Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues
for Congress
Alison Siskin
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Liana Sun Wyler
Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics
January 12, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34317
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Summary
Trafficking in persons (TIP) for the purposes of exploitation is believed to be one of the most
prolific areas of international criminal activity and is of significant concern to the United States
and the international community. According to U.S. government estimates, roughly 800,000
people are trafficked across borders each year. If trafficking within countries is included in the
total world figures, some 2 million to 4 million people may be trafficked annually. As many as
17,500 people are believed to be trafficked into the United States each year, and some have
estimated that 100,000 U.S. citizen children are victims of trafficking within the United States.
Notably, TIP is a modern form of slavery and does not have to include the movement of a person.
Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, Div. A of P.L. 106-386), and its
reauthorizations (TVPRAs), Congress has aimed to eliminate human trafficking by creating grant
programs for both victims and law enforcement, appropriating funds, creating new criminal laws,
and conducting oversight on the effectiveness and implications of U.S. anti-TIP policy. Most
recently, the TVPA was reauthorized through FY2011 in the William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA of 2008, P.L. 110-457).
Two of the bills introduced in the 112th Congress to reauthorize the TVPA have received action. S.
1301 was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and H.R. 2830 was ordered reported by
the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The bills would make changes to the act and extend
authorizations for some current programs. S. 1301 would extend TVPA authorizations through
FY2015, and H.R. 2830 through FY2013. As Congress considers reauthorization of the TVPA,
the current budget situation has heightened interest in oversight and funding of current efforts to
fight TIP. Obligations for global and domestic anti-TIP programs, not including operations and
law enforcement investigations, totaled approximately $109.5 million in FY2010. The TVPRA of
2008 authorized $191.3 million in global and domestic anti-TIP programs for FY2011.
Overall, issues related to U.S. anti-TIP efforts include the effectiveness of current programs,
whether there is duplication among these programs, and whether there is sufficient oversight of
monies spent on anti-trafficking activities. Ongoing international policy issues include how to
measure the effectiveness of the U.S. and international responses to TIP, the U.S. Department of
State’s annual country rankings and the use of unilateral sanctions, and how to prevent known sex
offenders from engaging in international child sex tourism. Domestic issues include whether there
is equal treatment of all victims—both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, as well as victims of
labor and sex trafficking; and whether current law and services are adequate to deal with the
emerging issue of domestic child sex trafficking (i.e., the prostitution of children in the United
States). Other overarching issues include whether all forms of prostitution (i.e., children and
adults) fit the definition of TIP, and whether sufficient efforts are applied to addressing all forms
of TIP, including not only sexual exploitation, but also forced labor and child soldiers.
In June 2011, the State Department issued its annual, congressionally mandated TIP Report. In
addition to outlining major trends and ongoing challenges in combating TIP, the report provides a
country-by-country analysis and ranking, based on what progress countries have made in their
efforts to prosecute traffickers, protect victims, and prevent TIP. The report categorizes countries
according to the government’s efforts to combat trafficking, with the worst-performing countries
at risk of losing selected non-humanitarian, nontrade-related U.S. foreign assistance. For FY2012,
TIP sanctions were fully imposed on three of the worst-performing countries: Eritrea,
Madagascar, and North Korea.
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope of the Problem................................................................................................................. 2
Continuing Human Trafficking Challenges............................................................................... 4
U.S. Response: Interagency Funding and Coordination............................................................ 5
Domestic and Overseas Obligated Funds............................................................................ 5
Interagency Coordination.................................................................................................... 6
International Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons................................................................... 7
U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons ................................... 7
Other Relevant International Agreements ................................................................................. 7
Key U.S. Foreign Policy Responses in the TVPA..................................................................... 8
Foreign Aid.......................................................................................................................... 8
The 2011 TIP Report ......................................................................................................... 10
2011 TIP Report Country Designations and Trends.......................................................... 11
2008 Provision: Automatic Downgrade from Tier 2 Watch List....................................... 15
Aid Restrictions to Tier 3 Countries for FY2012.............................................................. 16
Trafficking in the United States ..................................................................................................... 17
Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States..................................................................... 18
Official Estimates of Human Trafficking in the United States ................................................ 19
Estimates Into the United States........................................................................................ 19
Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States.......................................... 20
Response to Trafficking within the United States.......................................................................... 22
Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims............................................................................. 22
T Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 22
Continued Presence........................................................................................................... 26
U Nonimmigrant Status..................................................................................................... 26
Aid Available to Victims of Trafficking in the United States .................................................. 28
Health and Human Services Grants................................................................................... 29
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime ......................................................... 31
Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 32
Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses .................................................................... 32
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center ....................................................................... 34
TVPA Reauthorization Activity in the 112th Congress................................................................... 35
H.R. 2830 as reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee: The Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011.................................................................. 35
S. 1301 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee: The Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011 ............................................................................... 38
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................................. 42
Credibility of TIP Rankings..................................................................................................... 43
U.S. Sanctions: A Useful Tool? ............................................................................................... 43
Equal Focus on all Types of Trafficking?................................................................................ 43
Forced Labor: A Growing TIP Problem?................................................................................. 44
Debates Regarding Prostitution and Sex Trafficking .............................................................. 44
Distinctions Between Trafficking and Alien Smuggling ......................................................... 45
How to Measure the Effectiveness of Global Anti-TIP Programs........................................... 46
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims .............................................. 46
Stringency of T Determination.......................................................................................... 47
Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims ..................................................................... 47
Victims’ Safety .................................................................................................................. 47
Funding and Authority to Assist U.S. Citizen and LPR Victims of Trafficking...................... 48
Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services ..................................................................... 49
Oversight of Domestic Grants ................................................................................................. 50
Figures
Figure 1. Anti-TIP Obligations by Agency: FY2005-FY2010......................................................... 6
Figure 2. International Anti-TIP Obligations by Region: FY2005-FY2010.................................. 10
Tables
Table 1. Anti-TIP Assistance through the Foreign Operations Budget............................................ 8
Table 2. Global Prosecutions of TIP Offenders, 2003-2010 .......................................................... 11
Table 3. Tier 1 Countries in 2011 TIP Report, by Region.............................................................. 12
Table 4. Tier 2 Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region........................................................ 13
Table 5. Tier 2 Watch List Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region ..................................... 14
Table 6. Tier 3 Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region........................................................ 14
Table 7. Countries at Risk of Auto-Downgrade to Tier 3 in the 2011 and 2012 TIP
Reports........................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 8. Number of Suspected Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Victims by Location ................ 21
Table 9. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2011......................................................................... 25
Table 10. U Visas Issued 2009-2011.............................................................................................. 27
Table 11. H.R. 2830 and S. 1301: Comparison of Authorizations of Appropriations.................... 40
Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement Victims of Trafficking Act ............................... 59
Table B-2. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as Amended
Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2011..................................................................... 61
Table C-1. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims of
Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012 .................................................................... 62
Appendixes
Appendix A. Anti-Trafficking Administrative Directives and Legislation .................................... 51
Appendix B. Trafficking Funding Issues ....................................................................................... 59
Appendix C. Appropriations for Grant Programs for Domestic TIP Victims ................................ 62
Appendix D. Legislation in the 111th Congress ............................................................................. 64
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 66
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 66
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Overview
Trafficking in persons (TIP) for the purposes of exploitation is both an international and a
domestic crime that involves violations of labor, public health, and human rights standards. As
such, the United States and the international community have committed to combating the various
manifestations of human trafficking. Anti-TIP efforts have accelerated in the United States since
the enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, Div. A of P.L. 106-386),
and internationally since the passage of the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish
Trafficking in Persons, adopted in 2000. Congress has been active in enacting anti-TIP laws,
appropriating funds, and authorizing and evaluating anti-trafficking programs. Since 2000,
Congress reauthorized the TVPA three times, most recently in 2008. The 110th Congress passed
the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA of 2008, P.L.
110-457), which, among other provisions, authorized appropriations for FY2008 through FY2011
and established a requirement for the President to develop a system to evaluate the effectiveness
of TIP assistance. The 112th Congress has introduced several bills related to human trafficking,
including bills to reauthorize the TVPA beyond FY2011.
This report focuses on international and domestic human trafficking and U.S. policy responses,
with particular emphasis on the TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations. The report begins with
an overview of the human trafficking problem. It follows with an analysis of the TVPA’s primary
foreign policy responses to international human trafficking. The report then focuses on responses
to trafficking into and within the United States, examining relief for trafficking victims in the
United States and discussing U.S. law enforcement efforts to combat domestic trafficking. The
report concludes with an overview of current anti-trafficking legislation and an analysis of policy
issues. Notably, TIP is a modern form of slavery and does not have to include the movement of a
person from one location to another.
Definitions
The United Nations and the United States generally characterize human trafficking in similar
terms. Neither definition of human trafficking requires the movement of a person from one
location to another for the situation to qualify as human trafficking. The United Nations defines
human trafficking as:
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, by means of the
threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception, of the
abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the
purpose of exploitation. Exploitation includes, at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude, or the removal of organs.1
Additional examples of human trafficking exploitation suggested by the United Nations include
forced involvement in criminal activities; begging, including child begging; forced marriage;
1 United Nations, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto,
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/
UNTOC/Publications/TOC%20Convention/TOCebook-e.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
illicit adoption; and exploitation in the military, including child soldiers and forced participation
in armed conflicts.2
The TVPA, as amended, does not define human trafficking per se. However, it does define
“severe forms of human trafficking” as:
Sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in
which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or ... the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or
services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to
involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.3
In the case of minors, there is general agreement in the United States and much of the
international community that the trafficking term applies, regardless of whether a child was
recruited, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained by force, fraud, coercion, or voluntarily.
Illegal adoptions, however, do not necessarily involve human trafficking, particularly if the
children are not taken for the purpose of some form of exploitation. In some, but not all,
circumstances, child pornography may involve human trafficking; visual depictions and
renderings of pornography appearing to involve children may not be considered human
trafficking alone, though the exploitation of a child for a commercial sex act constitutes human
trafficking. In both the U.N. and U.S. definitions, there is no distinction between trafficking
domestically within the borders of a single country and international or cross-border trafficking.
The U.S. definition omits the removal of organs as a severe form of human trafficking and makes
a distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking. Notably, transnational trafficking may
involve trafficking victims and traffickers crossing political boundaries overtly and covertly,
legally and illegally.
Distinctions also exist between human trafficking and human smuggling. Human smuggling
typically involves the provision of a service, generally procurement or transport, to people who
knowingly consent to that service in order to gain illegal entry into a foreign country. In some
instances, an individual who appears to have consented to being smuggled may actually be a
trafficked person if, for example, force, fraud, or coercion are found to have played a role.
Scope of the Problem
Human trafficking is widely considered to be one of today’s leading criminal enterprises and is
believed to affect virtually all countries around the globe. Data on the nature and severity of the
problem, however, are both limited and varied.4 According to the International Labor
Organization (ILO), for example, as many as 12.3 million adults and children around the world
may be current victims of forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution.5 According to the
2 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Human Trafficking: An Overview, 2008.
3 §103(8) of Div. A of P.L. 106-386.
4 Note that the accuracy of estimates on the scope of TIP has been questioned. For example, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2006 casting doubt on the methodology and reliability of official U.S.
government figures. It concluded that the “U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for
estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of trafficking related data that resides within
various government agencies.” See GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance
U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad, GAO-06-825, July 2006.
5 International Labor Organization (ILO), ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, April 2005.
Congressional Research Service
2
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
United Nations, governments reported that from 1996 to 2003, human trafficking victims
originated in 127 countries and were exploited in 137 countries.6 The U.S. government estimates
that approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across global borders each year—at
least 56% of which involve female victims.7 If trafficking within countries is included in the total
world figures, official U.S. estimates are that 2 million to 4 million people are trafficked annually.
Other organizations also track data associated with human trafficking. The non-profit
organization Free the Slaves estimates that there are 27 million “slaves” in the world today.8
Another estimate suggests that there may be at least 2.4 million persons in the process of being
trafficked for forced labor at any given moment and generating profits as high as $32 billion,
according to ILO.9 In Latin America alone, the International Organization for Migration (IOM)
estimates that TIP in women and girls for sexual exploitation may be worth $16 billion annually.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) estimated in 2006 that human trafficking generates
approximately $9.5 billion annually for organized crime.10
Despite such estimates of the global prevalence of human trafficking, there remain significant
gaps in effective responses to the problem. According to the State Department’s 2011 Trafficking
in Persons Report (TIP Report), 62 countries have yet to convict a human trafficker under anti-
trafficking laws in compliance with international standards.11
In most reported instances, TIP involves the movement of victims across national borders. Such
international, or cross-border, trafficking may differ in the relative distances from a victim’s
country of origin and the location where the victimization takes place. Most international TIP
occurs between countries within the same geographic region or between neighboring countries. In
other instances, international trafficking involves long-distance flows—across continents or
across distinct geographic regions.
International patterns of victim flows also differ in terms of the frequency with which destination
country authorities identify victims from a certain region of origin and the breadth of foreign
countries in which victims of a certain region of origin are found. For example, East Asians have
been reportedly found in more than 20 countries across at least five distinct geographic regions
(Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa). By contrast, victims from West
Africa are detected mainly in just a few countries in Europe, but with a greater frequency of
detection than East Asians.12
Throughout the world, sex trafficking victims have traditionally ended up in large cities, in
vacation and tourist areas, or near military bases, where the demand for sex workers is high. In
addition to the sex industry, forced labor trafficking victims are subjected to work in seasonal
agriculture, manufacturing (particularly the garment industry), construction, and domestic
6 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns, April 2006.
7 Most recently cited in U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010.
8 Kevin Bales, President of Free the Slaves, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2004 (revised edition).
9 International Labor Organization (ILO), ILO Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 2008.
10 This figure was cited in the U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2006.
11 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2011.
12 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human
Trafficking (UNGIFT), Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
service. These global trends may change, however, as traffickers adapt to new or emerging
vulnerabilities and opportunities.
A potentially significant but largely undocumented amount of trafficking also occurs within
countries. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), such domestic
trafficking occurs in both geographically large and socioeconomically stratified countries, such as
India and Brazil, but also among relatively small and wealthy countries, such as those in Europe.
Recent research also indicates that domestic trafficking occurs within the United States.13
Continuing Human Trafficking Challenges
Human trafficking is not a new phenomenon, and many factors may account for its continued
existence. In general, the trafficking business feeds on conditions of vulnerability, including
youth; gender; poverty or acute economic crisis; ignorance; social and cultural exclusion; political
instability, social upheaval, war, and conflicts; and discriminatory social, cultural, and legal
frameworks. Ongoing demand for cheap labor and commercial sex also perpetuates the
trafficking industry. The globalization of the world economy has increased the movement of
people across borders, legally and illegally, especially from poorer to wealthier countries.
International organized crime has taken advantage of the freer flow of people, money, goods, and
services to extend its own international reach. Other contributing factors include
• The continuing subordination of women in many societies, as reflected in
economic, educational, and employment disparities between men and women.14
Poverty and a lack of educational and job opportunities in many countries may
put children, especially girls, from families with multiple children at risk.
• The hardship and economic or physical dislocation caused by conflict,
humanitarian disasters, and vulnerability of people in other situations of political
crisis. Refugees, internally displaced persons, and those who are stateless (i.e.,
lacking identity documents) may also be particularly vulnerable to trafficking.15
• The tendency to treat trafficking victims as criminals, which has made many
victims reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement.16
• The inadequacy of laws and law enforcement capacity in some origin, transit, and
destination countries hampers efforts to fight trafficking. Even if countries have
specific laws aimed at TIP, enforcement of such laws is sporadic, and penalties
for trafficking humans are often relatively minor compared with those for other
criminal activities.
13 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human
Trafficking (UNGIFT), Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009.
14 United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), “ Trafficking in Persons, A Gender & Rights Perspective
Briefing Kit,” 2002.
15 A variety of studies are discussed in Sally Cameron and Edward Newman, “Trafficking in Humans: Structural
Factors,” in Trafficking in Humans: Social Cultural and Political Dimensions, New York: U.N. University Press, 2008.
16 Janie Chuang, “Beyond a Snapshot: Preventing Human Trafficking in the Global Economy,” Indiana Journal of
Global Legal Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, Winter 2006.
Congressional Research Service
4
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• The disinterest in investigating or prosecuting complex trafficking cases,
particularly in which there might be government complicity, according to State
Department officials.17
U.S. Response: Interagency Funding and Coordination
In response to the ongoing scourge of human trafficking and as part of its international
commitments to eradicate the problem globally, the U.S. government supports many types of anti-
TIP initiatives overseas and domestically. Most U.S. anti-trafficking activities are authorized by
the TVPA, as amended, which also established the interagency coordination framework for U.S.
government-wide programs to combat human trafficking.
Domestic and Overseas Obligated Funds
Overall, between FY2001 and FY2010, U.S. agencies have obligated an estimated $771 million
on domestic and international anti-TIP assistance.18 FY2011 obligations by agency are not yet
available for all agencies. In FY2010, the U.S. government obligated an estimated $85.3 million
for international anti-trafficking assistance programs, up from $83.7 million obligated in FY2009.
In FY2010, the U.S. government obligated roughly $24.2 million for domestic anti-TIP programs,
an increase from $19.7 million obligated in FY2009. The total for domestic obligations does not
include the costs of administering TIP operations or TIP-related law enforcement investigations.
17 Ambassador Mark P. Lagon, Former Director, State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons (G-TIP), Remarks at “Human Trafficking and Freedom Event,” December 3, 2007.
18 For FY2001 through FY2005, GAO, “Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements,” GAO-07-1034, July 2007; for FY2006 through FY2010, U.S.
Department of State, responses to CRS requests. Due to the methodological difficulties involved in calculating TIP
appropriations and the fact that TIP programs are supported by foreign aid accounts that can be appropriated to remain
available for two years, the State Department calculates TIP program obligations by agency per fiscal year. According
to the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP), this generates the best estimate of the amount of
funding spent on TIP programs by agency for each fiscal year.
Congressional Research Service
5
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Figure 1. Anti-TIP Obligations by Agency: FY2005-FY2010
(in current U.S. $ millions)
Source: CRS presentation of data from the U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons.
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. Domestic obligations, which are included in this chart, do not
include the costs of administering TIP operations or TIP-related law enforcement investigations. DOL’s projects
primarily address trafficking as one of the worst forms of child labor. Such projects include standalone TIP
projects, but many include multi-faceted projects to address other worst forms of child labor in addition to
trafficking. In these projects, the funds cannot be disaggregated.
Interagency Coordination
As authorized by TVPA, U.S. anti-TIP programs are coordinated at the cabinet level by the
President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (PITF), which
is chaired by the Secretary of State. The PITF’s purpose is to de-conflict and prevent duplication
of efforts across agencies involved in anti-TIP programming and ensure compliance with U.S.
government policies on combating TIP. The PITF meets annually to coordinate broad U.S. anti-
TIP policy, most recently on February 1, 2011.
The TVPA also established the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG), another interagency
entity that meets quarterly to carry out PITF initiatives and to discuss anti-TIP policy issues. The
SPOG, among other activities, facilitates a review by SPOG programming agencies and each
other’s grant proposals for anti-trafficking projects. Members of the PITF and SPOG include the
Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Labor, Defense, Education, Agriculture, and
Health and Human Services; USAID; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB); the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(O/DNI); the National Security Council; and the Domestic Policy Council.19
19 U.S. Department of State, Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons, “U.S. Government Entities
Combating Human Trafficking,” June 14, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
International Efforts to Combat Trafficking in
Persons
The international community has long condemned TIP and related elements of human trafficking
through multilateral, regional, and bilateral declarations, treaties, agreements, or other
instruments. Some of the earliest commitments to combating TIP in various forms include the
1921 International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, the
1926 Slavery Convention, the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and
of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, and the 1957 Convention Concerning the
Abolition of Forced Labour. Although TIP is not a new phenomenon, it became an increasingly
high-priority human rights issue of concern in the 1990s. As the decade progressed, the
trafficking of women for sexual exploitation began to be seen as both a form of discrimination
against women and as a major human rights violation.20 Given the international dimension of the
problem, TIP also became viewed in the context of a transnational criminal enterprise for which
unilateral and domestic anti-TIP efforts would be inadequate for successfully eliminating the
threat.
U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in
Persons
On November 15, 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on
Transnational Crime and several associated protocols, including the Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons. The convention and its protocols, formally signed in
Palermo, Italy, in December 2000, were designed to enable countries to work together more
closely against criminals engaged in cross-border crimes. The Protocol on Trafficking defines
trafficking in persons and commits countries to take law enforcement actions against traffickers,
to provide some assistance and protection for TIP victims, and to share intelligence and increase
border security cooperation with other countries. The United States signed the U.N. Protocol on
Trafficking in December 2000 and ratified and became party to the protocol on December 3,
2005, following Senate advice and consent on October 7, 2005.
Other Relevant International Agreements
The United States is party to several other international agreements that have been adopted to
address aspects of human trafficking, including the 1999 International Labor Organization (ILO)
Convention No. 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Child Labor (ratified by the United States in December 1999); the 1957 ILO
Convention No. 105 concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor (ratified by the United States in
1991); the Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on Sale of
Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (ratified by the United States in December
2002); and the Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Rights
of the Child in Armed Conflict (ratified by the United States in December 2002).
20 United Nations General Assembly, “In-Depth Study on All Forms of Violence Against Women,” July 6, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
7
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Key U.S. Foreign Policy Responses in the TVPA
The cornerstone legislative vehicle for current U.S. foreign policy on combating international
human trafficking is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, Division A of P.L.
106-386) and its three reauthorizations in 2003, 2005, and 2008 (TVPRAs). Among its key
provisions, the TVPA authorized foreign assistance for preventing trafficking, protecting victims,
and prosecuting traffickers (the three “Ps”). It also established an annual requirement for the State
Department to publish a report on progress made by the international community to eliminate
severe forms of human trafficking. Pursuant to the TVPA, the State Department has issued this
report, called the TIP Report, each year since 2001. Countries described by the TIP Report are
ranked, based on their efforts to combat TIP. To incentivize foreign countries to adhere to their
international anti-TIP obligations, the TVPA established a mechanism whereby a low ranking in
the TIP Report can trigger certain restrictions on U.S.-provided foreign assistance.
Foreign Aid
For FY2008 through FY2011, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act
of 2008 (TVPRA of 2008) authorized the U.S. government to provide anti-trafficking assistance
to foreign countries. While current anti-TIP funding breakdowns are not available for all
agencies, international anti-TIP foreign assistance data appropriated through the combined
Foreign Operations budget for the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) are available by country and region. According to the State Department,
approximately $37.1 million for FY2012 through the Foreign Operations budget was requested
for anti-TIP efforts in 24 countries as well as for programs that are regional or global in scope
(see Table 1). In FY2011, an estimated $24 million was provided for anti-TIP efforts through the
Foreign Operations budget.
Table 1. Anti-TIP Assistance through the Foreign Operations Budget
(in current U.S. $ thousands)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Actual
Actual
Estimate
Request
Africa 900
435
700
1,500
East Asia and Pacific
4,505
2,818
2,900
5,150
Europe and Eurasia
5,894
3,136
—
3,381
Near East
300
—
—
—
South and Central Asia
3,834
4,930
2,505
5,288
Western Hemisphere
1,565
1,150
896
—
USAID’s Bureau for Economic Growth,
1,567 900 — 1,000
Agriculture, and Trade
USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict,
— —
800 —
and Humanitarian Assistance
State Department’s Office to Monitor
19,380 21,262 16,233 20,808
and Combat Trafficking in Persons
TOTAL 38,444.7
34,631
24,034
37,127.0
Source: U.S. Department of State, Response to CRS Request, December 21, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
8
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
The bulk of U.S. anti-trafficking assistance programs abroad is administered by the U.S.
Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL). With regard to foreign assistance administered by the State
Department and USAID, anti-TIP aid has been disbursed through four program accounts:
Development Assistance (DA); Economic Support Fund (ESF); Assistance for Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia (AEECA); and International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE).
Within the State Department, multiple bureaus and offices address various aspects of human
trafficking issues, including the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP);
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM); Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor (DRL); Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS); Office of Global Women’s Issues
(S/GWI); and Bureau of Education and Cultural Exchanges (ECA). Regional bureaus, such as the
Bureau of Europe and Eurasian Affairs (EUR), are also involved in human trafficking issues.
DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), particularly its Office of Child Labor,
Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT), supports programs that focus on providing
assistance to child victims of trafficking and preventing trafficking and forced labor through
policy and legislative reform, public awareness campaigns, and capacity-building for
governments and service providers. Separately, USAID funds international anti-trafficking
programs with emphasis on victim protection and trafficking prevention, as well as some training
for police and criminal justice personnel. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) International Criminal Training Assistance Program (ICITAP)
also provide some anti-TIP training to law enforcement and judicial officials overseas. Some U.S.
funding supports the anti-TIP efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations.
Figure 2 provides a regional breakdown of U.S. international anti-TIP obligations from FY2005
through FY2010 by geographic region—including not only State Department and USAID
contributions, but also assistance provided by DOL, DOJ, and HHS. In FY2010, U.S. funding for
global anti-TIP activities supported roughly 175 international anti-trafficking programs in over 80
countries.21 The majority of international anti-TIP programs supported by the United States are
either regional or aimed at helping countries resolve specific challenges they have had in
addressing human trafficking.22
21 U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Fact Sheet: U.S. Government Anti-
Trafficking in Persons Project Funding (Fiscal Year 2010), June 2011.
22 The countries with the largest numbers of programs obligated in recent years include several of the countries selected
in 2004 by President George W. Bush as eligible to receive a combined total of $50 million in strategic anti-TIP
assistance. The $50 million consists of projects, the bulk of which were obligated in FY2004 and FY2005, that were
approved by an inter-agency Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) on human trafficking and the Deputy Secretary of
State for each region. Funding for the President’s initiative came from channeling funds from existing aid programs to
the countries identified to participate in the initiative. The funds came from roughly $25 million in FY2003 Child
Survival and Health monies, $12.5 million in FY2004 Economic Support Funds, and $12.5 million in FY2005
Economic Support Funds. The President chose countries based on the severity of their trafficking programs, as well as
their willingness to cooperate with U.S. agencies to combat the problem. They included Brazil, Cambodia, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania. As a result of this initiative, U.S. anti-TIP assistance to
foreign governments spiked in FY2004 and FY2005, but is now on a downward trajectory.
Congressional Research Service
9
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Figure 2. International Anti-TIP Obligations by Region: FY2005-FY2010
(in current U.S. $ millions)
Source: CRS presentation of data from the U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons.
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. Domestic obligations are not included in this chart. DOL’s
projects primarily address trafficking as one of the worst forms of child labor. Such projects include standalone
TIP projects, but many include multi-faceted projects to address other worst forms of child labor in addition to
trafficking. In these projects, the funds cannot be disaggregated.
The 2011 TIP Report
On June 27, 2011, the State Department issued its 11th annual report on human trafficking,
Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report, June 2011, as mandated by the TVPA (P.L. 106-386, as
amended). In addition to outlining major trends and ongoing challenges in combating TIP, the
report provides a country-by-country analysis and ranking, based on what progress foreign
countries have made, from April 2010 through March 2011, in their efforts to prosecute, protect,
and prevent TIP. The 2011 TIP Report ranked more countries than any previous year, up from 82
countries in 2001 to 181 countries in 2011, including the United States.23 In addition to the 181
countries that were ranked, the report discusses trafficking in three “special case” countries—
Cote D’Ivoire, Haiti, and Somalia—where sufficient information was not available to provide a
ranking.
23 One reason for the increase in countries in the TIP report, particularly since 2009, is because of a change in the
TVPA reporting requirement, as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2008 (§106(1) of P.L. 110-457). Prior TIP reports were required to include countries that are a point of origin,
transit, or destination for “a significant number of” victims of severe forms of trafficking. This was interpreted by the
State Department to mean at least 100 cases per year. P.L. 110-457 struck out the phrase “a significant number of,”
resulting in a lower threshold requirement for reporting on countries in the 2009 TIP report and thereafter.
Congressional Research Service
10
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
The 2011 TIP Report presents a sobering view of the state of U.S. and international campaigns
against human trafficking. While acknowledging that significant progress has been made in recent
years, particularly in the realm of introducing new or amended legislation in more countries
around the world that help prosecute, protect, and prevent TIP, progress in combating TIP
globally appears to be mixed.
While the number of prosecutions reported per year worldwide against TIP offenders has
improved in the past two years, it has declined on average 3.8% per year since 2003, when the
State Department first collected this information globally—from 7,992 prosecutions in 2003 to
6,017 in 2010 (see Table 2). A disproportionate minority of reported prosecutions are related to
labor trafficking (607 of the 6,017 prosecutions in 2010, or 10.1% of prosecutions).
Approximately 60% of all reported trafficking prosecutions in 2010 resulted in convictions.
Table 2. Global Prosecutions of TIP Offenders, 2003-2010
Global
%
East
Middle
South
change
Sub-
Asia
East &
&
from
Saharan
& the
North Central
Western
previous
Year
Africa
Europe Pacific Africa
Asia
Hemisphere
Global
year
2003 50
2,231
1,727
1,004
2,805
175
7,992
—
2004 134
3,270
438
134
2764
145
6,885
-13.9%
2005 194
2,521
2,580
112
1,041
170
6,618
-3.9%
2006 170
2,950
1,321
295
629
443
5,808
-12.2%
2007 123
2,820
1,047
415
824
426
5,655
-2.6%
2008 109
2,808
1,083
120
644
448
5,212
-7.8%
2009 325
2,208
357
80
1,989
647
5,606
7.1%
2010 272
2,803
427
323
1,460
732
6,017
6.8%
Source: CRS presentation of law enforcement data in the State Department’s TIP Reports through 2011.
Notes: Global totals are the sum of the reported totals for all six regions. The Western Hemisphere does not
include the United States in this analysis.
The 2011 TIP Report also discussed a variety of emerging issues and trends in TIP. Selected
topics of interest in the 2011 Report included the recruitment of children in armed conflicts,
recent research on local demand for commercial sexual exploitation of minors, techniques of
psychological control used by sex traffickers and pimps, and bonded labor on deep sea fishing
vessels in Southeast Asia. Other issues discussed in the 2011 TIP Report include
recommendations for best practices to prevent labor trafficking, including procurement guidelines
and options for improving the regulation of labor recruiters.
2011 TIP Report Country Designations and Trends
The centerpiece of the annual TIP Reports is their country-by-country analyses and rankings,
which describe progress foreign countries have made in their efforts to prosecute, protect, and
prevent human trafficking. Beginning with the 2010 TIP Report, the State Department has also
ranked the United States and described U.S. efforts and ongoing challenges in combating human
trafficking. In both the 2010 and 2011 TIP Reports, the United States received a “Tier 1” ranking,
Congressional Research Service
11
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
signifying that it is among the top-performing countries in the world and that it meets the
legislatively defined “minimum standards” for eliminating severe forms of human trafficking.24
Pursuant to the TVPA, as amended, the 2011 TIP Report ranked countries in four categories on
the basis of their efforts to combat human trafficking, with Tier 1 composed of the best-
performing countries and Tier 3 composed of the worst-performing countries. Only Tier 1
countries are compliant with the TVPA’s minimum standards for eliminating trafficking. The rest,
totaling approximately 82% of all countries ranked in the 2011 TIP Report, are listed as non-
compliant—variously receiving designations as Tier 2, Tier 2 Watch List, or Tier 3, depending on
their level of effort in achieving the minimum standards. In total, the number of non-compliant
countries described in the 2011 TIP Report has increased slightly in absolute size since 2010,
from 143 countries to 149. Tier 2 increased from 74 countries in 2010 to 85 countries in 2011.
Tier 2 Watch List decreased from 58 in 2010 to 41 in 2011. Tier 3 increased from 13 in 2010 to 23
in 2011.
Tier 1 is composed of countries deemed by the State Department as having fully complied with
the minimum standards for eliminating trafficking as outlined in the TVPA, as amended. Thirty-
two countries, or approximately 17.4% of all countries listed, received a Tier 1 ranking in the
2011 TIP Report. Since last year, three countries improved their rankings from Tier 2 to Tier 1
(Macedonia, Portugal, and the Slovak Republic) and one country dropped from Tier 1 to Tier 2
(the Czech Republic). In general, countries in Western Europe have been among the most
consistent top performers. For example, 14 countries have consistently been ranked Tier 1 for
every year they have been listed on the TIP Report—and all but four of these countries (Australia,
Colombia, New Zealand, United States) are located in Western Europe.25 See Table 3.
Table 3. Tier 1 Countries in 2011 TIP Report, by Region
Region Country
Names
East Asia & the Pacific (4 of 29)
Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan
Europe (23 of 47)
Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and
United Kingdom
Middle East & North Africa (0 of 18) —
South & Central Asia (0 of 12)
—
Sub-Saharan Africa (2 of 46)
Mauritius and Nigeria
Western Hemisphere (3 of 32)
Canada, Colombia, and United States
Source: U.S. Department of State, 2011 TIP Report.
The other three TIP Report categories include countries that are non-compliant with the TVPA’s
minimum standards for eliminating trafficking. These categories differ on the basis of perceived
24 Section 108 of the TVPA, as amended, defines the minimum standards for eliminating severe forms of human
trafficking to include prohibiting severe forms of trafficking in persons and punishing such acts; prescribing
punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter future acts and commensurate with punishments for other grave
crimes; and evidence of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.
25 Those with consistent Tier 1 rankings from Western Europe include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and United Kingdom.
Congressional Research Service
12
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
political effort and political will to become compliant—ranging from countries that are non-
compliant, but making significant efforts to improve (Tier 2) to countries that are non-compliant
and making no effort to improve (Tier 3). Approximately 82% of all countries ranked in the TIP
Report are listed as Tier 2, Tier 2 Watch List, or Tier 3 countries. In total, the number of non-
compliant countries described in the 2011 TIP report has increased slightly in absolute size since
2010, from 143 countries to 149. Tier 2 increased from 74 countries in 2010 to 85 countries in
2011. Tier 2 Watch List, composed of countries on the border between Tier 2 and Tier 3,
decreased from 58 in 2010 to 41 in 2011. Tier 3, the worst, increased from 13 in 2010 to 23 in
2011.
Tier 2 includes countries whose governments the State Department views as not fully complying
with the minimum standards for eliminating trafficking, but which are seen as making
“significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance.” In 2011, 85 countries were listed as Tier
2, representing, as in past years, the largest category of countries. Since last year, 19 countries
improved their rankings from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 226 and 10 countries dropped from Tier 2
to Tier 2 Watch List.27 See Table 4.
Table 4. Tier 2 Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region
Region Country
Names
East Asia & the Pacific (14 of 29)
Cambodia, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Macau, Marshal Islands,
Mongolia, Palau, Philippines, Singapore, Timor-Leste, and Tonga
Europe (17 of 47)
Albania, Armenia, Aruba, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Kosovo, Latvia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey,
and the Ukraine
Middle East & North Africa (7 of
Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates
18)
South & Central Asia (7 of 12)
India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tajikistan
Sub-Saharan Africa (21 of 46)
Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya,
Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychel es, Sierra
Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia
Western Hemisphere (19 of 32)
Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, St.
Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, and Uruguay
Source: U.S. Department of State, 2011 TIP Report.
Tier 2 Watch List was first added as a category in the 2004 TIP Report. The 2011 TIP Report
included 41 countries in this group, which represents a decline compared to the 58 countries
ranked as Tier 2 Watch List in 2010. Since last year, one country improved its ranking from Tier 3
to Tier 2 Watch List (the Dominican Republic) and 11 countries dropped from Tier 2 Watch List
to Tier 3.28 See Table 5.
26 Those countries that improved from Tier 2 Watch List in 2010 to Tier 2 in 2011 include Belize, Fiji, Gabon,
Guatemala, Guyana, India, Kazakhstan, Laos, Lesotho, Moldova, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Philippines, Senegal,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tajikistan, and Trinidad and Tobago.
27 Those countries that dropped from Tier 2 in 2010 to Tier 2 Watch List in 2011 include Angola, the Bahamas,
Belarus, Burundi, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Estonia, the Gambia, and Liberia.
28 Those countries that dropped from Tier 2 Watch List in 2010 to Tier 3 in 2011 include Algeria, Central African
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
This category is composed of a subset of Tier 2 countries in which at least one of the following
conditions apply:
• the absolute number of TIP victims is very significant or is significantly
increasing;
• there is no evidence that increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking
in persons from the previous year; or
• the determination that a country is making significant efforts to bring themselves
into compliance with minimum standards was based on commitments by the
country to take additional future steps over the next year.
Table 5. Tier 2 Watch List Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region
Region Country
Names
East Asia & the Pacific (7 of 29)
Brunei, China, Kiribati, Malaysia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam
Europe (7 of 47)
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Curacao, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, and Russia
Middle East & North Africa (4 of 18)
Iraq, Qatar, Syria, and Tunisia
South & Central Asia (4 of 12)
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Uzbekistan
Sub-Saharan Africa (12 of 46)
Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Niger,
Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, and the Gambia
Western Hemisphere (7 of 32)
Barbados, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Panama, St. Vincent &
the Grenadines, and the Bahamas
Source: U.S. Department of State, 2011 TIP Report.
Tier 3 includes countries whose governments the State Department deems as not fully complying
with those standards and not making significant efforts to do so. This group includes a total of 23
countries in 2011, up from 13 in 2010. See Table 6. Countries new to Tier 3 in 2011 include
Algeria, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Libya,
Madagascar, Micronesia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. The TVPA, as amended, subjects
to sanctions those countries listed in Tier 3 in the following fiscal year, including termination of
non-humanitarian, non-trade-related assistance and loss of U.S. support for loans from
international financial institutions. Sanctions are to be imposed if such countries have not
improved their performance within 90 days from the release of the TIP Report.
Table 6. Tier 3 Countries in the 2011 TIP Report, by Region
Region Country
Names
East Asia & the Pacific (4 of 29)
Burma, Micronesia, North Korea, and Papua New Guinea
Europe (0 of 47)
—
Middle East & North Africa (7 of 18)
Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and
Yemen
(...continued)
Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Micronesia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and
Yemen.
Congressional Research Service
14
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Region Country
Names
South & Central Asia (1 of 12)
Turkmenistan
Sub-Saharan Africa (9 of 46)
Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar,
Mauritania, Sudan, and Zimbabwe
Western Hemisphere (2 of 32)
Cuba and Venezuela
Source: U.S. Department of State, 2011 TIP Report.
2008 Provision: Automatic Downgrade from Tier 2 Watch List
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA of
2008, P.L. 110-457) added a new requirement to the TIP country rankings process, in which Tier
2 Watch List countries are automatically downgraded to the Tier 3 category after two consecutive
years on the Tier 2 Watch List (unless the President issues a waiver to block the auto-
downgrade).29 The first year in which this new requirement came into effect was the 2009 TIP
Report. Those countries on the Tier 2 Watch List countries in 2009 could only remain on the Tier
2 Watch List through the 2010 TIP Report. Subsequent to the 2010 TIP Report, these countries
would be required to drop to Tier 3, unless they have improved their efforts to combat TIP or
unless the President issues waivers. To this end, 22 countries were at risk in 2011 for an auto-
downgrade to Tier 3 because they had been identified as Tier 2 Watch List in both the 2009 and
2010 TIP Reports (see Table 2). Of these, 10 countries were downgraded in the 2011 TIP report
to Tier 3 while 12 remained listed as Tier 2 Watch List after the Obama Administration issued a
waiver to prevent these countries from receiving the automatic downgrade to Tier 3.
According to the 2011 TIP Report, such waivers were issued in cases in which the government in
question has a written plan that “would constitute making significant efforts to comply with the
TVPA’s minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking,” if implemented, and that there is
credible evidence that the government in question is “devoting sufficient resources to implement
the plan.” In addition to the 12 countries that remained Tier 2 Watch List in 2011 due to the
granting of a waiver, 15 additional countries are at risk of an auto-downgrade in next year’s TIP
Report (see Table 7). Combined, these 27 countries will have been listed consecutively under the
Tier 2 Watch List category in both the 2010 and 2011 TIP Reports.
29 Such a waiver permits the President to waive the Tier 3 listing for up to two years. In exercising this waiver
authority, the President must determine that such a waiver is justified because the country has a “written plan” to start
making “significant efforts” to comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards to combat TIP, and because the country
has committed “sufficient resources” to implement the plan.
Congressional Research Service
15
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table 7. Countries at Risk of Auto-Downgrade to Tier 3 in the 2011 and 2012 TIP
Reports
2011 TIP Report Results
At Risk of Auto-Downgrade in
2012 TIP Report
(in addition to those that remained
Downgraded to Tier 3 After Two
Remained Tier 2 Watch List
Tier 2 Watch List due to a waiver in
Years on Tier 2 Watch List
Due to a Waiver
2011)
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Bangladesh
Barbados
Equatorial Guinea
Cameroon
Brunei
Guinea-Bissau
China
Chad
Lebanon
Guinea
Kiribati
Libya
Iraq
Malaysia
Micronesia
Mali
Maldives
Turkmenistan
Qatar
Malta
Venezuela
Republic of Congo
Niger
Yemen
Russia
Panama
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Syria
Uzbekistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Tunisia
Vietnam
Source: U.S. Department of State, 2011 TIP Report.
Aid Restrictions to Tier 3 Countries for FY2012
Pursuant to the TVPA, it is the policy of the U.S. government to deny nonhumanitarian, nontrade-
related foreign assistance—including both bilateral and multilateral assistance—to any foreign
government that does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
and is not making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with such standards. Each
year, the President is required to make a determination on whether to impose such aid restrictions
on the Tier 3 countries annually identified by the State Department for the subsequent fiscal year.
If Tier 3 countries did not receive nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance from the
U.S. government in the prior fiscal year, then future U.S. funding for participation of non-
compliant country government officials in educational and cultural exchange programs may be
denied. Pursuant to the TVPA, the President reserves the discretion to waive part or all of the aid
and funding restrictions on the basis of national interest reasons.
On September 30, 2011, President Obama issued his determination on whether to impose aid
restrictions during FY2012 on the 23 listed Tier 3 countries from the 2011 TIP Report.30 For
FY2012 the President determined that sanctions would be fully imposed on three countries:
Eritrea, Madagascar, and North Korea. None of these three countries, however, received
nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance in FY2011. As a result, the President
determined to withhold U.S. funding for participation by officials or employees of these three
governments in educational and cultural exchange programs for FY2012. Seven countries were
granted by the President partial waivers from the aid prohibitions: Burma, Cuba, the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
30 President Obama, “Presidential Determination With Respect To Foreign Governments’ Efforts Regarding
Trafficking In Persons,” Presidential Determination 2011-18, September 30, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
16
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Thirteen countries—Algeria, the Central Africa Republic (CAR), Guinea-Bissau, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Turkmenistan, and Yemen—were granted full waivers from the aid prohibitions. The President
determined that continued U.S. support in FY2012 to these 13 countries would be in the U.S.
national interest.
Among the most notable changes in FY2012 with respect to TIP-related aid restrictions is the full
restriction on nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related aid to Madagascar. Madagascar received its first
Tier 3 country ranking in the State Department’s June 2011 TIP Report.31 FY2012 will also be the
first fiscal year in which the country is subject to the full TIP aid restrictions.
List of Countries Involved in Recruiting and Using Child Soldiers
While not directly connected to the TIP Report country tier rankings and related aid restrictions, the Child Soldiers
Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA, Title IV of P.L. 110-457) requires, beginning with the 2010 TIP Report, that the TIP
Report annually publish a list of countries that recruit or use child soldiers in their armed forces, or that host non-
government armed forces that recruit or use child soldiers.
Child soldiers are defined as individuals who are under 18 years of age and who (1) have taken direct part in
hostilities as a member of a government’s armed forces, (2) were recruited or used in hostilities by non-governmental
armed forces, or (3) were compulsorily recruited to join a government’s armed forces. Individuals who are under 15
years of age and who were voluntarily recruited to join a government’s armed forces are also defined as child
soldiers. Additionally, those who meet the above conditions but have not taken direct part in hostilities, instead
serving in a support role for an armed group, such as a cook, porter, messenger, medic, guard, or sex slave, are also
defined as child soldiers according to the CSPA.
Following these guidelines, the 2011 TIP Report identified six countries involved in recruiting and using child soldiers,
whether directly in the government’s armed forces or indirectly in non-governmental armed forces: Burma, Chad,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.32 These six are the same six identified by the
2010 TIP Report.
Unless the President issues waivers, identified countries would be subject to foreign assistance restrictions in FY2012,
including prohibitions on assistance for international military education and training (IMET); foreign military financing
(FMF); excess defense articles; assistance provided pursuant to Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization
Act of FY2006, as amended and extended; and the issuance for direct commercial sales of military equipment.
Pursuant to the CSPA, the President may also allow for the reinstatement of barred assistance if he certifies to
Congress that such countries have taken the necessary steps to prevent and prohibit future use of child soldiers.
On October 25, 2010, President Obama waived sanctions for four of the six listed countries in the 2010 TIP report:
Chad, DRC, Sudan, and Yemen. The other two, Burma and Somalia, were subject to sanctions in FY2011 pursuant to
the CSPA.
On October 4, 2011, President Obama certified that Chad has taken necessary steps to allow for the reinstatement
of barred assistance. He fully waived the sanctions for Yemen and partially waived the sanctions for DRC. The other
three, Burma, Somalia, and Sudan, are subject to sanctions in FY2012 pursuant to the CSPA.
Trafficking in the United States
The United States is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children
subject to trafficking in persons.33 Human trafficking happens in the United States to both U.S.
31 The first year in which Madagascar was rated in the State Department’s annual TIP Report was 2004. Since then, it
has variously received designations as a Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2 Watch List country.
32 U.S. Department of State, TIP Report, June 2011.
33 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
Congressional Research Service
17
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
citizens and noncitizens, and occurs in every state.34 As many as 17,500 people are trafficked to
the United States each year, according to U.S. government estimates.35 The trafficking of
individuals within U.S. borders is commonly referred to as domestic or “internal” human
trafficking. Domestic human trafficking occurs primarily for labor and most commonly in
domestic servitude, agriculture, manufacturing, janitorial services, hotel services, construction,
health and elder care, hair and nail salons, and strip club dancing. However, more investigations
and prosecutions have taken place for sex trafficking offenses than for labor trafficking offenses.36
Noncitizens are more susceptible than U.S. citizens to labor trafficking,37 and more foreign
victims38 are found in labor trafficking than in sex trafficking. Conversely, although labor
trafficking can happen to U.S. citizens, more adult and child U.S. citizens are found in sex
trafficking than in labor trafficking.39 Research indicates that most of the victims of sex
trafficking into and within the United States are women and children. In addition, migrant labor
camps tend to be common settings for labor exploitation and domestic trafficking.40
Before 2000, U.S. laws were widely believed to be inadequate to deal with trafficking in women
and children or to protect and assist victims. Anti-trafficking legislation and programs have been
implemented with the hope of improving the situation.
Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States
Domestic sex trafficking of children is sex trafficking within the United States involving a
commercial sex act in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of
age.41 Most of the victims are U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs).42
As discussed above the TVPA does not define sex trafficking or human trafficking per se.
However, it does define “severe forms of human trafficking” as:
34 Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, Domestic Human Trafficking: An Internal Issue, Washington, DC,
December 2008, p. 2, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/113612.pdf.
35 For more on these estimates see the section of this report entitled, “Official Estimates of Human Trafficking into the
United States.” Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of
Labor, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Agency of International Development, Assessment of U.S.
Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, June 2004, p. 4.
36 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
37 Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, Domestic Human Trafficking: An Internal Issue, Washington, DC,
December 2008, pp. 3-6, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/113612.pdf.
38 Foreign victims do not include Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs). For the purposes of discussing trafficking victims
in the United States, LPRs are grouped with U.S. citizens.
39 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
40 Internal human trafficking of migrant labor is primarily occurring in the Southeast and Central regions of the United
States, although such conduct has been identified in other places. Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, Domestic
Human Trafficking: An Internal Issue, Washington, DC, December 2008, pp. 3-6, http://www.state.gov/documents/
organization/113612.pdf.
41 For more information on sex trafficking of children in the United States, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of
Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kristin M. Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-
Alcantara, and Alison Siskin.
42 Linda A. Smith, Samantha Headly Vardaman, and Mellissa A. Snow, The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex
Trafficking: America’s Prostituted Children, Shared Hope International, Arlington, VA, May 2009,
http://www.sharedhope.org/files/SHI_National_Report_on_DMST_2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in
which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or … the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or
services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to
involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
In the case of minors, there is general agreement that the severe form of trafficking term applies
whether the child’s actions were forced or voluntary. Under the TVPA, the term ‘‘commercial sex
act’’ means “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any
person.” There appears to be a consensus that prostitution by minors fits the definition of “severe
forms of human trafficking” as defined under the TVPA.
Official Estimates of Human Trafficking in the United States
Due to the nature of human trafficking, it is difficult to estimate the number of trafficking victims
in the United States.43 U.S. governmental estimates of trafficking victims focus on the number of
foreign victims who are trafficked into the United States, while two other studies have focused on
the number of minor victims of sex trafficking or foreign victims in specific geographic areas.
Estimates Into the United States
For FY2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ) estimated that there were between 14,500 and
17,500 victims trafficked into the United States each year.44 As of January 2011, this remains the
most recent U.S. government estimate of trafficking victims.45 This estimate of 14,500 to 17,500
victims first appeared in the 2004 report, Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons,46 and subsequent reports have not included estimates of the number of
trafficking victims.47 The Attorney General’s Report on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons Fiscal Year 200648 stated that this estimate may be “overstated,” and
43 Despite mandates in the TVPA, uniform data collection for trafficking crimes or number of victims by federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies is not occurring. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June
2010, p. 340..
44 Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2005, June 2006. (Hereafter DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress
on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2005.)
45 The number of U.S. citizen trafficking victims in the United States is unknown. In addition, there does not seem to be
a clear definition of what it means to be a U.S. citizen trafficked within the United States. For example, some would
argue that all prostitutes who have pimps are victims of trafficking. In addition, Dr. Louise Shelly, the Director of the
Terrorism, Transnational Crime, and Corruption Center at George Mason University, argues that the largest number of
trafficking victims in the United States are U.S. citizen children, and estimates the number of these victims to be
between 100,000 and 300,000. Conference, The Profits of Pimping: Abolishing Sex Trafficking in the United States, at
the Hudson Institute, Washington D.C., July 10, 2008.
46 Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of Labor,
Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Agency of International Development, Assessment of U.S. Government
Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, June 2004, p. 4.
47 Notably, the Attorney General’s Report for FY2008, released in June 2009, does not contain an estimate of the
number of victims trafficked into the United States annually. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report
to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2008, June 2009.
48 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2005.
Congressional Research Service
19
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
asserted that “[f]urther research is underway to determine a more accurate figure based on more
advanced methodologies and more complete understanding of the nature of trafficking.”
Notably, previous reports by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Center for the Study of
Intelligence and the Department of Justice produced higher estimates of the number of trafficking
victims in the United States. In November 1999, a report issued by the Center for the Study of
Intelligence estimated that 45,000 to 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually to the
United States.49 In addition, the August 2003 version of the report, Assessment of U.S.
Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons, estimated that between 18,000 and
20,000 people are trafficked into the United States annually. Some researchers contend that the
government estimates of human trafficking do not provide a full description of the data and
methodologies used to arrive at the estimates. As a result, they argue that the lack of
methodological information makes it difficult, if not impossible, to recreate, assess the validity of,
or improve upon the estimates.50
Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States
Comprehensive research on the number of children in the United States who are victims of sex
trafficking does not exist, but there have been two recent studies that attempt to measure the
problem in specific geographic areas.51
Shared Hope International
In 2006, Shared Hope International began working with 10 of the Department of Justice-funded
human trafficking task forces to assess the scope of sex trafficking of children in the United
States.52 The study uses the term “Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking” (DMST) and defines DMST
as the commercial exploitation of U.S. citizens and LPR children with U.S. borders. As part of
their study, the researchers noted that an accurate count of the number of victims was not
available due to many factors, including a lack of tracking protocols and misidentification of the
49 Amy O’Neill Richard, International Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary Manifestation of
Slavery and Organized Crime, Center for the Study of Intelligence, November 1999, p. iii.
50 Free the Slaves and the Human Rights Center, Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States, September 2004,
available at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=forcedlabor.
51 P.L. 109-164 (§201) requires biennial reporting on human trafficking, using available data from state and local
authorities. In response to this requirement, DOJ funded the creation of the Human Trafficking Reporting System
(HTRS). The data in the HTRS come from investigations opened by approximately 40 federally funded human
trafficking task forces, and do not represent all incidences of human trafficking nationwide. In January 2008, the task
forces began entering data into HTRS. Between January 1, 2007 and September 30, 2008, the task forces reported 34
confirmed cases of sex trafficking of children in the United States and 341 cases where a determination was pending or
that there was not enough information to confirm the trafficking. Tracey Kyckelhahn, Allen J. Beck, and Thomas
Cohen, Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2007-08, Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington, DC, January 2009, pp. 1-2, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/pdf/cshti08.pdf.
52 There are 42 task forces in total. The Department of Justice makes awards to law enforcement agencies to form
victim centered human trafficking task forces. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress
on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, June 2010, p. 95. Testimony of
Mary Lou Leary, Principle Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, at U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the Commitment to
Victims of Human Trafficking, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 14, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
20
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
victims. Table 8 presents the findings from the 10 study sites. Notably, the data collected are not
uniform and represent different time periods.
Table 8. Number of Suspected Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Victims by Location
Shared Hope International Study
Number of Suspected
Research Site
State/Territory
DMST Victims
Time Period
Dal as Texas
150
2007
San Antonio/Bexar County
Texas
3-4
2005-2008
Fort Worth/Tarrant County
Texas
29
2000-2008
Las Vegas
Nevada
5,122
1994-2007
Independence/Kansas City
Missouri 227
2000-2008
Area
Baton Rouge/New Orleans
Louisiana 105
2000-2007
Area
Saipan/Rota/Tinian
Northern Mariana Islands
1
2008
Salt Lake City
Utah
83
1996-2008
Buffalo/Erie County
New York
74-84
2000-2008
Clearwater/Tampa Bay Area
Florida
36
2000-2008
Source: Linda A. Smith, Samantha Healy Vardaman, and Melissa A. Snow, “The National Report on Domestic
Minor Sex Trafficking: America’s Prostituted Children,” Shared Hope International, May 2009, p. 11.
Notes: Due to a lack of formal tracking protocols, some victims may be duplicated within a city and some may
not have been included in the counts. These numbers were obtained through an interview process in addition to
official government records.
Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission
Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray tasked the Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study
Commission to explore the scope of human trafficking within Ohio. Using methodologies
developed in other studies, the commission estimated that of the American-born youth in Ohio,
2,879 are at risk for sex trafficking, and another 1,078 have been victims of sex trafficking over
the course of a year.53 The researchers also estimated that 3,437 foreign-born persons (adults and
juveniles) in Ohio may be at risk for sex or labor trafficking, of which 783 are estimated to be
trafficking victims.54 Importantly, the report states, “due to the very nature of human trafficking, it
is virtually impossible to determine the exact number of victims in Ohio at any given time and
with any degree of certainty.”55
53 Celia Williamson, Sharvari Karandikar-Chheda, and Jeff Barrows, et al., Report on the Prevalence of Human
Trafficking in Ohio To Attorney General Richard Cordray, Ohio Trafficking in Persons Study Commission, Research
and Analysis Sub-Committee, Toledo, OH, February 10, 2010, http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/TraffickingReport.
54 The researchers identified four factors that may increase the risk of becoming a minor victim of sex trafficking: (1)
Ohio’s weak response to minor trafficking victims; (2) evidence that first responders to sex trafficking incidents
involving minors in Ohio are unaware and unprepared; (3) customers who purchase youth receive minimal charges and
are rarely prosecuted, while traffickers suffer minimal consequences; and (4) the high rates of vulnerable youth in
Ohio. Ibid, p. 5.
55 Ibid, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
21
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Response to Trafficking within the United States
The response to human trafficking within the United States has focused on (1) assistance to
victims of trafficking and (2) law enforcement efforts to arrest and prosecute traffickers, and
identify victims.
Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims
Some of the trafficking victims in the United States are aliens (noncitizens) who are illegally
present (i.e., unauthorized/illegal aliens). Some of these aliens entered legally, but overstayed
their length of legal admittance. Other aliens were smuggled into or illegally entered the United
States, and then became trafficking victims. In addition, some aliens have had their immigration
documents confiscated by the traffickers as a form of control. The lack of immigration status may
prevent victims from seeking help, and may interfere with the ability of the victim to provide
testimony during a criminal trial. As such, under law, there are certain protections from removal
(deportation) available to noncitizen victims of trafficking.
T Nonimmigrant Status
The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) created a new
nonimmigrant category, known as T status or T-visa, for aliens who are victims of severe forms of
TIP.56 Aliens who received T status are eligible to remain in the United States for four years and
may apply for lawful permanent residence status (LPR) after being continually present in the
United States for three years.
To qualify for the “T” category, in addition to being a victim of a severe form of TIP,57 the alien
must
• be physically present in the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or a U.S. port of entry because of such
trafficking including physical presence on account of the alien having been
allowed entry into the United States for participation in investigative or judicial
processes associated with an act or a perpetrator of trafficking;58
56 Section 107 of Division A of P.L. 106-386. “T” refers to the letter denoting the subsection of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) that provides the authority for the alien’s admission into the United States (i.e., INA
§101(a)(15)(T)). Although T nonimmigrant status is often referred to as the T-visa, it is not technically a visa if it is
given to aliens present in the United States because status is conferred by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
who does not have the authority to issue visas. Only the Department of State (DOS) though consular offices may issue
visas. Thus, only aliens present outside of the United States can receive T visas while aliens present in the United States
receive T status. For more information on nonimmigrant visa issuance see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Temporary Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
57 As discussed previously, TVPA defines a ``severe form of trafficking in persons’’ as either: (1) sex trafficking in
which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud or coercion or in which the person induced to perform such act
has not attained 18 years of age, or (2) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for
labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude,
peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate both elements of a severe form of
trafficking in persons.
58 Prior to P.L. 110-457, this was interpreted in the regulations to apply to those aliens who (1) are present because they
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law enforcement59 in
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking unless unable to do so due
to physical or psychological trauma,60 or be under the age of 18;61 and
• be likely to suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon
removal.
To receive T status, the alien must also be admissible to the United States or obtain a waiver of
inadmissibility. A waiver of inadmissibility is available for health related grounds, public charge
grounds, or criminal grounds if the activities rendering the alien inadmissible were caused by or
were incident to the alien’s victimization.62 Waivers are not automatically granted, and there is no
appeal if the inadmissibility waiver is denied. This waiver is especially important for those
involved in sexual trafficking since prostitution is one of the grounds of inadmissibility specified
in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).63 Additionally, aliens who are present without
being admitted or paroled64 into the United States are inadmissible and would need to obtain a
waiver to be eligible for T status. For example, an alien who paid a smuggler to enter the country
illegally and then was held in servitude would need to get an inadmissibility waiver to be eligible
for T status.
T status is limited to 5,000 principal aliens each fiscal year. Additionally, the spouse, children, or
parents of an alien under age 21, in order to avoid extreme hardship, may be given derivative T
status which is not counted against the numerical limit.65 Individuals who are eligible for T status
may be granted work authorization.66 T status is valid for four years, and may be extended if a
federal, state, or local law enforcement official, prosecutor, judge, or other authority investigating
(...continued)
are being held in some sort of severe form of trafficking situation; (2) were recently liberated from a severe form of
trafficking; or (3) were subject to a severe form of trafficking in the past and remain present in the United States for
reasons directly related to the original trafficking. P.L. 110-457 expanded the definition of physical presence to include
trafficking victims admitted to the United States for trafficking investigations and legal proceedings.
59 Applicants for T status may submit a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) Enforcement to prove that they are
complying with the investigation. The regulations require that the LEA enforcement come from a federal law
enforcement agency since severe forms of trafficking in person are federal crimes under TVPA; however, the TVPRA
of 2003 amended the law to allow state and local law enforcement to certify that the trafficking victim is aiding law
enforcement.
60 Although to be eligible for T status, most aliens must comply with reasonable requests for assistance from law
enforcement, it is not necessary for the alien to be sponsored for status from a law enforcement agency as is required by
those applying for S nonimmigrant status for alien witnesses and informants.
61 Children under the age of 18 at the time that the application for T status is filed, are exempt from the requirement to
comply with law enforcement requests for assistance. In the original law (TVPA of 2000) the age of mandatory
compliance was under 15 years, but the TVPRA of 2003 increased the age of mandatory compliance to 18 years.
62 INA §212(d)(13).
63 INA §212(a)(2)(D).
64 “Parole” is a term in immigration law which means that the alien has been granted temporary permission to be in the
United States. Parole does not constitute formal admission to the United States and parolees are required to leave when
the parole expires, or if eligible, to be admitted in a lawful status.
65 In some cases, immediate family members of trafficking victims may receive a T visa to join the victim in the United
States. This may be necessary if the traffickers are threatening the victim’s family.
66 From the perspective of trafficking victims’ advocates, work authorization is viewed as an important tool in helping
the victims become self sufficient and retake control of their lives.
Congressional Research Service
23
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
or prosecuting activity relating to human trafficking certifies that the presence of the alien in the
United States is necessary to assist in the investigation or prosecution of TIP.67
Under law, aliens who have bona fide T applications68 are eligible to receive certain public
benefits to the same extent as refugees.69 Aliens who receive derivative T status (i.e., the family
members of trafficking victims) are also eligible for benefits. In addition, regulations require that
federal officials provide trafficking victims with specific information regarding their rights and
services such as
• immigration benefits;
• federal and state benefits and services (e.g., certification by the Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS] and assistance through HHS’s Office of
Refugee Resettlement [ORR]);
• medical services;
• pro-bono and low cost legal services;
• victim service organizations;
• victims compensation (trafficked aliens are often eligible for compensation from
state and federal crime victims programs);70
• the right to restitution; and
• the rights of privacy and confidentiality.71
T Visas Issued
As Table 9. shows, between FY2002 and FY2011, there were 4,317 applications for T-1 status
(i.e., trafficking victims), and 2,595 of these applications were approved. During the same period,
there were 3,406 applications for derivative T status (i.e., family members of trafficking victims),
and 2,544 applications were approved. Of the adjudicated applications for T-1 status, 68% were
approved. In addition, of the adjudicated applications for derivative T status, 82% were approved.
67 The four year period of validity for T-visas was codified by The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-162, §821). Prior to P.L. 109-162, the validity period was three years and was
specified, not by statute, but by regulation (8 C.F.R. 214.11).
68 Bona fide application means an application for T status which after initial review has been determined that the
application is complete, there is no evidence of fraud, and presents prima facie evidence of eligibility for T status
including admissibility.
69 Refugees are generally eligible for federal, state and local public benefits. In addition, refugees are eligible for Food
Stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for seven years after entry, and for Medicaid and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families for seven years after entrance and then at state option. CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen
Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
70 Victims may also be repatriated to their home country if they desire with assistance from the Department of State,
government of their country of origin, or nongovernmental organizations. The United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops et al., A Guide for Legal Advocates Providing Services to Victims of Human Trafficking, prepared with a grant
from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, November 2004, p. Appendix 1-
3. (Hereafter cited as Catholic Bishops, A Guide for Legal Advocates Providing Services to Victims of Human
Trafficking.)
71 28 C.F.R. §1100.3-§1100.33.
Congressional Research Service
24
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table 9. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2011
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total
Principal Aliens (Victims)
Applied
163 587 352 229 346 230 394 475 574 967 4,317
Approved
17 285 156 112 182 279 247 313 447 557 2,595
Denied
12 72 303 213 46 70 64 77 138 223 1,218
Derivative Aliens (Family)
Applied
234 456 359 124 301 149 290 235 463 795 3,406
Approved
9 268 271 114 106 261 171 273 349 722 2,544
Denied
4 56 58 18 39 52 19 54 105 137 542
Source: Department of Homeland Security data provided to CRS.
Notes: Some approvals are from prior fiscal year(s) filings. Also, some applicants were denied more than once
(e.g., filed once, denied, and filed again). For FY2004 and FY2005, 170 of the denials stemmed from one case
where the applicants did not qualify as victims of trafficking under TVPA.
Since FY2007, the number of applications for T-1 status has increased, and in FY2011 there was
a historically high number of applicants (967). In the past three years, there has been an increase
in the number of aliens granted T-status (i.e., approved applications) but the increase is a function
of the increase in applicants, not in the approval rate.72
Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Residence
T status, which is originally valid for four years, is not renewable after the alien’s presence in the
United States is not necessary to assist in the investigation or prosecution of TIP. Nonetheless,
after three years, aliens with T status may petition for legal permanent residence (LPR) status
(i.e., green card or immigrant status). To adjust to LPR status an alien must
• be admissible (i.e., that the alien is not ineligible for a visa or status adjustment
under the so-called “grounds for inadmissibility” of the INA, which include
having a criminal history, being a terrorist, and being a security risk to the United
States);
• have been physically present in the United States for either (1) a continuous
period of at least three years since the date of admission under T status, or (2) a
continuous period during the investigation or prosecution of the acts of
trafficking, provided that the Attorney General has certified that the investigation
or prosecution is complete;
• since being granted T status, has been a person of good moral character; and
72 Between FY2006 and FY2009 the approval rate for T-1 status was approximately 80% and then declined slightly in
FY2010 (76%) and FY2011 (71%). CRS analysis of unpublished data from DHS.
Congressional Research Service
25
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• establish that (1) they have complied with reasonable requests of assistance in the
investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, or (2) that they would suffer
extreme hardship upon removal from the United States.73
The regulations concerning adjustment to LPR status from T status were released on December
12, 2008, and became effective on January 12, 2009.74 Under statute, 5,000 aliens in T-1 status
can adjust to LPR status in a fiscal year. The cap does not apply to family members (e.g., T-2 visa
holders).
Continued Presence
Federal law enforcement officials who encounter victims of severe forms of TIP and are potential
witnesses to that trafficking may request that DHS grant the continued presence of the alien in the
United States. Historically, the Attorney General has had the discretionary authority to use a
variety of statutory and administrative mechanisms to ensure the alien’s continued presence.75
Most of the statutory and administrative mechanisms for continued presence required that the
alien depart from the United States once her presence for the criminal investigation or prosecution
is no longer required. In most cases, victims granted continued presence are eligible for work
authorization.76 Requests for continued presence are handled by the Law Enforcement Parole
Branch of DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In some cases, law enforcement prefer giving the alien continued presence rather than T status to
prevent the appearance during the prosecution of the traffickers that the alien’s testimony was
“bought.” In FY2010, continued presence was granted to 186 potential trafficking victims, a
decrease from 299 in FY2009.77
U Nonimmigrant Status
Some victims of trafficking are eligible for U nonimmigrant status. The Violence Against Women
Act of 2000, Division B of TVPA, created the U nonimmigrant status, often called the U-visa, for
victims of physical or mental abuse.78 To qualify for U status, the alien must file a petition and
establish that
73 INA §245(l)
74 Department of Homeland Security, “Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T or U
Nonimmigrant Status,” 73 Federal Register 75540-75564, December 12, 2008.
75 28 C.F.R. Part 1000.35. The mechanisms for continued presence may include parole, voluntary departure, stay of
final removal orders, or any other authorized form of continued presence in the United States, including adjustment to
an applicable nonimmigrant status. Some of these authorities were transferred to the Secretary of DHS in the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). Others remain with or are shared by the Attorney General.
76 Viet D. Dinh, Department of Justice. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian
Affairs concerning Monitoring and Combating Trafficking in Persons: How Are We Doing?, March 7, 2002.
77 In FY2009, there were 301 requests for continued presence relating to human trafficking cases; 299 were approved
while 2 were withdrawn by the law enforcement agency due to insufficient evidence. In addition, there were 148
requests for extensions of existing continued presence grants, all of which were approved. In FY2009, aliens from 35
countries were granted continued presence due to human trafficking. Most victims were from Thailand, the Philippines,
Haiti, and Mexico. In addition, Honolulu, Chicago, Miami and Tampa were the cites with the most requests for
continued presence. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government
Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, July 2010: pp. 35-36.
78 INA 101(a)(15)(U).
Congressional Research Service
26
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• he/she suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a
victim of certain criminal activities;79
• as certified by a law enforcement or immigration official, he/she (or if the alien is
a child under age 16, the child’s parent, guardian or friend) possesses information
about the criminal activity involved;
• he/she has been, is being or is likely to be helpful in the investigation and
prosecution of the criminal activity by federal, state or local law enforcement
authorities; and
• the criminal activity violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the
United States.
The U category is limited to 10,000 principal aliens per fiscal year.80 After three years, those in U
status may apply for LPR status.81 The number of aliens granted U status because of trafficking is
unknown. Unlike aliens with T status, those with U status are not eligible for assistance through
the Office of Refugee Resettlement or for federal public benefits. Those who receive U status
may be eligible for programs to assist crime victims though the Department of Justice’s Office for
Victims of Crime.
Table 10. U Visas Issued 2009-2011
Principal Aliens (Victims)
Derivative Aliens (Family)
Fiscal Year
Applied Approved Denied
Applied Approved Denied
2009 6,835 5,825 688
4,102 2,838 158
2010 10,742 10,073 4,347
6,418 9,315 2,576
2011 16,768 10,088 2.929
10,033 7,602 1,645
Total 34,345 25,986 7,964 20,553 19,755 4,379
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
From October 2008 through September 2011, there were 34,345 applications for U-1 status, and
25,986 were approved.82 During the same time period, there were 20,553 applications for
derivative U status, and 19,755 were approved. Of the adjudicated applications for U-1 status,
79 Certain criminal activity refers to one or more of the following or any similar activity in violation of federal or state
criminal law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution;
sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade;
kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter, murder;
felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit
any of the above mentioned crimes.
80 INA §214(o)(2). Although the interim final regulations on U status were released in September 2007, prior to that
aliens who met the criteria for U status were given immigration benefits similar to U status. In 2005, for example, 287
aliens were given “quasi-U” status. Unpublished data from DHS.
81 Department of Homeland Security, “Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Resident for Aliens in T or U
Nonimmigrant Status,” 73 Federal Register 75540-75564, December 12, 2008.
82 On July 15, 2010, the 10,000 application for U-1 status of approved for FY2010. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS Reaches Milestone: 10,000 U Visas Approved in Fiscal Year
2010: U Visa Protects Victims of Crime and Strengthens Law Enforcement Efforts,” press release, July 15, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
27
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
approximately 76% were approved, while almost 82% of the derivative U adjudicated
applications were approved.
The 10,000 Cap for U Status
As discussed above, the U category is statutorily limited to 10,000 principal aliens per fiscal
year.83 The statutory cap of 10,000 was reached in both FY2010 and FY2011. Although the
statutory cap was been reached, USCIS continued to accept and process new petitions for U status
and issued a Notice of Conditional Approval to petitioners who were found eligible for but were
unable to receive U status because the cap has been reached.84
Aid Available to Victims of Trafficking in the United States
Under the TVPA, the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Labor (DOL) have programs or administer grants to other entities to provide services to
trafficking victims. In From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, at least 1,472 potential victims
(foreign nationals and U.S. citizens) received services from non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) supported by HHS and DOJ.85 In addition, the Legal Services Corporation86 has
instructed its lawyers to provide legal assistance to trafficking victims.87
There is confusion over whether U.S. citizens, as well as noncitizens, are eligible for services
under all the anti-trafficking grant programs in TVPA, and whether Congress has provided
funding for programs that target U.S. citizen and LPR victims.88 Notably, the FY2009 Attorney
General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons states, “the funds provided under the TVPA by the federal government for direct services
to victims are dedicated to assist non-U.S. citizen victims and may not currently be used to assist
U.S. citizen victims.”89 Nonetheless, each year since FY2008, Congress has appropriated
approximately $10 million90 to HHS to “carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
83 P.L. 106-386, §1513(c). 8 U.S.C. 1184(o)(2).
84 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Questions and Answers, USCIS Reaches Milestone: 10,000 U Visas
Approved in Fiscal Year 2010,” press release, July 15, 2010; and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Relief
Provided to Thousands of Victims of Crimes, USCIS Achieves Significant Milestone—Approves 10,000 U-Visa
Petitions for Second Straight Year,” press release. September 19, 2011.
85 The number of victims was more than double the number served during the previous year. U.S. Department of State,
Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
86 The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), established by Congress, is a private, nonprofit, federally funded corporation
that helps provide legal assistance to low-income people in civil (i.e., non-criminal) matters.
87 In FY2009, seven LSC grantees assisted 92 trafficking victims. DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: FY2009, p.34.
88 Under the TVPA, ”noncitizen victims” refer to victims of human trafficking in the United States who are either on
temporary visas or are illegally present (i.e., unauthorized aliens). It does not include LPRs, i.e., aliens who are in the
United States permanently, often referred to as immigrants. References to U.S. citizen trafficking victims include LPR
victims.
89 Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, July 2010: p. 75. (Hereafter DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to
Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009.)
90 FY2010 appropriations were $12.5 million.
Congressional Research Service
28
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
2000.”91 Thus, it appears likely that the funding would be available for benefits and programs
specifically for U.S. citizens that were authorized under the reauthorization acts.
Regardless of funding, there seems to be disagreement over whether U.S. citizen and noncitizen
victims of trafficking are eligible for each of the programs discussed below. Certification by HHS
appears to be a necessary condition of receiving trafficking victims’ services from HHS, DOL,
and the Legal Services Corporation, under the programs created in the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act (P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1), 22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(1)), as enacted in 2000.92
Certification is a process that enables noncitizen trafficking victims to be classified as such, and
therefore eligible for services. U.S. citizen and LPR trafficking victims are not required to be
certified by HHS, and indeed would not meet the criteria to be certified because certification
applies only to foreign nationals who need an immigration status (e.g., T status or continued
presence) to remain in the United States. Nonetheless, a 2007 report by the Senior Policy
Operating Group on Trafficking in Persons (SPOG) states that “there are not many differences in
trafficking victims’ eligibility for the services we reviewed when one looks at the relevant
statutes.” However, the report does note that U.S. citizen victims may have less intensive case
management services compared to noncitizens.93 In addition, only noncitizen trafficking victims
are eligible for refugee-specific programs.94
Health and Human Services Grants
The TVPA required HHS to expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of trafficking
in the United States, without regard to the immigration status of such victims.95 Under the law, to
receive these benefits and services, victims of severe forms of trafficking who are at least 18
years of age must be certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security,96 as willing to assist in every reasonable way in the
91 (P.L. 111-117, P.L. 111-8, P.L. 110-161). For FY2005 through FY2007, money was appropriated to “carry out the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-193)” (P.L. 110-5, P.L. 109-149, P.L. 108-447).
92 “[in] the case of nonentitlement programs, subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and the heads of
other Federal agencies shall expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the
United States,… without regard to the immigration status of such victims….For the purposes of this paragraph, the
term ‘‘victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons’’ means only a person—(i) who has been subjected to an act or
practice described in section 103(8) as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and (ii)(I) who has not attained
18 years of age; or (II) who is the subject of a certification…. [C]ertification… is a certification by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services…that the person…(I) is willing to assist in every reasonable way in the investigation and
prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons or is unable to cooperate with such a request due to physical or
psychological trauma; and (II)(aa) has made a bona fide application for a visa under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act… that has not been denied; or (bb) is a person whose continued presence in the
United States the Secretary of Homeland Security is ensuring in order to effectuate prosecution of traffickers in
persons.”
93 Senior Policy Operating Group on Trafficking in Persons: Subcommittee on Domestic Trafficking, Final Report and
Recommendations, Washington, DC, August 2007, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/SPOGReport-Final9-5-07.pdf.
94 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
95 TVPA §107(b)(1)(B); 22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(1)(B). The act also created a grant program in DOJ for state, local, tribal
governments, and nonprofit victims’ service organizations to develop, strengthen, or expand service programs for
trafficking victims. (22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(2)).
96 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107-296) abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) and transferred most of its functions to various bureaus in the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
effective March 1, 2003. In addition, due to HSA, much of the Attorney General’s authority in immigration law is
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking, having made a bona fide application
for a T-visa that has not been denied, and being granted continued presence in the United States
by the Secretary of Homeland Security to effectuate the prosecution of traffickers in persons.97
Under the law, trafficking victims under the age of 18 do not have to be certified to receive
benefits and services, but it is HHS policy to issue eligibility letters to such victims.98 Although
the law does not differentiate between U.S. citizen and noncitizen trafficking victims, according
to HHS, U.S. citizen trafficking victims also do not have to be certified to receive services.99
HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provides certification and eligibility letters for
victims.
From FY2001 through FY2009, HHS certified 2,076 people; 212 (9.6%) of the victims were
minors.100 In addition, in FY2010, 449 adult victims received certifications, and 92 children
received eligibility letters. The certified victims represented 47 different countries; however, the
countries with the largest percentage of certified victims were Thailand, India, Mexico, Honduras,
Philippines, Haiti, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic.101
ORR funds and facilitates a variety of programs to help refugees “economic and social self-
sufficiency in their new homes in the United States,” and noncitizen victims of severe forms of
trafficking are eligible for these programs.102 ORR-funded activities include cash and medical
assistance, social services to help refugees become socially and economically self-sufficient, and
targeted assistance for impacted areas. Special refugee cash assistance (RCA) and refugee
medical assistance (RMA) are the heart of the refugee program. RCA and RMA, which are
administered by the states, are intended to help needy refugees who are ineligible to receive
benefits from mainstream federal assistance programs. In addition, minor noncitizen victims can
participate in DHS’s Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program.103 TVPA and the subsequent
reauthorization acts, authorize funds for ORR to provide similar assistance to trafficking victims.
(...continued)
currently vested in or shared with the Secretary of Homeland Security. For more information on the role of the
Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security over immigration law, see CRS Report RL31997, Authority to
Enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the Wake of the Homeland Security Act: Legal Issues.
97 If the alien pursues long-term immigration relief other than T status, services under the HHS programs are
discontinued. TVPA §107(b)(1)(E); 22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(1)(E). U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons
Report, June 2011, p. 375.
98 HHS has the exclusive authority to determine if a child is eligible on an interim basis (up to 120 days) for assistance.
During the interim period, the Secretary of HHS consults with the AG, Secretary of HHS and NGOs to determine the
child’s eligibility for long-term assistance.. DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government
Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, pp 18-19.
99 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
100 Certification letters are for adult victims, while minor victims receive eligibility letters since, under law, they do not
have to be certified as trafficking victims for services.
101 Fifty-five percent of adult victims certified in FY2010 were victims of labor trafficking. U.S. Department of State,
Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
102 P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1)(A). The eligibility of noncitizens for public assistance programs is based on a complex set
of rules that are determined largely by the type of noncitizen in question and the nature of services being offered. For
example, refugees are eligible for Medicaid for five years after entry/grant of status, then made ineligible (unless they
became citizens or qualified under another status). For a discussion of the eligibility of trafficking victims for state and
federal means tested benefits see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy
Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
103 P.L. 110-457, §235(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service
30
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
While both U.S. citizen and noncitizen trafficking victims are eligible for the general federal
public benefits, only noncitizen trafficking victims are eligible for the benefits specifically
designed for refugees.104
ORR also provides grants to organizations that render assistance specific to the needs of victims
of trafficking, such as temporary housing, independent living skills, cultural orientation,
transportation needs, access to appropriate educational programs, and legal assistance and
referrals. It is unclear whether these services are available to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.
ORR may also supply trafficking victims with intensive case management programs to help the
victim find housing and employment, and provide mental health counseling and specialized foster
care programs for children. ORR performs outreach to inform victims of services and educate the
public about trafficking.105
In addition, HHS conducts outreach to inform victims of services and to educate the public about
trafficking. HHS has established the Rescue and Restore Victims of Human Trafficking public
awareness campaign, which promotes public awareness about trafficking and the protections
available for trafficking victims. The goal of the campaign is to help communities identify and
serve victims of trafficking, supporting them in coming forward to receive services and aid law
enforcement. In addition to promoting public awareness about trafficking, HHS through the
Rescue and Restore campaign has established anti-trafficking coalitions in 25 areas.106 Another
component of the campaign is the creation of a toll-free National Human Trafficking Resource
Center available for advice 24 hours a day.107 (For a discussion of authorizations and
appropriations for the HHS grant program, see Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime
The TVPA created a grant program administered by the Attorney General to provide grants to
states, Indian tribes, local governments, and nonprofit victims services organizations to develop,
expand, or strengthen victims service programs for trafficking victims.108 This grant program is
administer through DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and provides emergency services,
including temporary housing, medical care, crisis counseling and legal assistance, to victims as
soon as they have been encountered, until certification by HHS (discussed above). The program
also provides grants to build community capacity in addressing the needs of trafficking victims by
enhancing interagency collaboration and supporting coordinated victim responses.109 According
104 For additional information on programs for refugees see CRS Report R41570, U.S. Refugee Resettlement
Assistance, by Andorra Bruno.
105 Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2007, May 2008: p. 10.
106 These areas are: Houston, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; New York, New York; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Newark, New
Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; San Francisco, California;
Sacramento, California; Louisville, Kentucky; Nashville, Tennessee; Columbus, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; San Diego,
Los Angeles, and Orange Counties in California; and statewide in Colorado, Idaho, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Minnesota, and North Carolina. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S.
Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2008, June 2009: p. 14.
107 Department of Health and Human Services, “About Human Trafficking,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
trafficking/about/index.html#wwd.
108 P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(2).
109 From the inception of the program in January 2003 through June 30, 2009, OVC provided services to 2,699 pre-
certified potential victims of trafficking. In all but one reporting period during that time (January to June 2006) grantees
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
31
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
to DOJ, OVC awards grants to non-governmental organizations to provide trafficking victims
with comprehensive or specialized services, and training and technical assistance to grantees for
program support and enhancement.110 (For a discussion of authorizations and appropriations for
this program, see Appendix B and Appendix C.)
Department of Labor
DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) One-Stop Career Centers111 provide job
search assistance, career counseling, and occupational skills training to trafficking victims.112
These services are provided directly by state and local grantees to trafficking victims. The ETA
does not collect information on the extent to which such services are used by trafficking
victims.113
In addition, victims between the ages of 16 and 24—both U.S. citizen victims and noncitizen
victims who have work authorization—may be eligible to participate in Job Corps.114 Job Corps
does not collect information on the extent to which these services are offered to or utilized by
trafficking victims.115 (For program authorizations, see Appendix B.)
Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses
Human trafficking investigations are often complicated by language and humanitarian issues
(e.g., the victim has been traumatized and is unable to aid in the investigation), as well as
logistical challenges and difficulties (e.g., transporting, housing, and processing the victims,
especially alien victims). In addition, certain types of investigative techniques, such as controlled
(...continued)
served more labor trafficking victims than sex trafficking victims. Notably, in some cases, services may be stopped if
the victim refuses to work with law enforcement. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010,
p. 341, and Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to
Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, July 2010: pp. 26-30. (Hereafter DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual
Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009.)
110 DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: FY2008, p.6.
111 For more information on One-Stop Career Centers, see CRS Report RL34251, Federal Programs Available to
Unemployed Workers, coordinated by Katelin P. Isaacs.
112 These services are provided in accordance with the Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 19-01, change 1,
which was reissued by DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in 2008. In addition to informing the
state and local workforce systems about federal resources for victims of trafficking, the guidance letter notes that
services may not be denied to victims of severe forms of trafficking because of their immigration status. DOJ, Attorney
General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year
2009, p. 32.
113 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, pp. 32-33.
114 The Job Corps program is carried out by the Office of Job Corps within the Office of the DOL Secretary, and
consists of residential centers throughout the country. The purpose of the program is to provide disadvantaged youth
with the skills needed to obtain and hold a job, enter the Armed Forces, or enroll in advanced training or higher
education. In addition to receiving academic and employment training, youth also engage in social and other services to
promote their overall well-being. For more information on Job Corps, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth:
Employment and Job Training Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
115 Catholic Bishops, A Guide for Legal Advocates Providing Services to Victims of Human Trafficking, p. Appendix
1-6. DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
32
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
delivery operations,116 cannot be used. Moreover, unlike drug trafficking cases where the
contraband itself is proof of the illegal activity, the successful prosecution of trafficking cases
relies on the availability of witnesses who may refuse to testify because of fear of retribution
against themselves or their families.117
Within the United States, the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security (DHS), and
Labor (DOL) have primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting traffickers.118 The
majority of the cases are investigated by agents in DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
and DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), who coordinate as appropriate,119
and are prosecuted by DOJ.120 Agents in the FBI’s Civil Rights Unit (CRU) investigate trafficking
in the United States. In addition, under the FBI’s Human Trafficking Initiative, FBI field offices
use threat assessment to determine the existence and scope of trafficking in their region,
participate in the anti-trafficking task force, conduct investigations, and report significant case
developments to the CRU. In FY2010, federal law enforcement charged 181 individuals, and
obtained 141 convictions in 103 human trafficking prosecutions.121
In addition, DOJ funds 39 anti-trafficking task forces nationwide. These task forces are composed
of federal, state, and local law enforcement investigators and prosecutors, labor enforcement and
NGO victims service providers. These task forces coordinate cases as well as conduct law
enforcement training on the identification, investigation, and prosecution of human trafficking
cases. Reportedly, research has shown that locales with task forces are more likely to identify and
prosecute trafficking cases.122 These taskforces reported 750 trafficking investigations during
FY2010.123
116 Controlled delivery is an investigative technique in which law enforcement knowingly allows a shipment to travel to
its destination so that law enforcement can learn more about a criminal enterprise and the people involved.
117 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Combating Alien Smuggling, Opportunities Exist to Improve the Federal
Response, GAO-05-305, May 2005, p. 10. (Hereafter cited as GAO, Combating Alien Smuggling, Opportunities Exist
to Improve the Federal Response.)
118 This section is based on the information in Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services,
Department of State, Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Agency of International
Development, Assessment of U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, September 2007.
119 The division of responsibilities between these two agencies is not clearly delineated which may lead to a lack of
coordination between the agencies as well as possibly some duplicative efforts. In addition, according to an ICE Office
of Investigations (OI) official, the Border Patrol only has a minor role in alien smuggling and trafficking investigations
and is required to coordinate with OI before initiating anti-smuggling investigations. GAO, Immigration Enforcement:
DHS Has Incorporated Immigration Enforcement Objectives and Is Addressing Future Planning Requirements (2004),
p. 9.
120 Both agencies also provide training to federal and state law enforcement on trafficking victim identification. U.S.
Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 339, and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in
Persons Report, June 2011, p. 374.
121 Of the cases, 32 were for labor trafficking and 71 were for sex trafficking. Note that these numbers do not reflect
cases involving the commercial sexual exploitation of children that were brought under states other than TVPA’s sex
trafficking provisions. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 373.
122 The number of investigations and prosecutions among the task forces varies widely. More investigations are for sex
trafficking than labor trafficking, which may be a result of law enforcement being able to rely upon pre-existing vice
units devoted to prosecution enforcement. There are no comparable preexisting structures for involuntary servitude in
the labor sector. Reportedly, DOJ is aware of these critiques and is implementing measures to address them. U.S.
Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 340; and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in
Persons Report, June 2011, p. 373.
123 As of the end of FY2009, the task-forces had identified 3,687 potential trafficking victims. U.S. Department of
State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 373, and DOJ, AG’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
ICE uses a global enforcement strategy to disrupt and dismantle domestic and international
criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking. In FY2009, ICE opened 566 cases with a
nexus to human trafficking124 In addition, DOL is involved in cases of trafficking through
enforcement of labor standards laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act125 and the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.126
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center
In July 2004, the Secretaries of DOS and DHS and the Attorney General signed a charter to
establish the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC), and The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458, §7202), signed into law on December 17,
2004, formalized the HSTC. The HSTC severs as the federal government’s information
clearinghouse and intelligence fusion center for all federal agencies addressing human smuggling,
human trafficking, and the potential use of smuggling routes by terrorists. Specifically, the HSTC
is tasked with
• serving as the focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist travel;
• serving as a clearinghouse with respect to all relevant information from all
federal agencies in support of the United States strategy to prevent clandestine
terrorist travel, migrant smuggling, and trafficking of persons;
• ensuring cooperation among all relevant policy, law enforcement, diplomatic, and
intelligence agencies of the federal government to improve effectiveness and to
convert all information relating to clandestine terrorist travel, the facilitation of
migrant smuggling, and trafficking of persons into tactical, operational, and
strategic intelligence that can be used to combat such illegal activities; and
• submitting to Congress, on an annual basis, a strategic assessment regarding
vulnerabilities that may be exploited by international terrorists, human
smugglers, and traffickers.
The HSTC has had issues with cooperation between the different agencies and departments,
related to funding, staffing, and information sharing.127 In The Implementing the 9/11
Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, discussed in Appendix A), Congress
attempted to address these issues.
(...continued)
Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 36.
124 DOJ, AG’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal
Year 2007, p. 23; DOJ, AG’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2008, p. 36; and DOJ, AG’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 44 .
125 29 U.S.C. §§201-219.
126 29 U.S.C. Chapter 20.
127 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
Oversight, 9/11 Reform Act: Examining the Implementation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, hearings,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., March 8, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
34
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
TVPA Reauthorization Activity in the 112th Congress
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
457) reauthorized the TVPA through FY2011. There have been bills introduced in the 112th
Congress to reauthorize the TVPA, possibly making changes to the act and extending
authorizations for some current programs. In addition, there have been several other bills
introduced in the 112th Congress that contain provisions related to human trafficking.
Two bills that would reauthorize the TVPA have received action. S. 1301128 was reported by the
Senate Judiciary Committee on October 13, 2011, and H.R. 2830129 was ordered reported by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on October 5, 2011. The reported versions of both bills, due in
part to the current state of the economy,130 are less expansive than the introduced versions of the
bills.
H.R. 2830 as reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee: The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011131
H.R. 2830 would authorize the Secretary of State to limit the time that a U.S. passport issued to a
sex offender is valid, and to revoke the passport of an individual convicted in a foreign country of
a sex offense. The revocation would not prevent the U.S. citizen from reentering the United
States, and the citizen could reapply for a passport at any time after he returned to the United
States (§101). The bill would also change the title of the State Department’s Office to Monitor
and Combat Human Trafficking to the Office to Monitor and Combat Modern Slavery and Other
Forms of Human Trafficking (§102).
Section 103 of H.R. 2830 would expand existing authorities to provide economic alternatives to
human trafficking, including public-private partnerships for youth employment opportunities.
Section 103 identifies specific vulnerable populations for which to prioritize trafficking
prevention efforts and would also authorize the State Department to provide assistance
specifically in post-conflict and humanitarian emergencies. Section 104 would require the
Department of State in its annual TIP Report to include sections on (1) best practices in slavery
eradication; (2) the connection between refuges and human trafficking; and (3) an assessment of
actions by the Departments of State and Justice to investigate allegations of trafficking or abuse
of aliens holding A-3 or G-5 visas.132 Section 105 of the House bill would also extend the
128 S. 1301 was introduced on June 29, 2011 by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Leahy offered a amendment in the nature of a substitute during the mark-up of S. 1301. The amendment was
agreed to by voice-vote.
129 H.R. 2830 was introduced on August 30, 2011 by Representative Christopher H. Smith. Representative Smith
offered a amendment in the nature of a substitute during the mark-up of H.R. 2830, and the amendment was agreed to
by voice-vote. For more information on the mark-up see Joanna Anderson, “House Panel Approves U.N. Population
Fund, Anti-Trafficking Measures,” CQ.Com, October 5, 2011, http://www.cq.com/doc/committees-
2011100500291818?wr=Nng4dW84NzhVdzBsRlJZSTlQZUVkUQ.
130 U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs, Mark-Up of H.R. 2830, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2011. U.S.
Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark-Up of S. 1301, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 13, 2011. U.S. Congress,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, report to accompany S. 1301,
112th Cong., 1st sess., November 17, 2011, S.Rept. 112-96.
131 U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs, Mark-Up of H.R. 2830, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2011.
132 A-3 visa holders refer to workers admitted under INA §101(a)(15)(A)(iii), who are the attendants, servants or
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
additional $1 issuance fee for machine-readable visas till September 30, 2015. The Department of
Labor would be mandated to monitor and report on forced and child labor practices in foreign
countries as well as the United States (§106).
H.R. 2830 would expand the existing federal prohibition, which forbids U.S. citizens and LPRs
from traveling in the foreign commerce of the United States and engaging in such sexual contact
with a child as would be unlawful had it occurred in U.S. territorial jurisdiction, to include travel
that affects the U.S. foreign commerce and to make it clear that the proscription applies to those
who reside overseas and regardless of the fact the contact may be generally accepted or even
lawful under the laws of the place where it occurs (§107).
In addition, Section 201 of H.R. 2830 would require the annual reports to Congress on U.S. anti-
trafficking activities to include expanded data collection on U.S. contractors or subcontractors
engaging in trafficking in persons. The report would also have to include information from each
DOJ human trafficking task-force on T and U visa certifications requested and granted, and
requests and grants of continued presence. It would also require information on such trafficking
victims such as age, gender, citizenship, type of trafficking (i.e., labor or sex). The bill would also
require that requests for continued presence made to federal law enforcement officers be
responded to no later than 15 days after the request was made to whether the official filed an
application with the DHS Secretary, and if not, when or if the official expects to do so. The DHS
Secretary would have to approve or deny the application within one month (§202). Section 203
would mandate the State Department to report in its annual TIP Report to Congress on the efforts
of the U.S. government to comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking,
which the State Department has been doing for the past two years.
In the introduced version of H.R. 2830, Title II included a provision to establish a Director of
Anti-Trafficking Policies within the Office of the Secretary of Defense with a rank of Assistant
Secretary. The Director would be responsible for overseeing Defense Department policies on
combating human trafficking, including the enforcement of contractor requirements to prevent
human trafficking in the performance of defense contracts, both in the United States and at
overseas installations. In the House Foreign Affairs Committee mark-up session, this language
was removed, reportedly due to concerns related to cost.133
Section 214 of H.R. 2830 would make it a criminal offense to knowingly destroy, or for a period
of more than 48 hours, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess another person’s passport or
immigration or personal identification documents in the course of committing or attempting to
commit the offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling. It would also be a
criminal offence to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess such documents in order to
unlawfully maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor or services of the individual. Violators would be
subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than one year. The bill would also add foreign
labor contracting fraud (18 U.S.C. 1351) to the list of racketeering (RICO) predicate offenses
with the additional result that such fraud would automatically become a money laundering
(...continued)
personal employees of Ambassadors, public ministers, career diplomats, consuls, other foreign government officials
and employees or the immediate family of such workers. G-5 visa holders (admitted under INA §101(a)(15)(G)(v)) are
the attendants, servants, or personal employees and their immediate family of foreign government representatives or
foreign employees of international organizations.
133 Joanna Anderson, “House Panel Approves U.N. Population Fund, Anti-Trafficking Measures,” Congressional
Quarterly, October 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
36
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
predicate offense as well; foreign labor contracting fraud is a 5-year felony; RICO and money
laundering are 20-year felonies, and both trigger asset forfeiture provisions (§215).
The House bill (§221) would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human Services and State, to report
annually to Congress on alien children encountered and screened for being trafficking victims by
CPB, including the outcomes of the screenings. H.R. 2830 would also lower from 48 hours to 24
hours the required time that a federal agency must notify HHS when they encountered an
unaccompanied alien child. Would make several changes to the provisions related to the custody
and care of unaccompanied alien children (these provisions were included in P.L. 110-457, §235)
including specifying that the Secretary of DHS should release or place in the least restrictive
setting unaccompanied alien children who are not a danger to the community or a flight risk, and
any unaccompanied alien child who turns 18 while in custody. H.R. 2830 would also amend the
law so that a home study is not necessary before placing an unaccompanied minor with his/her
parents unless there were past allegation of abuse or neglect.
In addition, H.R. 2830 would require states as part of their plans for adoption and foster care
assistance to include information on existing practices and future plans to prevent and provide
victim assistance to foreign, U.S. citizen, and LPR victims children who are victims of human
trafficking (§222). The House bill (§223) also contains provisions that would attempt to increase
public awareness of the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline, by among other
requirements, mandating that posters advertising the hotline be posted in certain establishments
(e.g., massage parlors, train stations, strip clubs).
H.R. 2830 would reauthorize appropriations for grant programs in the TVPA of 2000, as
amended, and the TVPRA of 2005 for FY2012 and FY2013 (§§301-302). The House bill would
maintain most programs at current authorization levels.134 (See Table 11 for a detailed list of
authorization levels.) Section 303 of H.R. 2830 would also require a report to Congress on the
amount of appropriations each department or agency received and a list of activities funded by
the appropriations and the appropriations account from which they were funded. H.R. 2830 would
also require the Senior Policy Operating Group in coordination with the Department of State to
submit a report to Congress on internet-facilitated human trafficking.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted, en bloc, four amendments to H.R. 2830.
Representative Fortenberry offered an amendment that would prohibit foreign assistance from the
peacekeeping operations account to countries that the Secretary of State annually designates as
conscripting or harboring child soldiers in armed conflict. Representative Murphy offered an
amendment that would require the Secretary of State to encourage to any publicly traded or
private entity with worldwide receipts in excess of $100 million to disclose on an annual basis on
the company’s website and to the Secretary of State any efforts that have been taken to identify
and address human trafficking within the supply chains. Representative Royce offered an
amendment that described the Sense of Congress on human trafficking in Cambodia, stating that
it should be designated a Tier 3 country. And Representative Bass offered an amendment to
require the Senior Policy Operating Group to submit a report to Congress on internet-facilitated
human trafficking.
134 The authorization levels would be reduced for three grant programs that have yet to receive funding: HHS grants for
U.S. citizen and LPR victims; grants for a pilot program for residential treatment for juvenile trafficking victims; and
grants to local/state law enforcement for anti-trafficking activities.
Congressional Research Service
37
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
S. 1301 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee: The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011135
Sections 101 and 102 of the Senate bill (S. 1301) would require the State Department’s regional
bureaus to create bilateral plans and objectives for combating trafficking and would authorize the
appointment of anti-trafficking officers to promote anti-trafficking diplomacy and initiatives. The
bill would also attempt to promote partnerships among the U.S. government, foreign
governments, and private sector entities to ensure that U.S. citizens do not use items produced by
victims of trafficking and that the entities do not contribute to trafficking in persons (§103).
Section 103 would mandate the President and the Secretary of State to establish additional anti-
trafficking assistance programs, including programs related to anti-labor trafficking, human
trafficking in emergency situations, and child trafficking. Section 104 of S. 1301 would direct
DOJ anti-trafficking taskforces to make all reasonable efforts to distribute information to enable
government agencies to publicize the Nation Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline. The
bill would also require the State Department’s TIP Report to include a section on best practices in
the eradication of human trafficking (§106). Section 105 would update the criteria used to
determine whether governments are achieving congressionally designated “minimum standards
for the elimination of trafficking.”
Section 107 of S. 1301 would require that a video to be shown in consular waiting rooms to
provide information on the rights and responsibilities of the employee under U.S. immigration,
labor, and employment law. The video would have to be developed and available within one year
after enactment. The Senate bill would also require the Secretary of State to develop a multi-year,
multi-sectoral strategy to prevent child marriage, and the Secretary of State would be required to
report on countries where child marriage is prevalent (§108). Section 109 would prohibit, except
in certain circumstances, foreign assistance from the peacekeeping operations account to
countries that the Secretary of State annually designates as conscripting or harboring child
soldiers in armed conflict. Section 110 would create a presidential award for technological
innovations to combat trafficking in persons. The Senate bill would create additional
requirements to provide oversight that contractors and subcontactors were not engaging in human
trafficking (§111). Section 112 of S. 1301 would require that all known trafficking in persons
cases are reported to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (U.S. defense
personnel) or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition of Technology and Logistics
(contractors).
As with H.R. 2830, S. 1301 (§202) would make it a criminal offense to knowingly destroy, or for
a period of more than 48 hours, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess another person’s passport,
or immigration or personal identification documents in the course of committing or attempting to
commit the offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling. It would also be a
criminal offence to destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess such documents in order to
unlawfully maintain, prevent, or restrict the labor or services of the individual. Violators would be
subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than one year. Moreover, S. 1301 would allow
for civil remedies for personal injuries caused during the commission of most criminal trafficking
offenses (§202).
135 U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark-Up of S. 1301, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 13, 2011. U.S.
Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, report to
accompany S. 1301, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 17, 2011, S.Rept. 112-96.
Congressional Research Service
38
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
S. 1301 (§221) would require that additional information be included in the AG’s report on anti-
trafficking activities such as information on the number of persons who have applied for, been
granted, and been denied T and U status; the mean time it takes to adjudicate an application;
efforts being taken to reduce adjudication time; activities taken by federal agencies to train state,
tribal, and local governments and law enforcement officials to identify trafficking victims and
prosecute trafficking offenses, including the number of victims; and activities taken by DOJ and
HHS to meet the needs of minor victims of domestic trafficking. The Senate bill (§222) would
also require the Secretary of Labor to report to Congress biennially goods from countries that the
Bureau of International Labor Affairs has reason to believe are produced by forced labor or child
labor in violation of international standards. The bill would also require the Secretary of State to
provide the Secretary of Labor with information on the use of child and forced labor in the
production of goods (§223). The Senate bill would also require GAO to produce a report on the
use of foreign labor contractors and abuses by such contractors. Section 226 of the Senate bill
would require that all DOJ grants awarded under the TVPA be subject to audits, and would bar
grantees from receiving grants for two years if violations were found. The bill would also require
non-federal grantees to secure a 25% non-federal match of funds before the federal funds could
be expended. S. 1301 would also set procedures and prohibitions related to using grant monies for
administrative expenses, conferences, and lobbying.
Section 231 of S. 1301 would replace the HHS grant program for states, Indian tribes, units of
local government, and nonprofit, nongovernmental victims’ service organizations to provide
assistance programs for U.S. citizens or LPR trafficking victims created in P.L. 109-164, Section
202, with a new grant program for child sex trafficking victims. The new grant program would
authorize the Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, in consultation
with the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in HHS, to award one-year grants to six
eligible to combat sex trafficking of children in the United States. Each grant could range from $2
million to $2.5 million. Of the grant amounts, at least 67% would have to be allocated to non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide counseling, legal services, shelter, clothing, and
other social services to victims, while not less than 10% would have to be allocated provide
services to victims or training for service providers on sex trafficking of children. Funds could
also be used for training for law enforcement; investigative and prosecution expenses; case
management; salaries for law enforcement officers and state and local prosecutors; and outreach,
education, and treatment programs.136
In addition, S. 1301 would specify that the model state anti-trafficking laws created by the AG
should include safe harbor provisions that treat an individual under 18 years of age who has been
arrested for prostitution as a victim of a severe form of trafficking, prohibit the prosecution of
such as person, and refer them to the service providers who provide assistance to victims of
commercial sexual exploitation (§233). The Senate bill would reauthorize appropriations for the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 for FY2012 through FY2015, decreasing some
authorization levels and increasing others.137 (See Table 11 for a detailed list of authorization
levels.)
136 The proposed grant program is identical to S. 596 in the 112th Congress, and S. 2925 in the 111th Congress.
137 The authorization levels would be reduced for three grant programs that have yet to receive funding: HHS grants for
U.S. citizen and LPR victims; grants for a pilot program for residential treatment for juvenile trafficking victims; and
grants to local/state law enforcement for anti-trafficking activities.
Congressional Research Service
39
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
As in H.R. 2830, S. 1301 contains provisions dealing with the care and custody of
unaccompanied alien children. The provisions in the Senate bill are similar but not identical. As
in H.R. 2830, Section 401 would specify that the DHS Secretary should release or place in the
least restrictive setting any unaccompanied alien child who turns 18 while in custody. Unlike
H.R. 2830, the Senate bill (§402) would require the DHS Secretary to create a pilot program in
three states to proved independent child advocates at immigration detention sites for child
trafficking victims and other vulnerable unaccompanied alien children. In addition, the Senate bill
would specify that children who receive U status and are in the custody of HHS are eligible for
programs and services to the same extent as refugees, and the federal government will reimburse
states for foster care provided these children (§403), and would require GAO to do a study on the
effectiveness of CBP screening of children to determine if they are or are at risk for becoming
victims of trafficking (§404).
Table 11. H.R. 2830 and S. 1301: Comparison of Authorizations of Appropriations
(in $ U.S. millions)
FY11 FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
Authorized Programs
P.L.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
110-
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
457
International Programs
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID: Pilot Program for
Rehabilitation Facilities (22
$2.5 $1.5 Struck $1.5 Struck — Struck — Struck
U.S.C. 7105 note)
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
DOS: Interagency Task Force
$5.5 $5.5 $2.0 $5.5 $2.0 — $2.0 — $2.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
DOS: Interagency Task
Force: Reception Expenses
$.003 $.003 Struck $.003 Struck — Struck — Struck
(22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
DOS: Interagency Task
Force: Additional Personnel
$1.5 $1.5 N/A $1.5 N/A — N/A — N/A
(22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
DOS: Prevention (22 U.S.C.
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
7110(c)(1)(A))
DOS: Protection (22 U.S.C.
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
7110(c)(1)(B))
DOS: Prosecution and
Meeting Minimum Standards
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(1)(C))
DOS: Refugees and Internally
Displaced Persons (22 U.S.C.
$1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 — $1.0 — $1.0
7110(c)(1)(B))
President
Congressional Research Service
40
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY11 FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
Authorized Programs
P.L.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
110-
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
457
President: Foreign Assistance
for Law Enforcement
$0.25 $0.25 N/A $0.25 N/A — N/A — N/A
Training (22 U.S.C.
7110(d)(B)
President: Foreign Victim
Assistance (22 U.S.C.
$15.0 $15.0 $7.5 $15.0 $7.5 — $7.5 — $7.5
7110(e)(1))
President: Foreign Assistance
to Meet Minimum Standards
$15.0 $15.0 $7.5 $15.0 $7.5 — $7.5 — $7.5
(22 U.S.C. 7110(e)(2))
President: Research (22
$2.0 $2.0 N/A $2.0 N/A — N/A — N/A
U.S.C. 7110(e)(3))
President: Award for
Extraordinary Efforts (22
—a $0.5 N/A $0.5 N/A — N/A — N/A
U.S.C. 7109b(d))
Domestic Programs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
HHS: Assistance for
Trafficking Victims
12.5 12.5 14.5 12.5 14.5 — 14.5 — 14.5
(22 U.S.C. 7110(b)(1))
HHS: Assistance for U.S.
Citizens (USCs) and Legal
7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 — 7.0 — 7.0
Permanent Residents (LPRs)
(22 U.S.C. 7110(b)(2))
HHS: Local Grant for
USC/LPR Sex Trafficking
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 — 8.0 — 8.0
Victims
(42 U.S.C. 14044a(d))
HHS: Pilot Program for
Juveniles
5.0 3.0 — 3.0 — — — — —
(42 U.S.C. 14044b(g))
HHS: Child Advocates for
— — 1.0 — 1.0 — 2.0 — 2.0
Unaccompanied Minors
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS: Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)
18.0 18.0 10.0 18.0 10.0 — 10.0 — 10.0
Investigations
(22 U.S.C. 7110(i))
DHS: Human Smuggling and
Trafficking Center (HSTC)
2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 — 1.0 — 1.0
(22 U.S.C. 7109a(b)(4))
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ: Assistance for Tracking
Victims
10.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 — 11.0 — 11.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(d)(A))
Congressional Research Service
41
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY11 FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
Authorized Programs
P.L.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
110-
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
457
DOJ: Assistance for USCs
and LPRs
7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 — 8.0 — 8.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(d)(C))
DOJ: Prevent Domestic Sex
Trafficking (DST)—Study on
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 — 1.5 — 1.5
Trafficking
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(1))
DOJ: Prevent DST—Study on
Sex Trafficking
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 — 1.5 — 1.5
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(1))
DOJ: Prevent DST—
Conference
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 — 1.0 — 1.0
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(2))
DOJ: Local Grant for Law
Enforcement
20.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 — 11.0 — 11.0
(42 U.S.C. 14044c(d))
DOJ: Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI)
15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 — 15.0 — 15.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(h))
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
DOL: Assistance for
Trafficking Victims
10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 — 5.0 — 5.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(f))
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 106-386, P.L. 108-193, P.L. 109-164, P.L. 110-457, H.R. 2830, as ordered reported
by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and S. 1301, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Notes: N/A = Authorized program not referenced in bill. Struck = the program would be struck from law by
the bill. H.R. 2830 seeks to reauthorize TVPA programs through FY2013, whereas S. 1301 seeks to reauthorize
TVPA programs through FY2015. The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations include several additional
provisions without specific funding amounts. Such provisions include §107A(f) of P.L. 106-386, as amended (22
U.S.C. 7104a), which authorizes not more than 5% of the amounts made available to carry out the TVPA, as
amended, in each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the President to evaluate anti-trafficking programs and
projects. §114(c)(2) of P.L. 106-386, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(2)), also authorizes such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the Department of State for the preparation of
congressional y mandated human rights reports with reference to human trafficking issues. Note also that
additional funding outside the scope of the TVPA and its reauthorizations has been authorized in separate
legislative vehicles. See for example, §111 of P.L. 109-162, which authorizes $10 million for each fiscal year 2008
through 2011 to the Department of Justice for state and local law enforcement grants for human trafficking
victim identification.
a. With respect to the presidential award for extraordinary efforts to combat trafficking in persons, §112B of
P.L. 106-386, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7109b(d)), authorizes to be appropriated for fiscal years 2008 through
2011 “such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.”
Policy Issues
A broad consensus appears to be shared in Congress and the policy community on the need for
decisive action to curb human trafficking. However, there are some fundamental questions related
Congressional Research Service
42
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
to how broadly human trafficking should be defined. In addition, questions have been raised
about the effective implementation of anti-trafficking programs.
Credibility of TIP Rankings
Many analysts have asserted that the overall impact of the TIP report and sanctions process
depends upon the credibility of the State Department’s annual country TIP rankings. Some would
argue that, although the TIP reports have improved with each year, “inconsistent application of
the minimum standards [mandated by TVPA] and superficial country assessments have
compromised their credibility.”138 Some argue that it is difficult to determine what standards
make a country eligible for Tier 1. They assert that the Tier 2 and Tier 2 Watch List have become
“catch-all” categories that include countries which should really be placed on Tier 3. According to
the GAO, in addition to a lack of clarity in the tier ranking process, the TIP report’s “incomplete
narratives reduce the report’s utility.” The State Department, while acknowledging the need to
continue to increase the comprehensiveness of the report, has stated that “keeping the report
concise is paramount.”139
U.S. Sanctions: A Useful Tool?
Most agree that extensive international cooperation is required in order to stop international
trafficking and that both “carrots” and “sticks” may be needed to influence the policies of other
governments, including financial and technical assistance, as well as the threat of sanctions. Some
assert that unilateral sanctions, when designed in accordance with international norms, can incite
countries to internalize those norms.140 Sanctions seem to be most effective when they are clearly
defined and evenly applied, criteria which some say U.S. trafficking sanctions have not yet
met.141 Some argue that sanctions will probably only be applied to countries already subject to
other sanctions—such as Burma and North Korea—and that threatening other countries with
sanctions may actually encourage them to become less open to working with the United States.
Others argue that while that may be true in a few cases, most countries depend on good political
and economic relations with the United States and fear the public humiliation that comes with a
Tier 3 designation as much as actual sanctions.
Equal Focus on all Types of Trafficking?
Although the TVPA defines trafficking broadly to include problems such as forced labor, sex
slavery, and domestic servitude, and although the U.S. government funds programs to combat all
types of TIP, some argue that U.S. government anti-trafficking efforts disproportionately focus on
sexual exploitation at the expense of other forms of trafficking. They argue that too high a
percentage of the U.S. anti-trafficking budget has been directed to NGOs focused on rescuing
women and children from the commercial sex industry. Inventories of U.S. anti-trafficking
programs since 2004 appear to counter these claims as they show U.S. support for a wide variety
138 Chuang, 2006.
139 GAO, July 2006, p. 3. (GAO-06-825).
140 Sarah H. Cleveland, “Norm Internationalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions,” Yale Journal of International Law,
2001, 1, 31.
141 Chuang, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
43
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
of NGOs that strive to protect victims and prosecute traffickers engaged in all types of human
trafficking.142
Forced Labor: A Growing TIP Problem?
Research suggests that while TIP for sexual exploitation is both a highly prevalent and
particularly visible form of human trafficking, TIP for forced labor exploitation may account for a
large, often unreported, and possibly growing share of TIP globally. According to the UNODC,
sexual exploitation is by far the most commonly reported form of human trafficking, accounting
for 79% of incidents globally. Forced labor, however, follows as the second-most reported form
of human trafficking, at 18%.143 Other groups arrive at different estimates of the prevalence of
various forms of human trafficking. The ILO, for example, found that 43% of all trafficking
victims were trafficked into sexual exploitation, 32% into labor exploitation, and 25% a
combination of both forced labor and sexual exploitation.144 Recent interest in forced labor as a
form of TIP has sparked calls for greater research in analyzing the prevalence of forced labor,
increased international efforts to combat this form of TIP, and more awareness to prevent and
educate potential victims. The State Department’s TIP reports since 2005 have placed an added
emphasis on evaluating country efforts to combat trafficking for forced labor, and several other
programmatic efforts to combat TIP for forced labor are underway at the State Department. Other
international groups, particularly the ILO, also play a large role in efforts to combat forced labor.
Debates Regarding Prostitution and Sex Trafficking
The current U.N. definition of TIP assumes that there are at least two different types of
prostitution, one of which is the result of free choice to participate in the prostitution business
while the other is the result of coercion, vulnerability, deception, or other pressures. Of these,
only the latter type is considered TIP under the U.N. definition. Based on the TVPA, as amended,
sex trafficking is not considered a “severe form of TIP” unless it is associated with commercial
sex acts induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such acts
is a minor.145
Several groups in the United States have sought to redefine TIP to include all prostitution, but
many countries have thus far rejected those attempts. Proponents of this broader definition of TIP
argue that prostitution is “not ‘sex work;’ it is violence against women [that] exists because ...
men are given social, moral and legal permission to buy women on demand.”146 Countries such as
142 Jennifer Block, “Sex Trafficking: Why the Faith Trade is Interested in the Sex Trade,” Conscience,
Summer/Autumn 2004; Debbie Nathan, “Oversexed,” The Nation, August 29 - September 5, 2005, vol. 281; Janie
Chuang, Winter 2006, 13, 1, G-TIP Fact Sheets, Available at http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/fs/index.htm.
143 The study authors contend that using reported incidences creates a bias and most likely does not represent the actual
frequency of different types of trafficking (e.g. sex versus labor trafficking). They note that the exploitation of women
tends to be visible, in city centers, or along highways. Thus, because it is more frequently reported, sexual exploitation
has become the most documented type of trafficking in aggregate statistics. They argue that in comparison, other forms
of exploitation are under-reported: forced or bonded labor; domestic servitude and forced marriage; and the
exploitation of children in begging, the sex trade, and warfare. UNODC and UNGIFT, Global Report on Trafficking in
Persons, February 2009..
144 International Labor Organization (ILO), ILO Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 2008.
145 §103 (8-9) of P.L. 106-386, as amended.
146 Janice G. Raymond, “Sex Trafficking is Not ‘Sex Work,’” Conscience, Spring 2005.
Congressional Research Service
44
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, France, and Italy, which have legal or government-regulated
prostitution, reject such a definitional change and argue that this broader definition would impede
the capacity of the international community to achieve consensus and work together to combat
trafficking.147
The U.S. State Department asserts that prostitution and TIP are inextricably linked. In the 2008
TIP Report to Congress, for example, the State Department states that “sex trafficking would not
exist without the demand for commercial sex flourishing around the world” and that prostitution
and any related activities “should not be regulated as a legitimate form of work for any human
being.”148 The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-193) restricts
anti-trafficking funds to groups that oppose prostitution. Critics have argued that this policy
excludes the people who are most able to report and combat abuses within the sex industry—
prostitutes themselves—and may hinder the success of well-established anti-TIP programs. They
believe that giving prostitutes some measure of legitimacy short of legalization reduces the risk
that they will be exposed to the dangers of trafficking.149
Distinctions Between Trafficking and Alien Smuggling
The concept of and responses to TIP are often confused with those of alien or human smuggling,
irregular migration, and the movement of asylum seekers. In 2000, the United Nations drafted
two protocols, known as the Palermo Protocols, to address TIP and human smuggling.150
According to the U.N. Trafficking Protocol, people who have been trafficked are considered
“victims” and are entitled to government protection and a broad range of social services. In
contrast, the U.N. Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air considers
people who have been smuggled as willing participants in a criminal activity who should be given
“humane treatment and full protection of their rights” while being returned to their country of
origin.151
Some observers contend that smuggling is a “crime against the state” and that smuggled migrants
should be immediately deported, while trafficking is a “crime against a person” whose victims
deserve to be given government assistance and protection.152 Others maintain that there are few
clear-cut distinctions between trafficking and smuggling and that many people who are
considered “smuggled” should actually be viewed as trafficking victims, and, at times, vice versa.
Some argue that as immigration and border restrictions have tightened, smuggling costs have
increased and migration routes have become more dangerous, putting migrants at a high risk of
trafficking. In some cases, smugglers have sold undocumented migrants into situations of forced
labor or prostitution in order to recover their costs or obtain greater profits.153 Despite the U.N.
147 Notably, some European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, have sought to address this policy
debate by criminalizing the purchase of sex, while leaving prostitution as legal. See for example, “Norway Set to Make
Buying Sex Illegal,” The Guardian, April 23, 2007.
148 U.S. Department of State, 2008 TIP Report.
149 U.S. Department of State website, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/index.htm; Feingold, September/October 2005.
150 The United Nations Convention Against Organized Crime and Its Protocols, available at http://www.unodc.org/
unodc/en/crime_cicp_convention.html.
151 Ibid.
152 Statement by Claire Antonelli of Global Rights, Center for Strategic and International Studies Event on Human
Trafficking in Latin America, July 9, 2004.
153 Kinsey Aldan Dinan, “Globalization and National Sovereignty: From Migration to Trafficking,” In Trafficking in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
45
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
protocols on trafficking and smuggling, many countries in practice conflate the two differing, but
sometimes overlapping, phenomena. As a result, some observers argue that TIP policies can
directly or indirectly shape migration (and vice versa) in both countries of origin and
destination.154
How to Measure the Effectiveness of Global Anti-TIP Programs
It is often difficult to evaluate the impact of U.S. anti-trafficking efforts on curbing TIP. So far,
few reliable indicators have been identified. For example, the new estimates of numbers of
trafficking victims in the United States seem considerably lower than some of the previous high-
end estimates. Whether these figures reflect the success of U.S. policies and programs or more
accurate data gathering is unclear. Hard evidence with regard to the results of the more vigorous
international campaign against trafficking is also lacking. Information is often anecdotal.
Worldwide estimates of the numbers of victims seemingly have not changed much, when cross-
border trafficking and trafficking within countries are taken together. A 2006 GAO study
seriously questions the adequacy of any of the estimates.155
Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims
Most of the trafficking victims’ advocacy community and groups working to end trafficking are
supportive of the T status. Nonetheless, these groups have raised concerns about aspects of the
application process that may impede victims from applying for T status or create difficulties for
the victims to meet the standards of T status.156 Some advocacy groups have questioned whether
the T status protects the victims or is primarily a tool for law enforcement.
The opponents to the creation of the T status, on the other hand, contend that the status rewards
criminal behavior. Immigrant benefits are scarce and some argued that there are more meritorious
people who deserve the benefits such as those who have been waiting to come into the country
though legal methods. Some argue that there is a need to protect the victims, but that they are
being given more access to public benefits than are relatives of United States citizens.
Additionally, others expressed concern about the possibility of abuse of T status. For example,
some aliens who had knowingly and willfully violated the law, may claim that they were coerced
after they were arrested by DHS.
As discussed above, between FY2002 and FY2011, DHS approved 2,595 applications for T-1
status, while it is estimated that at least 14,500 aliens are trafficked into the United States each
year. The comparatively small number of T visas issued relative to the estimates of trafficking
into the United States raises some questions. Is the number of noncitizen trafficking victims in the
(...continued)
Humans: Social, Cultural, and Political Dimensions, Sally Cameron and Edward Newman, eds. New York: U.N.
University Press, 2008. “Mexico-U.S.-Caribbean: Tighter Borders Spur People Traffickers,” Latin America Weekly
Report, April 11, 2006.
154 UNODC and UNGIFT, An Introduction to Human Trafficking: Vulnerability, Impact, and Action, 2008, p. 88.
155 GAO, July 2006, p. 3. (GAO-06-825).
156 Some of these concerns were also raised in the minority views expressed in the House Judiciary Committee Report
on H.R. 3244 which became the TVPA. See, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, Report to accompany H.R. 3244, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2000, H.Rept. 106-487.
Congressional Research Service
46
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
United States overestimated? Is the United States government doing a poor job locating and
identifying victims?157 Indeed, DOS’s 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report states: “[v]ictim
identification, given the amount of resources put into the effort, is considered to be low.”158
Stringency of T Determination
The regulations state that “In view of the annual limit imposed by Congress for T-1 status, and the
standard of extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm, [DHS] acknowledges that the T-
1 status will not be an appropriate response with respect to many cases involving aliens who are
victims of severe forms of trafficking.”159 Some contend that the extreme hardship threshold
makes it difficult for victims to receive T status.160 Nonetheless, some in law enforcement have
raised concerns that advocacy organizations are able to ask ICE headquarters without the input of
the local ICE agents to have an alien certified as a trafficking victim, contending that some of
these aliens are not truly trafficking victims.161
Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims
According to the policy memorandum on T status, “the T classification provides an immigration
mechanism for cooperating victims to remain temporarily in the United States to assist in
investigations and prosecutions and provide humanitarian protection to the victims.” Some are
concerned that the emphasis on aiding law enforcement is more important than aiding the victims,
and note that a controversial aspect of the continued presence provision is that federal agents may
supersede a victim’s wishes and require the victim to remain in the United States, if the victim’s
“departure is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”162 NGOs have reported
isolated incidents of law enforcement officers telling victims that they risk losing their benefits if
they do not cooperate, and note that it is challenging getting law enforcement to recognize
reluctant victims for protection purposes.163 Others argue, however, that the only mechanism for
ending trafficking is by encouraging the victims’ cooperation in the prosecution and investigation.
Victims’ Safety
Some victims’ service providers who aid trafficking victims have also expressed concerns that
outside of federal protective custody, there are few safe housing options for victims of trafficking.
Shelters in many areas are full or inaccessible, and domestic violence shelters are ill-equipped to
meet the safety needs of trafficking victims.164 In addition, according to the DOS report, law
157 These issues are discussed in detail in: Jerry Markon, “Human Trafficking Evokes Outrage, Little Evidence; U.S.
Estimates Thousands of Victims, But Efforts to Find Them Fall Short,” Washington Post, September 23, 2007.
158 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
159 Federal Register vol. 67, no. 21: p. 4785. January 31, 2002.
160 Testimony of Derek J. Marsh, Co-Director Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Homeland Security, Crossing the Border: Immigrants in Detention and Victims of Trafficking, Part II,
110th Cong., 1 sess., March 20, 2007.
161 Personal communication with ICE special agents in Los Angeles, California, August 16, 2005.
162 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p.4.
163 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
164 Lisa Raffonelli. “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” Refugee Reports, vol. 23, no. 3 (April 2002): p.9.
Hereafter referred to as Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” U.S. Department of State,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
47
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
officials are sometimes untrained or unwilling to undertake victim protection measures.165 Other
advocacy groups such as the Collation to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) contend that
forcing victims to aid in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers may endanger the
victims’ families who remain in the home country especially when the trafficker is deported back
to the country. They argue that there needs to be some mechanism to either ensure the victims’
families’ safety in their home country or reunite the families with the victims in the United
States.166 Dianne Post, an attorney for the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, argues
that the TVPA may create problems for victims, because victims can not receive services and
benefits until they apply for T status, and if they do not speak English, they can not fill out the
application without help. Often they will need to turn to the local immigrant community, and the
traffickers may have ties in the same community.167
Funding and Authority to Assist U.S. Citizen and LPR Victims
of Trafficking
An overriding issue is the extent to which the agencies can provide services to U.S. citizen and
LPR trafficking victims who do not receive certification.168 As discussed above, a 2007 report by
the Senior Policy Operating Group on Trafficking in Persons (SPOG) states that “there are not
many differences in trafficking victims’ eligibility for the services we reviewed when one looks at
the relevant statutes.” However, the report does note that U.S. citizen victims may have less
intensive case management services compared to noncitizens.169 Conversely, the AG’s FY2009
report on anti-trafficking efforts states, “the funds provided under the TVPA by the federal
government for direct services to victims are dedicated to assist non-U.S. citizen victims and may
not currently be used to assist U.S. citizen victims.”170 More recently, ORR has stated that they do
not provide services to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.171 Nonetheless, the language in the
appropriation acts may give the HHS the authority to provide some services to U.S. citizen
trafficking victims. The appropriation acts since FY2008 state that the money appropriated to
HHS is to “carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.”172
(...continued)
Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 340.
165 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
166 Testimony of Cho. Testimony of Wendy Patten, U.S. Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch, in U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, Examining U.S.
Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery, hearings, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., (July 7, 2004). (Hereafter,
Testimony Wendy Patten.)
167 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p. 9.
168 Recommendation in the FY2009 Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to
Combat Trafficking in Persons include “examine and enhance the efficacy and parity of services provided to U.S.
citizen, LPR, and foreign national victims of trafficking.” DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S.
Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 15.
169 Senior Policy Operating Group on Trafficking in Persons: Subcommittee on Domestic Trafficking, Final Report and
Recommendations, Washington, DC, August 2007, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/SPOGReport-Final9-5-07.pdf.
170 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 17.
171 Personal Communication with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Director, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division, April 14, 2010.
172 P.L. 111-117, P.L. 111-8, P.L. 110-161.
Congressional Research Service
48
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
In addition, as discussed above, beginning in FY2009, OVC is funding a grant, Services for
Domestic Minor Victims of Human Trafficking, that includes U.S. citizen and LPR victims.173
According to DOJ, this grant is authorized under 22 U.S.C Section 7105(b)(2)(A), which was
included in the TVPA as enacted in 2000.174 The authorizing language of this grant program does
not appear to differentiate between U.S. citizen and noncitizen victims. 22 U.S.C Section
7105(b)(2)(A) states:
IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Attorney General may
make grants to States, Indian tribes, units of local government, and nonprofit,
nongovernmental victims’ service organizations to develop, expand, or strengthen victim
service programs for victims of trafficking.175
Additionally, in 2010, DOJ provided grant funding to six NGO service providers to assist U.S.
citizen and lawful permanent resident victims, and released a new funding opportunity that
included a focus on adult U.S. citizen victims, including Native Americans.176 The funding of
these grants appears to be inconsistent with the statement in the FY2009 AG’s report that the
funds appropriated under TVPA can be used only for noncitizen victims. Thus, it appears that
there is ongoing confusion over the authority and funding available under TVPA to provide
services to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.
Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services
A corollary issue is the overall amount of funding for victim services, especially as the focus on
sex trafficking is broadening to include minor sex trafficking victims in the United States who are
U.S. citizens. In FY2011, Congress appropriated approximately $20 million for services to
trafficking victims. Since FY2009, HHS has spent all of its appropriated money on services for
trafficking victims before the end of the fiscal year. In addition, there is no targeted federal
funding to support state child welfare agencies anti-trafficking efforts.177
It is estimated that there are approximately 14,500 noncitizens trafficked into the United States
each year.178 Some have estimated that the number of minor sex trafficking victims could be in
the hundreds of thousands.179 This raises several questions: Are the resources for trafficking
victims, both citizen and noncitizens, adequate? If funds were allocated based on estimated
citizen populations and noncitizen populations, would certain victims have more trouble getting
173 The grant is authorized under 22 U.S.C 7105(b)(2)(A), pertaining to grants made by the Attorney General to
develop, expand or strengthen victim service programs for victims of trafficking in the United States. It is a program
that was in TVPA as enacted in 2000. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of
Crime, “Announcing the Awardees from OVC’s Services for Domestic Minor Victims,” press release, 2009.
174 The funding for this grant was also awarded using funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (P.L. 111-5 ). DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 7.
175 22 U.S.C §7105(b)(2)(A).
176 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
177 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
178 Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of Labor,
Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Agency of International Development, Assessment of U.S. Government
Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons, June 2004, p. 4.
179 For a full discussion of these estimates, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States:
Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kristin M. Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin.
Congressional Research Service
49
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
services? To what extent are the needs of U.S. citizen and noncitizen victims similar and to what
extent do they differ? For example, are noncitizen victims more likely than U.S. citizen victims to
identify themselves as victims?180 Are there other public benefit entitlement programs that
noncitizen victims are ineligible for that could serve the needs of U.S. citizen trafficking
victims?181
Oversight of Domestic Grants
In the current economic situation, Congress has been actively questioning whether there is
effective and efficient management of the grants under TVPA.182 Notably, one of the roles of the
Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG, discussed above) is to coordinate the work of multiple
agencies to make sure that there is not a duplication of efforts. There has been one published
report, a 2008 report from the DOJ Inspector General (IG), that provides oversight of DOJ’s
victims service and anti-trafficking task-forces grant recipients. The report found systemic
weakness in DOJ’s grant implementation,183 and noted that while the agency has built significant
capacities to serve victims, they had not been effective at identifying and serving a significant
number of victims.184
More recently, a 2011 IG report that examined grant management by DOJ noted that since 2007
the agency had made significant improvement in the monitoring and oversight of grant
recipients.185 However, this report did not specifically examine grants awarded under the TVPA.
180 Victims of domestic sex trafficking often do not self-identify as victims due to fear of the physical and
psychological abuse inflicted by the trafficker, or due to the trauma bonds developed through the victimization process.
Smith, Vardaman, and Snow, Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: America’s Prostituted Children, p. 41.
181 The programs in TVPA for noncitizen victims were created in part because under the law noncitizen victims are
statutorily ineligible for many public benefits (e.g., Medicaid, housing assistance). Nonetheless, while U.S. citizen
victims are eligible for federal crime victims benefits and public benefit entitlement programs, there is little data to
assess the extent to which U.S. citizen trafficking victims are accessing these benefits. DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual
Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, pp. 17-18. For
a discussion of noncitizen eligibility for public benefits, see CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal
Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
182 At a recent hearing on the TVPA reauthorization, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Charles Grassley stated: “[I] feel that the bill ought to be reauthorized. But I make a point of saying that we have a
terrible budget situation and it requires that we take a close look at how some of this money is spent…” U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the
Commitment to Victims of Human Trafficking, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 14, 2011.
183 The audits found weaknesses in the areas of the established goals and accomplishments for grantees, grant reporting,
fund drawdowns, local matching funds, expenditures, indirect costs, and monitoring of subrecipients. Department of
Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Management of the Office of Justice Programs’ Grant Programs for
Trafficking Victims, Audit Report 08-26, Washington, DC, July 2008, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0826/
final.pdf.
184 Ibid.
185 This report did not specifically examine the grants under TVPA, but concluded that OJP’s management of grants in
general had improved. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs’
Monitoring and Oversight of Recovery Act and Non-Recovery Act Grants, Audit Report 11-19, Washington, DC,
March 2011, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a1119.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
50
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Anti-Trafficking Administrative
Directives and Legislation
The human trafficking problem has gained increased attention in the United States and worldwide
since the late 1990s. It has been addressed as a priority by Congress, as well as the Clinton, Bush,
and Obama Administrations. As part of former President Clinton’s announced International Crime
Control Strategy, an interagency working group was set up to address international crime
implications of trafficking. On March 11, 1998, President Clinton issued a directive establishing a
government-wide anti-trafficking strategy of (1) prevention, (2) protection and support for
victims, and (3) prosecution of traffickers.186 The strategy, as announced, had strong domestic and
international policy components:
• In the area of prevention, the Administration outlined the need for programs to
increase economic opportunities for potential victims and dissemination of
information in other countries to increase public awareness of trafficking dangers
and funding for more research on trafficking.
• In terms of victim protection and assistance, the Administration argued for
legislation to provide shelter and support services to victims who are in the
country unlawfully and therefore presently ineligible for assistance. It pressed for
the creation of a humanitarian, non-immigrant visa classification to allow victims
to receive temporary resident status so they could receive assistance and help to
prosecute traffickers. Also, support was sought for developing countries to
protect and reintegrate trafficking victims once they were returned.
• As far as prosecution and enforcement, the Administration pressed for laws to
more effectively go after traffickers and increase the penalties they can face. In
addition, restitution for trafficked victims was sought in part by creating the
possibility of bringing private civil lawsuits against traffickers. The Department
of Justice (DOJ) called for laws that would expand the definition of involuntary
servitude, criminalize a broader range of actions constituting involuntary
servitude, and increase the penalties for placing people in involuntary servitude.
Justice Department spokesmen also urged that prosecutors be give the capability
to go after those who profit from trafficking, not just those directly involved in
trafficking.187 They also called for amending immigration statutes to punish
traffickers who entrap victims by taking their passports and identification from
them.
On the domestic side, a Workers’ Exploitation Task Force, chaired by DOJ’s Civil Rights
Division and the Solicitor’s Office in the Department of Labor (DOL), was charged with
investigating and prosecuting cases of exploitation and trafficking. In addition, DOJ reviewed
existing U.S. criminal laws and their enforcement to see if they adequately dealt with the crime of
trafficking.
186 For a discussion of this directive, see Department of State, Office of the Historian, History of the Department of
State During the Clinton Presidency (1993-2001), available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/8523.htm.
187 Testimony of William R. Yeomans, Chief of Staff of the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, before the
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 4, 2000.
Congressional Research Service
51
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
On the international front, the State Department sponsored the creation of a database on U.S. and
international legislation on trafficking. An Interagency Council on Women formed by the Clinton
Administration established a senior governmental working group on trafficking. The
Administration urged the enactment of legislation to encourage and support strong action by
foreign governments and help the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in this area.
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
Several bills were introduced in the 106th Congress on human trafficking. In conference, the bills
were combined with the Violence against Women Act of 2000 and repackaged as the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, along with miscellaneous anti-crime and anti-
terrorism provisions. President Clinton signed the bill into law on October 28, 2000 (P.L. 106-
386). The act’s key provisions on human trafficking:
• Directed the Secretary of State to provide an annual report by June 1, listing
countries that do and do not comply with minimum standards for the elimination
of trafficking, and to provide information on the nature and extent of severe
forms of trafficking in persons (TIP) in each country and an assessment of the
efforts by each government to combat trafficking in the State Department’s
annual human rights report;
• Called for establishing an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking, chaired by the Secretary of State, and authorized the Secretary to
establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking to assist the Task Force;
• Called for measures to enhance economic opportunity for potential victims of
trafficking as a method to deter trafficking, to increase public awareness,
particularly among potential victims, of the dangers of trafficking and the
protections that are available for victims, and for the government to work with
NGOs to combat trafficking;
• Established programs and initiatives in foreign countries to assist in the safe
integration, reintegration, or resettlement of victims of trafficking and their
children, as well as programs to provide assistance to victims of severe forms of
TIP within the United States, without regard to such victims’ immigration status
and to make such victims eligible for any benefits that are otherwise available
under the Crime Victims Fund;188
• Provided protection and assistance for victims of severe forms of trafficking
while in the United States;
• Amended the Federal Criminal code to make funds derived from the sale of
assets seized from and forfeited by traffickers available for victims assistance
programs under this act;
• Amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow the Attorney
General to grant up to 5,000 nonimmigrant visas (T visas) per year to certain
188 For more information on the Crime Victims Fund, see CRS Report RL32579, Victims of Crime Compensation and
Assistance: Background and Funding, by Celinda Franco.
Congressional Research Service
52
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
victims of severe forms of trafficking who are in the United States and who
would face unusual and severe harm if they were removed from the United
States. In addition, amended the INA to allow up to 5,000 T visas holders per
year to adjust to lawful permanent resident status if the aliens have been in the
United States continuously for three years since admission, have remained of
good moral character, have not unreasonably refused to assist in trafficking
investigations or prosecutions, and would suffer extreme hardship if removed
from the United States;
• Established minimum standards to combat human trafficking applicable to
countries that have a significant trafficking problem. Urged such countries to
prohibit severe forms of TIP, to punish such acts, and to make serious and
sustained efforts to eliminate such trafficking;
• Provided for assistance to foreign countries for programs and activities designed
to meet the minimum international standards for the elimination of trafficking;
• Called for the United States to withhold non-humanitarian assistance and
instructed the U.S. executive director of each multilateral development bank and
the International Monetary Fund to vote against non-humanitarian assistance to
such countries that do not meet minimum standards against trafficking and are
not making efforts to meet minimum standards, unless continued assistance is
deemed to be in the U.S. national interest;
• Encouraged the President to compile and publish a list of foreign persons who
play a significant role in a severe form of TIP. Also encouraged the President to
impose sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,
including the freezing of assets located in the United States, and to exclude
significant traffickers, and those who knowingly assist them, from entry into the
United States; and
• Amended the Federal Criminal Code (18 U.S.C.) to double the current maximum
penalties for peonage, enticement into slavery, and sale into involuntary servitude
from 10 years to 20 years imprisonment and to add the possibility of life
imprisonment for such violations resulting in death or involving kidnapping,
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
The Bush Administration, as well as Congress, continued the anti-trafficking effort. Then-
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in March 2001 that the fight against trafficking would
be a top priority for the Administration and that U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would cooperate closely to upgrade their efforts to
combat trafficking. The Justice Department also announced new guidelines for federal
prosecutors to pursue trafficking cases.189 The State Department issued its first congressionally
mandated report on worldwide trafficking in July 2001.
On January 24, 2002, Ashcroft announced the implementation of a special “T” visa, as called for
in P.L. 106-386, for victims of trafficking in the United States who cooperate with law
enforcement officials. Under the statute, victims who cooperate with law enforcement against
189 Attorney General John Ashcroft’s news conference on March 27, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
53
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
their traffickers and would be likely to suffer severe harm if returned to their home countries may
be granted permission to stay in the United States. After three years in T status, the victims are
eligible to apply for permanent residency and for non-immigrant status for their spouses and
children.190
On February 13, 2002, President Bush signed an Executive Order establishing an Interagency
Task Force to Monitor and Combat TIP. The Task Force, mandated by the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), includes the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Office of the National Security Advisor.
The Task Force is charged with strengthening coordination among key agencies by identifying
what more needs to be done to protect potential victims, to punish traffickers, and to prevent
future trafficking. The State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(G-TIP) was tasked with assisting the Interagency Task Force in implementing P.L. 106-386 and
Task Force initiatives.
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003
In 2002, Congress amended the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 in
Section 682 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2003 (P.L. 107-228) to provide
• support for local in-country nongovernmental organization to operated hotlines,
culturally and linguistically appropriate protective shelters, and regional and
international nongovernmental organizational networks and databases on
trafficking;
• support for nongovernmental organizations and advocates to provide legal,
social, and other services and assistance to trafficked individuals, particularly
those individuals in detention;
• education and training for trafficked women and girls;
• the safe integration or reintegration of trafficked individuals into an appropriate
community or family, while respecting the wishes, dignity, and safety of the
trafficked individual; and
• support for developing or increasing programs to assist families of victims in
locating, repatriating, and treating their trafficked family members.
The amendment also authorized an increase in appropriations for FY2003 to fund such programs.
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003
In 2003, Congress approved the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of
2003. The President signed the act into law on December 19, 2003 (P.L. 108-193). The act
authorized substantial increases in funding for anti-trafficking programs in FY2004 and FY2005
(over $100 million for each fiscal year). P.L. 108-193 refined and expanded the Minimum
190 U.S. Department of State, Washington File, January 24, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
54
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
standards for the elimination of trafficking that governments must meet and placed on such
governments the responsibility to provide the information and data by which their compliance
with the standards could be judged. The legislation created a “special watch list” of countries that
the Secretary of State determined were to get special scrutiny in the coming year. The list was to
include countries where (1) the absolute number of victims of severe forms of trafficking is very
significant or is significantly increasing; (2) there is a failure to provide evidence of increasing
efforts to combat severe forms of TIP from the previous year; or (3) the determination that a
country is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with minimum standards is
based on its commitments to take additional steps over the next year. In the case of such
countries, not later than February 1 of each year, the Secretary of State is to provide to the
appropriate congressional committees an assessment of the progress that the country had made
since the last annual report.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004
In December 2004, Congress approved the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of
2004, signed into law on December 17, 2004 (P.L. 108-458). The law established a Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC) to be jointly operated by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the State Department, and DOJ. It required that the Center serve as a
clearinghouse for Federal agency information in support of U.S. efforts to combat terrorist travel,
migrant smuggling, and human trafficking.
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005
On February 17, 2005, Representative Christopher Smith and nine co-sponsors introduced the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 to authorize appropriations for
FY2006 and FY2007 and close loopholes in previous anti-trafficking legislation. The bill was
signed into law by the President on January 10, 2006 (P.L. 109-164). Among other things, the
legislation had provisions to increase U.S. assistance to foreign trafficking victims in the United
States, including access to legal counsel and better information on programs to aid victims. It
attempted to address the special needs of child victims, as well as the plight of Americans
trafficked within the United States. It directed relevant U.S. government agencies to develop anti-
trafficking strategies for post-conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies abroad. It sought
to extend U.S. criminal jurisdiction over government personnel and contractors who are involved
in acts of trafficking abroad while doing work for the government. It addressed the problem of
peacekeepers and aid workers who are complicit in trafficking.
The Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act
of 2007
The Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53 (H.R. 1),
signed into law on August 3, 2007, directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary of
DHS) to provide specified funding and administrative support to strengthen the HSTC. The act
directs the Secretary of DHS to nominate a U.S. government employee to direct the HSTC, and
specifics that the HSTC be staffed by at least 40 full-time staff, including detailees.191 In addition,
191 The act specifies a number of agencies from which, as appropriate, staff may be detailed to the HSTC, including but
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
55
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
the act mandates the hiring of not less than 40 full-time equivalent staff for the HSTC, and would
specify the agencies and departments from which the personnel should be detailed (e.g.,
Transportation and Security Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, ICE, Central Intelligence
Agency), and their areas of expertise (e.g., consular affairs, counter terrorism). It also directs the
Secretary of DHS to provide the administrative support and funding for the HSTC.
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA
2008, P.L. 110-457; H.R. 7311) was signed into law on December 23, 2008.192 The act authorizes
appropriations for FY2008 through FY2011 for the TVPA as amended and establishes a system to
monitor and evaluate all assistance under the act. P.L. 110-457 requires the establishment of an
integrated database to be used by U.S. government departments and agencies to collect data for
analysis on TIP. In addition, the act creates a Presidential award for extraordinary efforts to
combat TIP.
Measures to Address Human Trafficking in Foreign Countries
P.L. 110-457 increases the technical assistance and other support to help foreign governments
inspect locations where forced labor occurs, register vulnerable populations, and provide more
protection to foreign migrant workers. The act requires that specific actions be taken against
governments of countries that have been on the Tier 2 Watch-List for two consecutive years. P.L.
110-457 also requires U.S. Department of State to translate the TIP Report into the principal
languages of as many countries as possible. In addition, among other measures to address the
issue of child soldiers, the act prohibits military assistance to foreign governments that recruit and
use child soldiers.
Preventing Trafficking to the United States
TVPRA 2008 requires pamphlets on the rights and responsibilities of the employee to be
produced and given to employment-based and educational-based nonimmigrants,193 P.L. 110-457
(...continued)
not limited to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Central
Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State. The act also
specifies that the detailees include an adequate number with specified expertise, and that agencies shall create policies
and incentives for the detailees to serve terms of at least two years.
192 The House and the Senate had each taken up their own versions of the 2008 reauthorization bill. H.R. 3887, The
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Lantos), was passed by the House
under suspension of the rules on December 4, 2007. The vote was 405-2. S. 3061, The William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Biden/Brownback), was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee
on September 8, 2008. H.R. 3887 and S. 3061 included many identical provisions, and most of the differences between
the two bills were from provisions that existed in only one of the bills rather than substantial differences between
similar provisions in both bills. For a more detailed discussion of the differences between the two bills, see CRS
Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Select Differences Between S. 3061 as Reported, and H.R. 3887 as Passed
by the House, by Alison Siskin and Clare Ribando Seelke, available from the authors.
193 Nonimmigrant visas are commonly referred to by the letter and numeral that denotes their subsection in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §101(a)(15). Nonimmigrant visas are commonly referred to by the letter and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
56
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
also requires consular officers to make sure that certain aliens interviewing for nonimmigrant
visas have received, read, and understood the pamphlet. During the interview, the consular officer
is also required to discuss the alien’s legal rights under U.S. immigration, labor and employment
law. The act contains several provisions aimed to protect A-3 and G-5 visas holders194 including
directing the Secretary of State to deny A-3 and G-5 visas to aliens who would be working at a
diplomatic mission or international institution where an alien had been subject to trafficking or
exploitation at the mission or institution. In addition, the Secretary of State has maintained
records on the presence of A-3 and G-5 visa holders in the United States, including information
regarding any allegations of abuse.
Measures to Address Trafficking in the United States
P.L. 110-457 amends the requirements for the T visa, so that an alien would be eligible for a T
visa if the alien was unable to comply with requests for assistance in the investigation and
prosecution of acts of trafficking due to physical or psychological trauma. TVPRA 2008 also
requires when determining whether the alien meets the extreme hardship requirement for T status
that the Secretary of DHS consider whether the country to which the alien would be removed can
adequately address the alien’s security and mental and physical health needs. In addition, P.L.
110-457 amends the requirements for the T visa so that an alien would be eligible if she was
present in the United States after being allowed entry to aid in the prosecution of traffickers. The
act also broadens the requirements for an alien to receive continued presence in the United States,
and makes it easier for families of trafficking victims to be paroled into the United States. In
addition, P.L. 110-457 amends the law to allow the Secretary of DHS to waive the good moral
character requirement for those adjusting from T to LPR status, and allows the Secretary of DHS
to provide a stay of removal for aliens with pending T applications (with a prima facie case for
approval), until the application has been adjudicated. The act also makes aliens with pending
applications for T status eligible for public benefits, and makes T visa holders, including
derivatives, eligible for public benefits.195 Furthermore, P.L. 110-457 requires the Secretary of
HHS to make a prompt determination of eligibility for assistance for child trafficking victims.
(...continued)
numeral that denotes their subsection in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §101(a)(15). Under the act,
employment-based and educational-based visas refer to: A-3 visa holders (admitted under INA §101(a)(15)(A)(iii)),
who are the attendants, servants or personal employees of Ambassadors, public ministers, career diplomats, consuls,
other foreign government officials and employees or the immediate family of such workers; G-5 visa holders (admitted
under INA §101(a)(15)(G)(v)) are the attendants, servants, or personal employees and their immediate family of
foreign government representatives or foreign employees of international organizations; H visa holders (admitted under
INA §101(a)(15)(H)) which is the main category for different types of temporary workers; and J visa holders (admitted
under INA §101(a)(15)(J)) which are foreign exchange visitors and include diverse occupations as au pairs, foreign
physicians, camp counselors, professors and teachers.
194 A-3 visa holders refer to workers admitted under INA §101(a)(15)(A)(iii), who are the attendants, servants or
personal employees of Ambassadors, public ministers, career diplomats, consuls, other foreign government officials
and employees or the immediate family of such workers. G-5 visa holders (admitted under INA §101(a)(15)(G)(v)) are
the attendants, servants, or personal employees and their immediate family of foreign government representatives or
foreign employees of international organizations.
195 Previously, T visa holders and their derivative were eligible for public benefits because of a provision in Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386) stating for the purpose of benefits T visa holders are
eligible to receive certain public benefits to the same extent as refugees. TVPRA 2008 amends the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (P.L. 104-193, PWORA also known as Welfare Reform) to make T visa
holders and their derivatives “qualified aliens” (i.e., eligible for public benefits under PWORA).
Congressional Research Service
57
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
TVPRA 2008 has provisions relating to enhancing protections for child victims of trafficking.
Among these provision include requiring the United States to enter into agreements with
contiguous countries regarding the return of unaccompanied minors designed to protect children
from severe forms of TIP,196 and specifying screening procedures for children suspected of being
trafficking victims. In addition, the act directs the Secretary of HHS to the extent possible to
provide legal counsel and appoint child advocates to child trafficking victims and other
vulnerable unaccompanied alien children.
Moreover, P.L. 110-457 creates new grant programs for U.S. citizen victims of severe forms of
trafficking and authorizes appropriations for such programs. The act also requires the Secretary of
HHS and the Attorney General, within one year of enactment, to submit a report to Congress
identifying any gaps between services provided to U.S. citizen and noncitizen victims of
trafficking. It also prohibits DOS from issuing passports to those convicted of sex tourism until
the person has completed their sentence. Furthermore, the act creates new criminal offenses
related to human trafficking, including criminalizing retaliation in foreign labor contracting. P.L.
110-457 creates additional jurisdiction in U.S. courts for trafficking offenses occurring in other
countries if the alleged offender is present in the United States.
196 Unaccompanied minors are aliens who are in the United States without a parent or guardian.
Congressional Research Service
58
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Trafficking Funding Issues
The U.S. government supports many types of anti-trafficking (anti-TIP) activities overseas and
domestically. U.S. anti-trafficking activities are authorized by the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act (TVPA) of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), as amended. Table B-1 lists trafficking authorization levels
for FY2008-FY2011. Those authorizations are for TIP operations (including law enforcement
investigations) and TIP programs.
Since many U.S. government agencies do not have a line item in their budget requests for
trafficking programs and/or TIP-related operations, it is often difficult to calculate the exact level
of funding that Congress appropriated for trafficking activities (programs and operations/law
enforcement activities) by agency. Despite the challenges, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) tracks estimated TIP appropriations levels by gathering agency estimations of TIP-related
spending for each fiscal year. See Table B-2 for TIP authorizations versus appropriations for
FY2001-FY2011. According to OMB, funding for TVPA programs comes from appropriations to
a number of U.S. departments and agencies, including the Department of State (Economic
Support Fund, Migration and Refugee Assistance, International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE) Assistance); the Department of Justice (Victims of Trafficking Grants,
Criminal and Civil Rights programs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations); the Department of
Labor (Bureau of International Labor Affairs); the Department of Health and Human Services;
and the Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement Victims of Trafficking Act
(in $ U.S. millions)
Original Authorizing
Authorized Programs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Source
International Programs
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID: Pilot Program for Rehabilitation Facilities
P.L. 109-164, §102(b)(7)
$2.5
$2.5
$2.5
$2.5
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
DOS: Interagency Task Force
P.L. 106-386, §§104, 105(e),
$5.5 $5.5 $5.5 $5.5
105(f), 110
DOS: Interagency Task Force: Reception
P.L. 109-164, §301
$.003 $.003 $.003 $.003
Expenses
DOS: Interagency Task Force: Additional
P.L. 110-457, §301(1)(B)(i)
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
Personnel
DOS: Prevention
P.L. 106-386 §106
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
DOS: Protection
P.L. 106-386 §107(a)
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
DOS: Prosecution and Meeting Minimum
P.L. 106-386 §§108-109
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Standards
DOS: Refugees and Internal y Displaced Persons
P.L. 110-457, §104
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
President
President: Foreign Assistance for Law
P.L. 106-386, §109
$.25
$.25
$.25
$.25
Enforcement Training
Congressional Research Service
59
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Original Authorizing
Authorized Programs
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Source
President: Foreign Victim Assistance
P.L. 106-386, §106
$15.0 $15.0 $15.0 $15.0
President: Foreign Assistance to Meet Minimum
P.L. 106-386, §109
$15.0 $15.0 $15.0 $15.0
Standards
President: Research
P.L. 108-193, §7(5)(B)
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
Domestic Programs
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
HHS: Victims’ assistance
P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1)
$12.5 $12.5 $12.5 $12.5
HHS: Grants to U.S. citizen and LPR victims of
P.L. 109-164, §202
$8.0
$8.0
$8.0
$8.0
trafficking within U.S.
HHS: Pilot program residential treatment facilities
P.L. 109-164, §203
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
juvenile victims in U.S.
HHS: Victims assistance for U.S. citizens and Legal
P.L. 110-457, §213
$2.5
$5.0
$7.0
$7.0
Permanent Residents (LPRs)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS (Immigration and Customs Enforcement):
P.L. 109-164, §301(h)
$18.0 $18.0 $18.0 $18.0
trafficking investigations
DHS: Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center
P.L. 110-457, §108(a)(2)
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ: Grants to strengthen victims services
P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(2)
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
DOJ: Study on severe forms of trafficking in
P.L. 109-164, §201(a)(1)(B)(i)
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
persons in U.S.
DOJ: Study on sex trafficking in U.S.
P.L. 109-164,
$1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5
§201(a)(1)(B)(ii)
DOJ: Annual trafficking conference
P.L. 109-164, §201(a)(2)
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
DOJ: grants to state and local law enforcement
P.L. 109-164, §204
$20.0 $20.0 $20.0 $20.0
for anti-trafficking programs
DOJ Federal Bureau of Investigation: trafficking
P.L. 109-164, §301(h)
$15.0 $15.0 $15.0 $15.0
investigations
DOJ: Victims assistance for U.S. citizens and Legal
P.L. 110-457, §213
$2.5
$5.0
$7.0
$7.0
Permanent Residents (LPRs)
Department of Labor (DOL)
DOL: Expand services to trafficking victims
P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1)(B)
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 106-386, P.L. 108-193, P.L. 109-164, and P.L. 110-457.
Note: The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations include several additional provisions without specific
funding amounts. Such provisions include §107A(f) of P.L. 106-386, as amended, which authorizes not more than
5% of the amounts made available to carry out the TVPA, as amended, in each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to
the President to evaluate anti-trafficking programs and projects. §112B of P.L. 106-386, as amended, authorizes
such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the President to provide an award for
“Extraordinary Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons.” §114(c)(2) of P.L. 106-386, as amended, also authorizes
such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the Department of State for the
preparation of congressional y mandated human rights reports with reference to human trafficking issues. Note
also that additional funding outside the scope of the TVPA and its reauthorizations has been authorized in
separate legislative vehicles. See for example, §111 of P.L. 109-162, which authorizes $10 million for each fiscal
Congressional Research Service
60
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
year 2008 through 2011 to the Department of Justice for state and local law enforcement grants for human
trafficking victim identification.
Table B-2. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as Amended
Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2011
(in $ U.S. millions)
Fiscal
Authorizing
Authorizations
Appropriations
Year
Public Law
Title
(Millions $)
(Millions $)
2001 P.L.
106-386
Victims of Trafficking and Violence
$31.8 N/A
(Part A)
Protection Act of 2000
2002 P.L.
106-386
Victims of Trafficking and Violence
$63.3 N/A
(Part A)
Protection Act of 2000
2003 P.L.
106-386
Victims of Trafficking and Violence
$48.3 N/A
(Part A)a
Protection Act of 2000
2004 $10
P.L. 108-193
Trafficking Victims Protection
5.6
$109.8
Reauthorization Act of 2003
2005
$105.6 $109.6
2006 $17
P.L. 109-164
Trafficking Victims Protection
7.3
$152.4
Reauthorization Act of 2005
2007
$162.3 $153.1
2008 $18
P.L. 110-457
Wil iam Wilberforce Trafficking
2.3
$167.4
Victims Reauthorization Act of
2009 $187.3
$182.7
2008
2010
$191.3 $162.2
2011
$191.3
N/A
Source: Estimated appropriations levels as calculated by the Office of Management and Budget (multiple
responses to CRS, most recently on May 17, 2011). Estimates not col ected prior to FY2004. Authorizations
estimates are rounded to the first decimal and do not include provisions without specific dol ar amounts
authorized.
a. As amended by Section 682 of the Foreign Assistance Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-228).
Congressional Research Service
61
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Appropriations for Grant Programs for
Domestic TIP Victims
Domestic anti-TIP activities include both services to victims, as well as law enforcement
operations. Investigations into human trafficking are complex and as a result often require
significant resources. See Table C-1 for authorizations and appropriations for grant programs to
assist trafficking victims in the United States for FY2001-FY2010.
Table C-1. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims
of Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012
($ in millions)
Victims Services—DOJ
Office of Refugee Resettlementa
Fiscal Year
Authorized Appropriated Authorized
Appropriated
FY2001 $5 $0 $5
$5
FY2002 $10 $10 $10
$10
FY2003 N.A. $10 N.A. $9.9
FY2004 $15 $10 $15 $9.9
FY2005 $15 $10 $15 $9.9
FY2006 $15 $9.9 $15 $9.8
FY2007 $15 $9.9 $15 $9.8
FY2008 $10b $9.4c $12.5b $10d
FY2009 $10 $10 $12.5 $9.8d
FY2010 $10 $12.5c $12.5 $9.8d
FY2011 $10
$10.4ce $12.5 $9.8d
FY2012 N.A. $10.5 N.A. $9.8
Sources: P.L. 106-386, P.L. 108-193, P.L. 109-164, P.L. 107-77, P.L. 107-116, P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-90, P.L. 108-
199, P.L. 108-334, P.L. 108-447, P.L. 109-90, P.L. 109-149, P.L. 109-164, P.L. 110-5, P.L. 110-161, P.L. 110-457,
P.L. 111-8, P.L. 111-117, P.L. 112-10.
a. This only includes authorizations for the HHS grant program, authorized original y in P.L. 106-386, to
provide assistance to victims. Three other HHS victims service programs have been authorized but
according to HHS none have received appropriations. For a listing of these programs, see Table B-1.
b. Authorizations for FY2008 were enacted during FY2009.
c. This includes funding for victims services programs under The Victims of Trafficking Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
386) and DOJ programs authorized under Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-164).
d. The language in act states that the money should be available to carry out The Victims of Trafficking Act of
2000.
e. On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). P.L. 112-10 required a reduction in funding to be applied
proportionately to each program funded under the account which contains this appropriation in FY2010.
Thus, CRS calculates that each grant program funded under this account will be reduced 17.0% and from
that amount the 0.2% across-the-board rescission is applied. For more on this reduction, see CRS Report
Congressional Research Service
62
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
R41161, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan
James, Oscar R. Gonzales, and Jennifer D. Williams.
Congressional Research Service
63
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix D. Legislation in the 111th Congress
Several bills were introduced in the 111th Congress that would have addressed issues related to
human trafficking. The discussion in the following section is limited to legislation in the 111th
Congress (excluding appropriations) that received congressional action. Notably, none of the bills
were passed by Congress.
S. 2925: Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims
Support Act of 2010
The Senate passed S. 2925 on December 13, 2010, and the House passed an amended but similar
version of S. 2925 on December 21, 2010.197 The House and Senate versions of the bill would
have authorized the Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, in
consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in HHS, to award one-year
grants to six eligible entities198 in different regions of the United States to combat domestic minor
sex trafficking (DMST). At least one of the grants would have to have been awarded to a state
with a population less than 5 million people. The grants would have been renewable twice, for
one year for each renewal (for a total grant length of three years). Each grant could have ranged
from $2 million to $2.5 million.
Under the House and Senate versions of the bill, at least 67% of the grants would have to have
been allocated to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide counseling, legal services,
shelter, clothing, and other social services to victims of DMST. Not less than 10% of the funds
would have been allocated by the eligible entity to NGOs to provide services to DMST victims or
training for service providers on DMST. Funds could have also been used for training for law
enforcement; investigative and prosecution expenses; case management; salaries for law
enforcement officers and state and local prosecutors; and outreach, education, and treatment
programs, all related to cases of DMST. The House and Senate versions of S. 2925 would have
authorized $15 million each year, for FY2012 through FY2014, for this program. The grantees
would have been required to match at least 25% of the grant in the first year, 40% in the second
year, and 50% in the third year.199
H.R. 5138: International Megan’s Law of 2010
H.R. 5138 was introduced on April 26, 2010, and passed the House on July 27, 2010. The bill’s
stated purpose was to protect children from sexual exploitation by preventing or monitoring the
197 S. 2925 was introduced by Senator Wyden on December 22, 2009, and ordered reported, amended, by the Senate
Judiciary Committee on August 5, 2010. A similar bill, H.R. 5575, was introduced by Representative Maloney on June
23, 2010.
198 An eligible entity is a state or local government that (1) has significant criminal activity involving DMST; (2) has
demonstrated cooperation between state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies (if applicable), prosecutors, and
social service providers in addressing DMST; (3) has developed a workable, multidisciplinary plan to combat DMST;
and (4) provides assurances that DMST victims would not be required to collaborate with law enforcement to have
access to shelters or services.
199 The main difference between the House and Senate versions of S. 2925 was that House-passed S. 2925 contained a
provision prohibiting any of the monies from being used for medical care (as defined in 42 U.S.C. §300gg-91). This
provision was not included in Senate-passed S. 2925.
Congressional Research Service
64
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
international travel of sex traffickers and other sex offenders who pose a risk of committing a sex
offense against a minor while traveling abroad. Among other provisions, H.R. 5138 would have
amended the TVPA to expand criteria that determine whether foreign countries were meeting the
minimum standards for the elimination of severe forms of trafficking in persons to include
whether a country was investigating and prosecuting nationals suspected of engaging in severe
forms of trafficking in persons abroad. The bill would have required that the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Attorney General, submit a report to Congress on international mechanisms
related to traveling child sex offenders. The bill also would have encouraged the President to use
existing foreign assistance authorities for combating trafficking in persons to additionally provide
assistance to strengthen foreign country efforts to target child sex offenders.
H.R. 2410 and S. 2971: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 2010 and 2011
H.R. 2410 was introduced on May 14, 2009, and passed the House on June 10, 2009. Among
other provisions unrelated to trafficking in persons, Section 1016 of Title X would have required
that the Secretary of State report to Congress on the best use of U.S. foreign assistance to reduce
smuggling and trafficking in persons.
S. 2971, a corresponding but separate Senate bill with the same title, was introduced on January
29, 2010, and was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 23,
2010, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The bill as reported included a provision to
amend Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, 22 U.S.C. 2420), which
generally prohibits training of foreign police forces. Section 402 of Title IV of S. 2971 would
have made an exception to Section 660 of the FAA and would have authorized foreign police
assistance for combating trafficking in persons.
S. 3184: Child Protection Compact Act of 2010
S. 3184 was introduced on March 25, 2010, and was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on September 28, 2010, without amendment. According to the committee report,
S.Rept. 111-337, the purpose of S. 3184 was to “provide incentives to protect and rescue children
subjected to severe forms of trafficking in persons or sexual exploitation through the
establishment of Child Protection Compacts between the United States and select, eligible
countries.” Related to S. 3184 is H.R. 2737, the Child Protection Compact Act of 2009. H.R.
2737 was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee on June 4, 2009, and did not receive
action.
S. 3184 would have authorized each Compact to provide up to $15 million in assistance and
would have recommended that appropriators provide the State Department up to $30 million for
FY2011 through FY2013 for the Compacts. As part of a Compact, eligible countries would have
to have committed to a three-year plan to improve efforts to combat child trafficking. To be
eligible to receive a Compact, a country would have to have been on the Tier II or Tier II Watch
List and would have to have been low-income and eligible for assistance from the International
Development Association. In addition, countries must not have been ineligible to receive U.S.
economic assistance under part I of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.).
Congressional Research Service
65
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Author Contact Information
Alison Siskin
Liana Sun Wyler
Specialist in Immigration Policy
Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics
asiskin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0260
lwyler@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177
Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this report were authored by Clare Ribando Seelke, Specialist in Latin American Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
66