who
engage in human trafficking?
Ms. Becker. Yes, Senator. While I was working at Department
of Defense in the General Counsel's Office, I did not have
responsibility for human trafficking, I had a different
portfolio, so I cannot speak to the Department of Defense's
actions in that regard.
I can say that we do have a number of investigations
involving government contractors in foreign countries. As you
know, there is a 5-year statute of limitations for general
crimes, including this one. But we are--I can't say anything
beyond that, Senator, because I wouldn't want to jeopardize any
potential prosecution.
Chairman Durbin. I certainly don't want to jeopardize any
pending prosecution, because there haven't been many. We hope
that some will take place.
I'll go back to a point made by Ms. Burkhalter. This is, by
and large, an economic issue. It is much more than that, of
course. It's a moral issue. But there's a lot of money involved
in this. And if we start making it a costly undertaking,
perhaps we can change the economics of it.
In her testimony, Ms. Vandenberg proposed that victims
trafficked by the United States' contractors or employees
abroad be permitted to come to the U.S. to testify and receive
victim benefits like the T visa. Under current law, they're not
allowed to do so.
Ms. Becker, do you think that the TVPA should be revised to
permit these victims to come to our country?
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Senator. That is a proposal that we
recently received on Friday. I would--I would like the
opportunity to give that request additional thought.
Chairman Durbin. Would you get back to us on that? I'd like
to know the position of the Department on that.
Another proposal by Ms. Vandenberg is to require the
Justice Department, in its congressionally mandated annual
report on U.S. Government anti-trafficking activities, to
include an evaluation of Defense Department efforts.
I agree that would be valuable, and I would hope that the
public could use it to gauge how much progress our Department
of Defense is making in implementing its zero tolerance policy
on trafficking.
Ms. Becker, do you have any thoughts, or would you like to
wait and make sure you officially state the Department position
on requiring an annual Department of Justice report to include
a section on the Department of Defense's anti-trafficking
activities?
Ms. Becker. Yes, Senator, that is obviously something that
we'd want to consult with the Department of Defense with.
Chairman Durbin. I hope you will. It is ironic that we are
now policing our own departments of our government to see if
they're doing everything they're supposed to do on anti-
trafficking, but I think that point has been raised very
effectively.
Ms. Vandenberg, on that series that Mr. Simpson wrote, it
involved, you said, Halliburton, or Kellogg, Brown & Root, one
of the companies?
Ms. Vandenberg. That was the prime contractor. Yes,
Senator. But the actual allegations that Mr. Simpson made had
to do with subcontractors who were below at several tiers.
Chairman Durbin. And that is, I think, where it gets
complicated legally.
Ms. Vandenberg. Well, it gets complicated, but not as a
matter of criminal prosecution. It's complicated in terms of
sorting out the relationships and who was employing whom, but
under MEJA, subcontractors in any tier are also covered.
Chairman Durbin. The acknowledgement by our military in
Iraq that these contractors had to give back the passports of
those working for them seems to be an indication they realized
there's a problem.
Ms. Vandenberg. I believe so. And yet, it's troubling that
the Department of Defense Inspector General's report seemed
limited, and the investigations seemed limited, to these 12 men
and whether there was criminal responsibility for these 12 men,
because in the course of their investigation they interviewed
hundreds of third country nationals and didn't find a basis for
any criminal prosecution on the facts that they uncovered
relating to all of these other third country nationals, even
though they discovered widespread abuses, including seizing of
passports.
Chairman Durbin. Another issue which was raised here and I
think I'd like to speak to, is this whole question of human
trafficking right here in the Nation's Capital, or nearby, by
foreign diplomats.
This issue was discussed in an article entitled ``The
Slaves in Our Midst'' by Colbert King in the Washington Post,
National Public Radio has reported on a lawsuit recently filed
here in Washington, alleging a Kuwaiti military attache forced
three women from India to serve as domestic employees and child
care providers against their will. They worked more than 15
hours a day, earning less than 60 cents an hour.
One of the women said she was struck in the head by the
diplomat's wife, once with a wooden box and another time with a
package of frozen chicken.
Regardless of the merits of the suit, it's likely to be
dismissed on diplomatic immunity grounds, as have other similar
cases. According to the NPR story, there have been more than 40
instances of domestic servitude involving diplomats, but no
convictions.
One proposal to address this problem has been made by John
Miller, who, I mentioned earlier, worked at the State
Department in the anti-trafficking office. He's proposed the
State Department rescind the 2,000 personal servant visas it
issues each year. He argues that foreign diplomats serving in
the United States should hire Americans for their domestic
work.
Mr. King argued in his article that the State Department
should stop recommending immunity for diplomats in lawsuits
brought by domestic servants. He said the State Department
should define domestic service as part of the professional and
commercial activity exception to diplomatic immunity under the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This might lead
Federal judges to dismiss fewer lawsuits.
Ms. Becker, Ms. Vandenberg, what are your thoughts on these
proposals?
Ms. Becker. Senator, with respect to the--to the diplomatic
immunity, that is a State Department issue. Certainly I can
tell you with respect to diplomatic immunity--the Justice
Department cannot prosecute somebody who has diplomatic
immunity.
That being said, the Justice Department has brought cases
involving diplomats, where diplomatic immunity has not been an
issue. For example, in the District of Massachusetts, we
recently brought a case involving a foreign national from Saudi
Arabia who had a domestic labor trafficking case there, and
that matter was resolved through a guilty plea.
Chairman Durbin. What do you think, Ms. Vandenberg?
Ms. Vandenberg. As I recommended in my testimony--in my
written testimony, I would say that there needs to be a GAO
study on this issue, and I say that for two reasons. There is a
core group of lawyers and civil attorneys who try to bring
cases for victims of trafficking and find their efforts
thwarted by the State Department, unfortunately.
Those--those advocates have called the State Department and
tried to get the State Department to respond, and unfortunately
those advocates have also called--we have also called law
enforcement and law enforcement does not always respond because
they hear the word ``diplomat'' and go running for cover. So
it's--it's an enormous problem. It is an area of tremendous
impunity.
I think it unlikely, based on the filing that the
Department of State just made in the Gonzales case, the case
that Colby King wrote about, the Department of Justice has
recommended that that case, which is a worker exploitation and
not a trafficking case, be dismissed on grounds of diplomatic
immunity.
I would ask that the Department of Justice be far more
aggressive in trying to get waivers of diplomatic immunity and
prosecute these cases because it is absolutely shameful that
slavery is occurring in the United States and in Washington, DC
in the suburbs, slavery that we wouldn't tolerate if it were
being done by American citizens.
Chairman Durbin. I'm going to pursue that GAO report that
you've recommended. I also have to say that we have a
jurisdictional issue between committees, and I'm going to ask
Joe Biden of the Foreign Affairs Committee about the policy
aspects, because whatever we do to diplomats here, we can
expect to be done to us overseas, so we have to follow through
and find out what impact that might have.
Certainly I'm not suggesting any American diplomat is
involved in trafficking, but if you restrict whom they can
employ in an embassy, we should expect to run into the same
restrictions in terms of our own employment standards abroad.
Ms. Vandenberg. And Senator Durbin, we lawyers who are
working on behalf of victims trafficked by diplomats are very
sensitive to that point of view, which has been raised by the
Department of State.
And we're actually trying to work creatively at this point,
both with the Department of Justice and with the Department of
State, to try and find remedies that are perhaps unconventional
or would provide some sort of justice for these victims
without--without running flat into the issue of immunity.
Chairman Durbin. I'd like to ask the panel to consider
another issue which came up in the hearing we had earlier on
genocide. It's, I guess, euphemistically known as the ``safe
haven'' issue. We have a dual standard when it comes to the
people we prosecute for wrongdoing, those who've committed
crimes overseas.
If a person has been guilty of torture, material support
for terrorism, terrorism financing, the taking of hostages, and
many other Federal crimes, we allow for the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, that person
does not have to be a citizen of the United States, nor does he
have to have committed that crime here in the United States.
The fact that he would set foot on American soil makes him
subject to prosecution.
We use the example of Chucky Taylor of Liberia, who
decided, after being guilty of torture in his own country, to
come here and use some of his ill-gotten gains to buy a nice
house in Florida. Well, he's now facing prosecution for it.
We found that when it came to genocide, that those who were
engaged in genocide in Sudan could travel with impunity to the
United States. There was no extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Now I'd like to ask all of the members of the panel who
would like to comment whether they believe that the TVPA should
be revised so that non-U.S. citizens who engage in human
trafficking abroad can be prosecuted if they come to the United
States. Should the United States' law be changed to create
extraterritorial jurisdiction in the area of human trafficking?
Ms. Vandenberg. I'd like to address that, briefly, by
talking about one change in the law that we succeeded in making
in 2005, which was essentially an extension of MEJA so that we
could prosecute employees of other agencies.
MEJA only covered, at that stage, Department of Defense and
those with a nexus to the Department of Defense. We found that
contractors from the Department of State were also accused of
allegedly buying women from the brothels. So the TVPRA of 2005
does expand that jurisdiction.
The question of whether jurisdiction should be expanded to
cover everyone, frankly, I haven't considered it and I'd want
more time to think about it, if we could get back to you on
that. I think the community of non-governmental organizations
would like to consider that as an option, certainly.
Chairman Durbin. All right.
Any other comments? Ms. Burkhalter?
Ms. Burkhalter. IJM only works on victim relief and
perpetrator accountability abroad. We don't do domestic cases.
But in my many, many, many years in Human Rights Watch and
Physicians For Human Rights, I dealt with the issue of genocide
a lot.
I remember having--during the Rwanda genocide, serving
papers, since I was not the lawyer in the case--wasn't a lawyer
at all, as a matter of fact--to one of the militia leaders at
the height of the genocide, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, who was
later indicted by the tribunal, and serving him his papers on a
class action lawsuit we did on behalf of a bunch of Tutsis in
the United States who lost their entire families.
But on the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction, on
our kinds of cases we do a lot of American and European
pedophile cases against local kids in the countries where we
work. We've done some of these cases in Asia, and some in Latin
America.
The PROTECT Act, of course, has been great, and that's a
fairly new legal tool in the hands of human rights activists
which allows Americans engaged in crimes abroad to be
prosecuted back home. We just--you're not talking about that, I
know. But it is a useful thing.
We just worked on a case this fall of Terry Smith, who is
an American pedophile who was also violating young kids and
offering 13-year-old kids in Cambodia, which our undercover
operators discovered, got our contacts in the Cambodian police
to pick him up. They did a great job of it. But he later
managed to get out of jail on alleged health grounds.
Our investigators, working through Interpol, learned that
he was wanted on charges of abusing children in the United
States in the State of Oregon and he--when he decided to leave
Cambodia after his short stint in jail, Federal marshalls, in
cooperation with the Cambodian authorities, were there to pick
him up. He's now facing trial in the United States.
Chairman Durbin. But the case that I'm talking about--I
hate to interrupt you.
Ms. Burkhalter. I'm sorry.
Chairman Durbin. But what I'm going after is this. Let's
assume we have a notorious trafficker from a foreign country
who has never been alleged to have done anything in the United
States.
Ms. Burkhalter. Right.
Chairman Durbin. No trafficking in the United States, no
violation of law in the United States, but is well known to
have been a trafficker, perhaps prosecuted for it, in a foreign
country, who now, because of this economic crime, is very
wealthy and decides he wants to live in the United States.
Ms. Burkhalter. Right. Well, I can't speak for IJM, so I'll
speak personally.
Chairman Durbin. Can we----
Ms. Burkhalter. I think there----
Chairman Durbin. If I might finish.
Ms. Burkhalter. I think there ought to be universal
jurisdiction for crimes against humanity, and I think
trafficking and slavery are crimes against humanity.
Chairman Durbin. Well, I think that's where I'm going, too.
To think that the United States could somehow be a safe haven
for that individual to live the rest of their natural lives in
luxury because of their ill-gotten gains doesn't seem
consistent with the treaties we entered.
Ms. Burkhalter. Well, and you mentioned the--you mentioned
the fact that torture is a crime for which there is universal
jurisdiction. And in our experience, there has never been a
slavery case or a trafficking case that does not involve
constant violent abuse and torture of the victims.
Chairman Durbin. So there might be another angle.
Ms. Vandenberg. Senator Durbin, if I might just add
something. At this point, the record of prosecutions, based on
investigations conducted abroad--again, using the contractor
example--is not good.
And so I would reiterate, if you move in the general
direction of universal jurisdiction, there needs to be some
facility, some vehicle, to bring witnesses and victims to the
United States so that they can testify.
Ms. Burkhalter. And there need to be resources to
investigate those crimes abroad.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Becker, would you like to comment on
this?
Ms. Becker. Yes, just a couple of comments, Senator. First,
you know, we currently have cases where we do have victims and
witnesses abroad, and we have worked with OIA, International
Affairs in the Criminal Division, in order to get MLATs and use
other mechanisms such as an S visa in order to get the
witnesses that we need to come to the United States to testify
in particular cases.
I also wanted to mention, in the case that you had
described, Senator, there may be current options as well in
order to ensure that a non-U.S. citizen who engaged in human
trafficking abroad does not find the United States to be a safe
haven.
For example, if the country where that person is originally
from has a law against human trafficking and we have an
extradition treaty, we could, of course, extradite that
individual to the foreign country.
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask you, Ms. Becker. Are you
familiar with the GAO report of July, 2006 relating to our
prosecution of U.S. trafficking overseas?
Ms. Becker. I am aware that the GAO issued a report. I am
only vaguely familiar with the specifics of it.
Chairman Durbin. I'm going to ask you if you'll ask the
Department to respond to this question then, and I won't ask
you at this moment. This is the report, which I'm sure is
easily available.
But the report concluded, ``More than 5 years after the
passage of the landmark antitrafficking law, the U.S.
Government has not developed a coordinated strategy to combat
trafficking in persons abroad, as called for in a Presidential
directive, or evaluated its programs to determine whether
projects are achieving the desired outcomes.''
I'd appreciate it very much if you could ask the Department
if they would respond to this report, which was released a year
ago. But I'd like to have an official response, if we could, to
that as well.
The TVPA requires the State Department to issue an annual
report that ranks countries around the world as to their anti-
trafficking activities.
And I'm going to ask all the panelists, how effective has
the annual Trafficking in Persons office report been in holding
foreign countries accountable in the fight against human
trafficking? Has the U.S. Government imposed sanctions on any
countries for their failure to make adequate progress? If
anybody knows.
Ms. Burkhalter. Well, the--what we have found in some of
the countries where we work is that the threat of sanctions for
countries that are on tier three has been extremely useful,
particularly for countries that are--really desire U.S. foreign
assistance.
And when a block of U.S. foreign aid, non-humanitarian aid,
is potentially at risk, combined with good, strong, solid
private diplomacy with a good Ambassadorial presence and
staffed there, it can be very useful.
My colleague and boss, Sharon Cohen says, and not meaning
to make light of it, that the best time to be a victim of
trafficking is in the period leading up to June when the report
is being compiled, because in some countries where, you know,
you're demanding--particularly the statistics on prosecutions,
local prosecutions--because you don't get deterrence of the
crime unless you get prosecutions--that literally, all of a
sudden, will have--we work with local law enforcement.
We aren't local law enforcement, but we work with them,
imperfect and badly trained and under-resourced as they
sometimes are. There are police of good will everywhere. And
all of a sudden our effort, will get a little boost when our
local diplomats, those of good will who take this very
seriously indeed in many embassies around the world, come
around asking for information.
I'm not going to speak about any specific countries. We're
operational, and I would not embarrass those officials and
leaders of good will who make it possible to bring cases. But I
would--I would speak to you privately and your staff privately
about places where a bit more candor would be much appreciated.
Chairman Durbin. Well, since you feel a little
uncomfortable in reading the names of the countries, I'll just
go ahead and read them. They are tier three countries in the
June, 2006 Trafficking in Persons report from the Department of
State.
The countries are: Belize, Burma, Cuba, Iran, Laos, North
Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and
Zimbabwe. And because I don't want to put you in an indelicate
position here, I don't know if you know how many of these
countries receive Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, trade
benefits.
Ms. Burkhalter. I've actually got the list here, if you
give me a second. Maybe others would like to respond. Let's
take a look at GSP.
Chairman Durbin. If anybody else would like to comment.
Ms. Vandenberg. I can't answer that specific question, but
while Ms. Burkhalter is looking I'd like to make two points
about--about the TIP report every year. I would disagree
slightly with Ms. Burkhalter that it's a great time to be a
victim around the time that the stats are due, because
prosecutions don't always operate in the best interests of
victims.
The victims who are forced to testify who don't receive
witness protection, who don't receive any kind of benefits or
protections from the State, when a State is fighting to gain
prosecutions but at the expense of victims in order to stay off
of tier three of the TIP report, then I think we have a real
problem.
And so there needs to be, I think, added emphasis on the
services that are provided to victims in order to generate the
kinds of prosecution statistics that countries like to brag
about.
The second issue is talking to nongovernmental organization
leaders in countries like Bosnia. They find--and in Romania as
well. They sometimes find that the lack of first tier status of
their own country--their governments sometimes blame that on
the nongovernmental organizations themselves. They see
nongovernmental organizations as organizations that are airing
the country's dirty laundry and putting the country's status at
risk.
So, there are two phenomena relating to nongovernment
organizations that we've seen in the TIP report. One, is that
NGO's are blamed when countries get a bad tier rating. The
second, is that nongovernmental organizations are sometimes not
fully credited. Sometimes States actually get the credit for
the work that NGO's do rather than the nongovernmental
organizations themselves getting credit for sometimes working
in a hostile environment.
Ms. Burkhalter. That's a good point.
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Burkhalter?
Ms. Burkhalter. She raises a good point, by the way, and I
wouldn't disagree with it. I would also say that when you're
working locally and you're trying to get perpetrator
accountability so as to deter this crime, you are--you know,
you're not working with the best police forces in the world.
What we try to do at IJM is bring up standards and watch to
protect both the victims and people who are collaterally
affected, and it is kind of a building block thing. But I take
both those points. I think they're very useful.
I'm just quickly checking the eligibility. I only see, of
those you named, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Frankly, in both cases
I'd be sort of surprised if too much were coming in duty-free.
I'd have to--I'd have to go back. This is either the latest we
could get--it's a February 2005 document, however.
But the rest of the countries you named, if you don't mind
me saying so, sort of look like the official enemies list. None
of us would be eager to see Burma get anything, one might add;
ditto, Cuba, and some of the other places.
I just think there's been progress in this area, but this
cannot look like the sort of friends and enemies of the United
States club. It is important that there be an honest eye.
I know that there's something of a diplomatic tussle over
this every year because it is--it's difficult for other U.S.
interests to hold friends accountable for egregious crimes.
And I might add, the United States failing to clean its own
house in this regard does not enhance our ability to be an
upholder of these standards, but I do think we should do
better.
Chairman Durbin. One last point I'd like to ask you. You
mentioned the Millennium Challenge accounts.
Ms. Burkhalter. Yes.
Chairman Durbin. So do we take this into account, how
countries are doing when it comes to trafficking enforcement,
their own laws?
Ms. Burkhalter. You'd have to ask MCA administrators. I've
not liaised with them yet, but I'm sure going to, because some
of the countries where we work that are kind of threshold
countries, that means they're almost eligible, and this is a
wonderful time diplomatically to really bring them along
because if they--in an accountable way.
We lose cases every week, we and the prosecutors working
with us, just lose cases--more cases because of corruption than
any other factor, much more so than--to my knowledge than, lack
of training, and all of the sort of economic factors.
Lose more cases, and not just trafficking cases, though the
corruption issue is much greater on trafficking because there's
a lot of money involved. In a common rape case, for example, we
see bribery sometimes. We'll lose a case, when some local
official has been paid off, or asked to be paid off by the--by
the family.
But the real issue here is corruption in the trafficking
cases. And again, there's tangible things to look at, keeping
in mind Ms. Vandenberg's caveat in that regard.
Chairman Durbin. Any points that anybody would like to
raise before we close the hearing that you believe are still
outstanding that we haven't touched on?
Ms. Kaufka. I'd like to just followup on the earlier
comments about expanding jurisdiction abroad. As a service
provider, I would emphasize that if this is considered, we also
should consider protections for victims here.
At the National Immigrant Justice Center, for example, we
see many women who have been trafficked abroad, for example,
trafficked from Albania or Moldova into Italy or Greece. They
flee because of the impunity that Ms. Vandenberg mentioned
earlier, and because of the corruption within their own police
force and governments. They are unable to return home based on
threats to themselves, or to their family members, and they
have no relief in the United States under the TVPA because the
trafficking did not occur within the borders of the United
States.
So, I would consider either extending T visas to those
individuals or expanding asylum law to include victims of
trafficking as a particular social group.
Chairman Durbin. I want to thank the panel. I'm trying to
reflect on this issue, which I've tried to study closely for
this hearing. It's clear that it's a relatively new law that
we're dealing with here. It's a huge problem. It's a complex
prosecution problem, trying to find a witness, trustworthy
witness, that comes forward that can help you prosecute a case
that could involve a court fight and a long period of time.
I think, despite the statistic that Ms. Becker noted, that
in 6 years our prosecutions are up 600 percent, that I think we
all agree that we can do better, and we need to do better.
Some of the suggestions made by Ms. Kaufka and others about
how to make these prosecutions more effective by being more
sensitive to the victims and their families, I think, is a
point well taken and it's something that the law should
recognize.
But I return to a couple points here that still trouble me,
the point made by Ms. Vandenberg about our government
contractors and the fact that they are--they seem to be dealing
with impunity in this field. I mean, that really reflects on
us.
If you're right, Ms. Burkhalter, that you can't find human
trafficking abroad without government corruption, what does it
say about us that we would have government contractors involved
in some forms, directly or indirectly, of human trafficking and
not prosecute those cases?
Some other committee someplace else in the world could be
holding a hearing today, saying, you know, it's probably a case
of corruption in America that's led to this situation. I hope
that's not the case, but I think we have to find a way to make
sure that our contractors, these companies that our tax dollars
sustain, are held accountable and understand the economics of
their decision, if not the criminality of their decision.
And, finally, I think that when we're dealing with these
other countries around the world, we can do a lot better in
being much more aggressive in trying to set standards when it
comes to human trafficking, particularly in our bilateral
relations with these countries so that they know we are
extremely serious about this.
I thank the panel. I thank all of you for being here today.
I want to thank Mike Zubrensky on my staff for bringing this
hearing together, and our staffers, Reema Dodin, Justin
Steffen, and Joe DeMaria, to help prepare for this hearing.
The record will be kept open for a week for those who want
to submit written questions to the members of the panel, and
for responses that we might have elicited by our questioning.
I thank you all for being here today. The Subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 37695.054