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
December 7, 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 the International Labor Organization (ILO), some
20.9 million individuals today are estimated to be victims of forced labor and related TIP. 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.
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).
Authorizations for the grant programs under TVPA expired at the end of FY2011. Two 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 anti-TIP responses, the impact of U.S.
Department of State’s annual country rankings, and the use of unilateral aid restrictions. 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.
See also 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;
and CRS Report R42497, Trafficking in Persons: International Dimensions and Foreign Policy
Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler.
.
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Contents
Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Trafficking in Persons ................................................................................................................ 1
Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons .................................................................................... 2
Forced or Compulsory Labor .................................................................................................... 4
Child Soldiers ............................................................................................................................ 5
Scope of the Global TIP Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Traffickers and Recruitment Methods ....................................................................................... 6
Global Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 7
Sex and Labor Trafficking ................................................................................................... 8
Child Trafficking ................................................................................................................. 9
Continuing Global Challenges................................................................................................... 9
Persistent Victim Vulnerabilities ....................................................................................... 10
Ongoing Demand and Profit Opportunities....................................................................... 11
Low Prosecution and Conviction Rates ............................................................................ 11
Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy Responses ................................................................................. 12
Foreign Country Reporting and Product Blacklisting ............................................................. 13
Foreign Aid .............................................................................................................................. 14
Measures to Punish Poor Performers ....................................................................................... 14
Trade Preferences .................................................................................................................... 14
Addressing Trafficking in U.S. Government Activities Overseas ........................................... 15
Trafficking in the United States ..................................................................................................... 16
Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States ..................................................................... 17
Official Estimates of Human Trafficking in the United States ................................................ 18
Estimates Into the United States ........................................................................................ 18
Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States .......................................... 19
Response to Trafficking within the United States .......................................................................... 21
Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims............................................................................. 21
T Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 21
Continued Presence ........................................................................................................... 25
U Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 25
Aid Available to Victims of Trafficking in the United States .................................................. 27
Health and Human Services Grants................................................................................... 28
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime ......................................................... 30
Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 31
Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses .................................................................... 31
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center ....................................................................... 33
TVPA Reauthorization Activity in the 112th Congress ................................................................... 34
H.R. 2830 as reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee: The Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011 .................................................................. 34
S. 1301 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee: The Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011 ............................................................................... 37
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................................. 42
TIP Awareness Among U.S. Diplomats ................................................................................... 42
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Credibility of TIP Rankings ..................................................................................................... 42
U.S. Aid Restrictions: A Useful Tool? ..................................................................................... 43
Debates Regarding Prostitution and Sex Trafficking .............................................................. 44
Distinctions Between Trafficking and Alien Smuggling ......................................................... 44
How to Measure the Effectiveness of Global Anti-TIP Programs ........................................... 45
Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims .............................................. 45
Stringency of T Determination .......................................................................................... 46
Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims ..................................................................... 46
Victims’ Safety .................................................................................................................. 47
Funding and Authority to Assist U.S. Citizen and LPR Victims of Trafficking ...................... 47
Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services ..................................................................... 48
Oversight of Domestic Grants ................................................................................................. 49
Figures
Figure B-1. Anti-TIP Obligations by Agency: FY2005-FY2010................................................... 62
Figure B-2. International Anti-TIP Obligations by Region: FY2005-FY2010 .............................. 65
Tables
Table 1. Global Prosecutions of TIP Offenders, 2003-2011 .......................................................... 12
Table 2. Number of Suspected Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Victims by Location ................ 20
Table 3. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2011......................................................................... 24
Table 4. U Visas Issued 2009-2011 ................................................................................................ 26
Table 5. H.R. 2830 and S. 1301: Comparison of Authorizations of Appropriations ..................... 39
Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement TVPA, as amended ........................................... 59
Table B-2. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended,
Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2011 ..................................................................... 61
Table B-3. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims of
Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012 .................................................................... 62
Table B-4. Anti-TIP Assistance through the Foreign Operations Budget ...................................... 64
Appendixes
Appendix A. Anti-Trafficking Administrative Directives and Legislation .................................... 51
Appendix B. Domestic and International TIP Funding ................................................................. 59
Appendix C. Legislation in the 111th Congress.............................................................................. 67
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 69
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Overview
Trafficking in persons (TIP), or human trafficking, 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, Especially Women and Children (hereinafter, U.N. Protocol), 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 authorized
appropriations for FY2008 through FY2011, among other provisions. 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
a description of key TIP-related definitions and an overview of the human trafficking problem. It
follows with an overview of major 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.
Definitions
Several international and domestic definitions are relevant to U.S. policy responses associated
with trafficking in persons and related concepts. These terms are variously used in international
treaties as well as domestic statutes. Choice in the application of these terms may result in
different policy consequences and are relevant for attempts to measure progress in combating the
phenomenon.
Trafficking in Persons
Article 3 of the U.N. Protocol defines “trafficking in persons” as:
[T]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the
threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of 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, a minimum, the exploitation of the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery
or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.
Often, the U.N. trafficking in persons definition is described as composed of three necessary
elements:
Congressional Research Service
1
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
1. the commission of specific acts (e.g., recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring, or receipt of persons);
2. the use of specific methods or means in the commission of the above-listed acts
(e.g., threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or position of vulnerability, giving or receiving
payments or benefits to control another person); and
3. the primary purpose of committing the above-listed acts using the above-listed
means is exploitation.
The three-part U.N. definition clarifies that human trafficking is unique among other trafficking
and commodity smuggling crimes, as it does not require that victims move across national
borders to trigger the human trafficking definition. Instead, the U.N. definition emphasizes the
role of human exploitation and vulnerability as core components. A victim’s consent in a
trafficking scheme is irrelevant to the U.N. definition when exploitation occurs as a result of
specified means of force, fraud, and coercion. Additionally, all persons under the age of 18 who
are recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, or received for the purpose of exploitation are
considered trafficking victims.1
Severe Forms of Trafficking in Persons
In federal U.S. statutes, there are no formal definitions of human trafficking or trafficking in
persons. Instead, the TVPA defines “severe forms of trafficking in persons.” Specifically, Section
103(8) of the TVPA defines this term to mean:
(A) 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
(B) 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.
This term, rather than the U.N. definition of trafficking in persons, is applied in the context of
U.S. anti-TIP policies and programs. For example, the State Department applies this definition of
severe forms of trafficking in persons to measure and rank foreign countries’ progress in
combating trafficking in its annual Trafficking in Persons report. Furthermore, a country’s failure
to achieve minimum standards of progress in combating severe forms of trafficking in persons
has the potential to trigger restrictions that prohibit poor-performing countries from receiving
certain types of U.S. foreign assistance.2
1 The travaux préparatoires note that “the removal of organs from children with the consent of a parent or guardian for
legitimate medical or therapeutic reasons should not be considered exploitation.” United Nations General Assembly,
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of a Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime on the
Work of its First to Eleventh Sessions, Addendum, “Interpretive Notes for the Official Record (travaux préparatoires)
of the Negotiation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime,” A/55, 383/Add.1,
November 3, 2000.
2 Additionally, pursuant to Section 106(g) of the TVPA, as amended, the President may terminate federally funded
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, without penalty, if a grantee or contractor or any subgrantee or
subcontractor is found to have engaged in “severe forms of trafficking in persons” while the grants, contracts, or
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Several of the key terms used in the definition of severe forms of trafficking in persons are
additionally defined or described by the TVPA, as amended, including the terms “coercion,”
“commercial sex act,” “debt bondage,” “involuntary servitude,” and “sex trafficking.”
• Coercion: “(A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any
person; (B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe
that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint
against any person; or (C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.”3
• Commercial Sex Act: “any sex act on account of which anything of value is
given to or received by any person.”4
• Debt Bondage:5 “the status or condition of a debtor arising from a pledge by the
debtor of his or her personal services or of those of a person under his or her
control as a security for debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed
is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those
services are not respectively limited and defined.”6
• Involuntary Servitude: “(A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a
person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such
condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical
restraint; or (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.”7
• Sex Trafficking: “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or
obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”8
The TVPA’s definition of severe forms of trafficking in persons is similar to the U.N. Protocol’s
definition of trafficking in persons, as both identify force, fraud, and coercion as prohibited
means or methods for obtaining the services of another person and both do not require movement
of persons across national borders as a necessary precondition for identifying human trafficking.
The definitions differ, however, in the concept of exploitation. For example, the U.N. definition
uses the term “exploitation” expansively, providing some illustrative, but not comprehensive
examples of exploitation, or purposes for trafficking acts. In contrast, the U.S. definition does not
use the term exploitation, but identifies, in the context of describing labor trafficking, four
specific purposes for inducing another person’s labor or services: (1) involuntary servitude, (2)
peonage, (3) debt bondage, and (4) slavery. Notably, one of the specified examples of exploitation
listed by the U.N. definition, the removal of organs, is not present in the U.S. definition of severe
forms of human trafficking.
(...continued)
agreements are in effect. Other specified rationales for terminating such grants, contracts, or agreements include the
procurement of commercial sex acts while the grant, contract, or agreement is ongoing, and the use of forced labor in
the performance of work products or services for the U.S. government.
3 Sections 103(2) and 112(a)(2) of the TVPA.
4 Sections 103(3) and 112(a)(2) of the TVPA.
5 This is also the definition of debt bondage used in the 1957 U.N. Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (see article 1(a)).
6 Section 103(4) of the TVPA.
7 Section 103(5) of the TVPA.
8 Section 103(9) of the TPVA.
Congressional Research Service
3
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
trafficked if, for example, force, fraud, or coercion are found to have played a role.
Forced or Compulsory Labor
“Forced or compulsory labor” is defined by International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention
No. 29 as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty
and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”9
The ILO definition is used in the context of some U.S. laws. The Trade Act of 1974, as amended
(19 U.S.C. 2467), for example, identifies forced or compulsory labor, as defined by the ILO, as
one of five “internationally recognized worker rights,” which also include the right of association,
the right to organize and bargain collectively, a minimum age for the employment of children, and
acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational
safety and health.
Separately, Section 222 of the TVPA of 2008 (P.L. 110-457) amends Section 1589 of the U.S.
Criminal Code (Title 18) to describe the means by which forced labor occurs:
(1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to
that person or another person;
(2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person;
(3) by means of abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or
(4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if
that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint[.]10
Section 103(5) of the TVPA also defines “involuntary servitude” (see above), a term often used
interchangeably with forced labor in the U.S. context of human trafficking descriptions.
9 Article 2 further specifies certain types of labor that are excluded from the term forced or compulsory labor, including
compulsory military service, normal citizen civic obligations, state-run prison labor, mandatory support in an
emergency or crisis situation, and minor community service. The ILO has also clarified in other documents that the
definition of forced labor is not to be directly equated with low wages, poor working conditions, or unsatisfying,
demeaning, or hazardous jobs accepted out of economic necessity. See for example, ILO, Report of the Director-
General, The Cost of Coercion, Global Report Under the Follow-Up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work, 2009.
10 Pursuant to Section 222 of the TVPRA of 2008 (18 U.S.C. 1589), the term “serious harm” is defined as “any harm,
whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious,
under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same
circumstances to perform or continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm.” The term
“abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process” is defined as “the use or threatened use of a law or legal process,
whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in
order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action.”
Congressional Research Service
4
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Additionally, the Secretary of State in 2011 reportedly “approved an interpretation of the term
‘trafficking in persons’ that includes forced labor.”11
Child Soldiers
Section 402 of the Child Soldiers Protection Act (CSPA) of 2008 defines “child soldier” to mean:
(i) any person under 18 years of age who takes direct part in hostilities as a member of the
armed forces;
(ii) any person under 18 years of age who has been compulsorily recruited into governmental
armed forces;
(iii) any person under 15 years of age who has been voluntarily recruited into governmental
armed forces; or
(iv) any person under 18 years of age who has been recruited or used in hostilities by armed
forces distinct from the armed forces of a state[.]
The CSPA of 2008 further specifies that the term child soldier also applies to those described
above who provide support roles to the armed forces, including child cooks, porters, messengers,
medics, guards, and sex slaves. At the international level, there is a U.N. treaty that addresses the
recruitment and use of child soldiers, called the U.N. Option Protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child in Armed Conflict. This U.N. Optional Protocol, however, does not define
child soldiering, aside from specifying that children are to include persons under the age of 18
and noting that, according to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the conscription or
enlisting of children under the age of 15 years or using them to participate actively in hostilities
constitutes a war crime.
Scope of the Global TIP Problem
International human trafficking is widely considered to be one of today’s leading law
enforcement challenges as well as one of the most pervasive and widespread manifestation of
modern-day violations of human rights. Economic costs associated with human trafficking may
be measured in the form of lost productivity and human resources in the licit economy, reduced
taxable revenues, lost migrant remittance income, unlawfully redistributed wealth toward
organized crime, and heightened law enforcement costs.12 Human trafficking also has a public
health impact, due to the frequent experience by trafficking victims of physical, substance, and
sexual abuse, as well as psychological and emotional trauma, including techniques of deprivation,
manipulation, and torture that result in prolonged mental health deterioration.13 The following
11 U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Inspections, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June
2012.
12 U.N. Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (U.N. GIFT) and U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), An
Introduction to Human Trafficking: Vulnerability, Impact and Action, Background Paper, 2008.
13 Ibid and U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons,
June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
sections provide an overview of the scope of the international TIP problem and ongoing
challenges in combating the phenomenon.
Traffickers and Recruitment Methods
A diverse range of organized criminal groups are reportedly involved in international human
trafficking. Such criminal entities vary in terms of their leadership structure, level of
organizational sophistication, transnational reach, membership size, ethnic and social
composition, dependence on human trafficking as a primary source of profit, use of violence, and
level of cooperation with other organized crime groups. Human trafficking operations often
require the participation of unscrupulous recruiters and employment agency managers and corrupt
immigration and consular officials. According to the United Nations, human trafficking can be
closely integrated into legal businesses, including the tourism industry, agriculture, hotel and
airline operations, and leisure and entertainment businesses.14 Related crimes associated with
human trafficking operations have reportedly included fraud, extortion, racketeering, money
laundering, bribery, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, car theft, migrant smuggling, kidnapping,
document forgery, and gambling.15
Women in particular have been found to play a prominent role in human trafficking, compared to
other violent and organized crimes, which are primarily perpetrated by men. Observers suggest
that there may be several explanations for this gender anomaly among human traffickers.16
Female victims may evolve into traffickers as a way to escape future exploitation. Given the
importance for traffickers to gain a victim’s trust, women, particularly when recruiting potential
sex trafficking victims, may at times be more effective than men. Women are also at times found
to be the owners of brothels or the operators of prostitution rings in which sex trafficking victims
are exploited. Physical and psychological pressure, as well as financial incentives, may also
contribute to the phenomenon of female traffickers.
Reports suggest that traffickers exploit a range of tactics, techniques, and procedures for
obtaining victims. According to the UNODC, Balkan-based groups commonly recruit victims
through deceptive promises of employment, participation in beauty contests, modeling
opportunities, affordable vacations, study abroad programs, and marriage services.17 Similar
methods are reportedly used by traffickers in Latin America.18 In cases of forced labor trafficking,
contract fraud and contract switching is prevalent. According to the State Department, migrants
may accept jobs abroad with a verbal agreement, only to find that the type of work and the
working conditions are drastically different upon arrival at the work location. Sometimes
employers will force its employees to sign new contracts upon arrival; others will alter the
contract terms without notifying its employees, and others will deny employees a copy of their
signed contract or provide a copy of the contract in a language not understood by the
14 U.N. GIFT and UNODC, An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008.
15Ibid; UNODC, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns, April 2006; and U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2003.
16 U.N. GIFT and UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009; UNODC, The Globalization of
Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment, 2010; and U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2008.
17 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
18 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
employees.19 Traffickers, including in particular Nigerian and Chinese groups, have been known
to use a debt bondage scheme on individuals who desire to be smuggled across international
borders. Such irregular migrants thus become trafficking victims as traffickers force them to pay
back exaggerated smuggling fees.20 Other recruitment schemes include using family members,
friends, and individuals of the same nationality or gender as potential victims; such individuals
are better positioned to gain a victim’s trust and, ultimately, recruit such victims through
deception.21
Global Estimates
Estimates on the prevalence of human trafficking worldwide have varied widely over the years
and often measure different data. Overall, however, reports suggest that human trafficking is a
global phenomenon, victimizing millions of people each year and contributing to a multi-billion
dollar criminal industry. In 1997, a U.S. government estimate suggested that some 700,000
women and children may be trafficked across international borders each year.22 Subsequently, the
U.S. government estimated that approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people were trafficked across
global borders each year—and if trafficking within countries were to be included in the total
world figures, approximately 2 million to 4 million people were trafficked annually. 23 The
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) estimated in 2006 that human trafficking generated
approximately $9.5 billion annually for organized crime.24
The ILO estimated in 2005 that, at a minimum, some 2.45 million individuals worldwide were in
conditions of forced labor as a result of human trafficking.25 Using a revised methodology, ILO
issued a new estimate in June 2012 on the number of victims of forced labor worldwide,
concluding that some 20.9 million individuals today are likely subjected to forced labor, including
labor and sex trafficking as well as state-imposed forms of forced labor.26 In 2005, ILO also
estimated that forced labor traffickers generated about $31.7 billion annually in illicit profits.27 In
2009, ILO further assessed that forced labor trafficking also resulted in a tangible global
19 U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2010.
20 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
21 Ibid.
22 Clinton Administration, International Crime Threat Assessment, December 2000.
23 Most recently cited in U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in
Persons, June 2010. Note, however, that 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.
24 U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2006.
25 Patrick Belser, Michaëlle de Cock, and Farhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, ILO,
April 2005.
26 ILO, ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour: Results and Methodology, June 2012. ILO estimates the range of
victims to be between 19.5 million and 22.3 million, with a 68% level of confidence.
27 ILO, A Global Alliance Against Forced Labour, Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
7
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
opportunity cost of approximately $21 billion—lost licit earning potential due to the
underpayment of wages and the payment of recruitment fees.28
According to a 2006 UNODC report, governments identified human trafficking victims
originating in 127 countries and exploited in 137 countries.29In 2010, UNODC reported that some
140,000 sex trafficking victims are exploited at any given moment in Europe, enduring such
abuses for, on average, two years, and generating approximately $3 billion.30
The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves estimates that some 27 million people are
enslaved today worldwide.31
UNODC has described several limitations in human trafficking data that partially explain why
international data has been challenged to determine the actual scope and severity of trafficking in
persons as well as why reporting is likely varied across countries and incomplete globally. Stated
limitations include differences in national definitions and political emphasis and the varying
nature of national criminal justice systems and the extent to which countries engage in bilateral,
regional, and multilateral cooperation.32 Some forms of human trafficking may not be tracked by
national data if laws against such acts are not in existence. If definitions change over time as new
laws are enacted, comparing data over multiple years may be challenging. The availability and
quality of national structures for victim identification, referral, assistance, and repatriation vary.
Some countries lack a centralized database system for human trafficking and various domestic
agencies, including the police and prosecutors, may collect and provide discrepant figures for the
same measure of anti-trafficking enforcement.
Sex and Labor Trafficking
Two common manifestations of human trafficking include forcible or otherwise coerced
participation in the commercial sex trade and labor trafficking, which often involves forced work
in low-skill, labor-intensive activities in the mining, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and
hospitality industries. Of the multiple forms of human trafficking that occur, observers indicate
that trafficking for the purpose of forced labor is likely to be most prevalent. However, trafficking
for the purpose of sexual exploitation has historically been the most commonly reported—and
prosecuted—form of human trafficking globally. Based on national criminal justice and victim
assistance data collected by UNODC, an estimated 79% of all trafficking cases involved sex
trafficking, while 18% involved labor trafficking.33 Such conclusions are likely to reflect a bias in
reporting, which is believed to result in the over-reporting of sex trafficking and the under-
reporting of labor trafficking. The ILO, in contrast, estimates that approximately 22% of all
28 ILO, The Cost of Coercion, 2009.
29 UNODC, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns, April 2006. Data for this report covered the time period 1996-
2003.
30 UNODC, “Chapter 2: Trafficking in Persons,” in The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
31 Kevin Bales (president of Free the Slaves), Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1999, 2000 and 2004).
32 Examples summarized from U.N. GIFT and UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009; and
UNODC, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns, April 2006.
33 U.N. GIFT and UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, February 2009. For the report, UNODC analyzed
data provided by 155 countries. Of these, 52 responded with data relevant to the prevalence of cases based on the type
of trafficking exploitation.
Congressional Research Service
8
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
forced labor trafficking cases globally (4.5 million out of an estimated total of 20.9 million
victims) involve trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.34 The ILO also reports that
female victims are more common than male victims for both labor trafficking in general (55%
female victims) and sex trafficking in particular (98% female).
Child Trafficking
Children are particularly vulnerable as potential victims of human trafficking. Examples of
human trafficking involving children include the exploitation of children in the commercial sex
industry, including for child sex tourism, forced child begging, domestic servitude, and the use of
children in armed conflicts as soldiers, porters, cooks, messengers, and sex slaves. Examples of
deception and coercion include threats or use of physical violence, debt bondage schemes, and
manipulation through drug and alcohol dependencies.
Estimates of the prevalence of children trafficked for sexual exploitation and forced labor,
including conscription or forced recruitment to serve in armed conflicts, vary. The U.N. Global
Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (U.N. GIFT) reports that each year an estimated 1.2 million
children are trafficked.35 The ILO estimates that some 5.5 children are current victims of forced
labor trafficking.36 An earlier estimate by UNICEF and ECPAT suggests that as many as 2 million
children may be exploited for commercial sex at any given time.37 The UN Secretary-General
reported in April 2012 that as many as 54 state and non-state entities “recruit or use children” in
situations of armed conflict.38 The locations where such acts take place reportedly span
Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Colombia, the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iraq, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and
Yemen. See also section, below, on “Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States.”
Continuing Global Challenges
Although public commitments against slavery and other forms of human exploitation have long
existed at the local, national, regional, and global levels, efforts to galvanize an international
culture against human trafficking were reinvigorated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Today,
many countries have laws and authorities in place to combat human trafficking; yet, challenges
persist in achieving the goal of reducing and ultimately eradicating the practice of human
trafficking. In general, the trafficking business feeds on structural vulnerabilities within a society,
such as poverty, political instability, social upheaval, and crisis. Youth, gender, and mental and
physical handicaps may be exploited. Globalization has also contributed to an increase in the
34 ILO, ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour: Results and Methodology, June 2012.
35 U.N. GIFT, Human Trafficking: The Facts, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/labour/Forced_labour/
HUMAN_TRAFFICKING_-_THE_FACTS_-_final.pdf.
36 ILO, ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour, June 2012.
37 See for example, Nicole Ives, 2nd World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Background
Paper for the North American Regional Consultation on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, December 2-
3, 2001, http://www.unicef.org/events/yokohama/regional-philadelphia.html. According to ECPAT, the 2 million
children estimate is not based on any specific study; instead it is an estimate that many observers suggest is a
representative number, based on anecdotal information and small scale studies worldwide. ECPAT response to CRS,
December 30, 2011.
38 U.N. General Assembly Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General, Children and Armed Conflict, A/66/782-
S/2012/261, April 26, 2012, Annex I and II.
Congressional Research Service
9
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
movement of people across borders, legally and illegally, especially from poorer to wealthier
countries; international organized crime, including human traffickers, has taken advantage of this
freer flow of people, money, goods, and services to extend its own transnational reach.
Limitations in the implementation and enforcement of anti-trafficking policies also contribute to
the challenges in combating human trafficking. Observers often point to the apparent discrepancy
between the global magnitude of the human trafficking problem—estimated currently to be in the
millions—and the total number of prosecutions, convictions, and victims identified. The State
Department, for example, reported in its June 2011 Trafficking in Persons report that, among
those countries with laws that criminalize human trafficking, 62 had yet to use such laws in a
successful prosecution on trafficking charges.39
Persistent Victim Vulnerabilities
A range of socio-cultural, geopolitical, and economic factors may predispose certain types of
individuals to a heightened risk of victimization.40 Social isolation and cultural exclusion,
disempowered, disenfranchised, and marginalized groups can be particularly susceptible to
human trafficking. Vulnerable groups may become marginalized for reasons related to ethnic,
linguistic, and religious dynamics, gender discrimination, age or youth, or acute or persistent
poverty. Many such groups may also have limited access to education, employment opportunities,
and social and public services, including health care, legal assistance, and public safety and
security. They may in turn lack awareness of their legal rights, the ability to negotiate fair
treatment, or the physical capacity to protect themselves.
Political and economic turmoil, conflict, man-made crises, and natural disasters can disrupt
existing social, political, and economic institutions or exacerbate existing fissures and
vulnerabilities. In such scenarios the rule of law can collapse, allowing traffickers to exploit gaps
in a government’s ability to protect vulnerable populations and control their sovereign territory.41
Such instability can generate a new population of vulnerable people, including refugees,
internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers. The allure of improved economic and social
prospects in other countries can also drive potential migrants to make risky decisions that may in
turn increase their susceptibility to exploitation and victimization.42 The end of the Cold War is
often attributed to the apparent growth in the sex trafficking industry during the 1990s, when
traffickers capitalized on the desire of many young women from Eastern Europe for greater
employment opportunities in the West, particularly in Western Europe. Other major geopolitical
shifts that have been linked to transnational human trafficking flows include the integration of
China into the world economy and the political violence associated with the Yugoslav Wars.43
Victims of human trafficking continue to be susceptible to vulnerabilities in transit and at final
destinations. If they are moved to a location away from their country of origin, victims may
experience a lack of familiarity with the local language, laws, and culture. Traffickers can exploit
such scenarios to ensure that their victims remain in a position of dependence. Other forms of
39 U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2011.
40 U.N. GIFT and UNODC, An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid; U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June
2011.
43 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
10
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
dependency can be generated by manipulating a victim’s perception of the amount of credit and
debt owed to the traffickers, keeping victims in extreme social and community isolation,
facilitating alcohol and drug addictions, threatening victims with physical violence, and instilling
in victims a fear of local authorities and the possibility of arrest or deportation.44
Ongoing Demand and Profit Opportunities
Commonly cited reasons for the perpetuation of human trafficking include continued demand,
opportunity for profits, and low risk of law enforcement apprehension and punishment.
Consumers of and participants in human trafficking may variously involve official government
personnel in law enforcement as well as the diplomatic corps, government contractors and
subcontractors, child sex tourists, rebel and armed groups, organized crime groups, and others in
the private sector, such as in the agriculture, construction, manufacturing, mining, fishing
industries. According to the UNODC, ongoing demand for domestic and international
commercial sex drives the market for sex trafficking. Ongoing demand for cheap, labor-intensive
and low-skilled work, particularly for the so-called “dirty, dangerous, or demeaning jobs,” may
also drive the market for human trafficking.45
Low Prosecution and Conviction Rates
Although estimates suggest that there are, at a minimum, millions of trafficking victims currently
exploited worldwide, governments have been relatively unsuccessful at detecting and officially
identifying specific victims. According to the UNODC, at least 22,000 victims were detected
globally in 2006.46 The State Department’s 2012 Trafficking in Persons report stated that a total of
155,470 victims have been identified worldwide from 2008 through 2011. Moreover, despite
growth in the number of countries that have passed relevant anti-trafficking legislation, few have
effectively implemented such laws.47
After more than a decade of heightened international awareness of the trafficking problem, the
global pace of trafficking-related prosecutions and convictions remain limited. Certain regions,
particularly Africa and the Middle East, have historically registered comparatively fewer law
enforcement actions against traffickers, while, according to this measure, Europe leads the world
in anti-trafficking responses (see Table 1). Observers acknowledge that numerous challenges in
human trafficking cases can complicate prosecutions, including insufficient domestic awareness
and training to enforce anti-trafficking laws; conflation of trafficking with other crimes, such as
human smuggling; corruption in law enforcement institutions; victim and witness intimidation,
both physical and psychological, by traffickers; and recrimination and social stigma suffered by
victims who return to their home communities.48 As a result, there is a perception that human
44 U.N. GIFT and UNODC, An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008; ILO, The Cost of Coercion, 2009; U.S.
Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, June 2011.
45 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
46 Ibid.
47 According to the UNODC, 40% of countries that criminalize human trafficking according to the U.N. Trafficking
Protocol had not convicted a single perpetrator for human trafficking between 2003 and 2008. UNODC, The
Globalization of Crime, 2010.
48 Ibid; and U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons,
June 2011.
Congressional Research Service
11
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
traffickers remain at low risk of detection by law enforcement and are rarely punished for their
illicit activities in many parts of the world.
Table 1. Global Prosecutions of TIP Offenders, 2003-2011
East
Middle
South
Sub-
Asia
East &
&
Saharan
& the
North Central
Western
Year
Africa Europe Pacific
Africa
Asia
Hemisphere Global
2003 50
2,231
1,727
1,004
2,805
175
7,992
2004 134
3,270
438
134
2764
145
6,885
2005 194
2,521
2,580
112
1,041
170
6,618
2006 170
2,950
1,321
295
629
443
5,808
2007 123
2,820
1,047
415
824
426
5,655
2008 109
2,808
1,083
120
644
448
5,212
2009 325
2,208
357
80
1,989
647
5,606
2010 272
2,803
427
323
1,460
732
6,017
2011 340
3,188
2,127
209
974
624
7,462
Source: CRS presentation of law enforcement data in U.S. Department of State, Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons, through June 2012.
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.
Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy Responses
The U.S. government has a number of strategies, policies, and laws in place to combat the
international dimensions of human trafficking. Congress, in particular, has played an active role
in establishing the overall structure of the U.S. foreign policy approach, as well as providing
appropriations for combating human trafficking and conducting periodic oversight of the
implementation of anti-trafficking programs by various executive branch departments and
agencies. Key elements of the U.S. foreign policy framework for combating human trafficking
include the National Security Presidential Directive 22 on Combating Trafficking in Persons
(NSPD-22) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended and
reauthorized in 2003, 2005, and 2008 (TVPRAs).49 Several mechanisms are in place to facilitate
interagency coordination and international cooperation. The TVPA, as amended and reauthorized,
established two interagency entities to facilitate coordination on anti-trafficking policy across
49 Other relevant statutes and authorities that address international human trafficking issues, at least in part, include
Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits the U.S. import of certain foreign goods involving convict or
forced or indentured labor; a presidential memorandum from March 1998 on Steps to Combat Violence Against
Women and Trafficking in Women and Girls; Executive Order 13126 from 1999 on the Prohibition of Acquisition of
Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor; Executive Order 13257 from February 2002 on the
President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons; the Child Soldiers Prevention Act
of 2008; and a series of “trade preference programs” that authorize certain countries to receive duty-free access to U.S.
markets on condition that such countries commit to prohibiting forced labor and eliminating the “worst forms of child
labor,” among other measures.
Congressional Research Service
12
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
U.S. government offices: the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) and the President’s
Interagency Task Force (PITF). The TVPA also mandated the establishment of the Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the State Department as a central policy office to
coordinate international anti-trafficking efforts. From FY2005 through FY2010, the executive
branch reports that U.S. government departments and agencies have obligated a total of $493
million for international anti-trafficking projects and programs.50
The following sections provide a brief summary of U.S. foreign policy responses to human
trafficking. For further analysis of the various foreign policy responses, see CRS Report R42497,
Trafficking in Persons: International Dimensions and Foreign Policy Issues for Congress, by
Liana Sun Wyler.
Foreign Country Reporting and Product Blacklisting
Congress has mandated several periodic reports on human trafficking-related issues to be issued
by the executive branch. Chief among these reports includes the State Department’s annual report
on Trafficking in Persons, as required by the TVPA, as amended and reauthorized. The
Trafficking in Persons report assesses the yearly progress foreign countries have taken in
achieving specified minimum requirements for combating severe forms of trafficking in persons.
In this report, countries receive one of four possible ranking designations: Tier 1 (best), Tier 2,
Tier 2 Watch List, and Tier 3 (worst). Only Tier 1 countries are fully compliant with the TVPA’s
minimum standards, while the rest are non-compliant and vary in terms of their level of effort to
improve. Also included in the annual Trafficking in Persons report is a legislatively mandated list
of countries involved in recruiting and using child soldiers. Other major U.S. government reports
on human trafficking-related issues include the State Department’s Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices and the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor.
In addition to country reporting requirements, the Departments of Labor, State, and Homeland
Security are required to maintain lists of foreign products that have been produced by forced
labor, child labor, indentured labor, forced or indentured child labor, and convict labor. Certain
specified goods and products are banned from import into the United States if produced, mined,
or manufactured with the use of convict, forced, or indentured labor.51 Other specified goods and
products are barred from being used by U.S. federal contractors because they are likely to have
been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.52 Such restrictions
may help to prevent or at least reduce the role of the United States as a consumer market for
goods produced, at least in part, with trafficked labor.
50 CRS summary of U.S. Department of State data, International Projects to Combat Human Trafficking, Obligated
Funds, FY2005-FY2010.
51 Currently banned products include specified furniture, clothes hampers, and palm leaf bags from a state penitentiary
in Tamaulipas, Mexico, as well as specified diesel engines, machine presses, sheepskin and leather products, and
malleable iron pipe fittings from a combination of factories and prisons in Yunnan, Xuzhou, Qinghai, and Tianjin,
China. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Convict, Forced, or Indentured Labor
Product Importations, December 10, 2009.
52 Currently listed products include bricks from Afghanistan, and cassiterite and coltan from the Democratic Republic
of Congo. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, “Notice of Final Determination Revising
the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to
Executive Order 13126,” Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 64, April 3, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
13
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Foreign Aid
Congress has authorized and appropriated foreign assistance funds specifically to combat human
trafficking through the TPVA, as amended and reauthorized, and annual State, Foreign Operations
appropriations legislation.53 The goal of such aid is to build the capacity and capability of other
countries to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute traffickers (commonly referred to
as the three Ps). For each fiscal year from FY2008 through FY2011, the TVPRA of 2008
authorized a total of $63.8 million in foreign assistance to the State Department and to the
President for combating trafficking in persons.54 The State Department budgeted $38.4 million for
anti-human trafficking aid in FY2009, $34.6 million in FY2010, $34.1 million in FY2011, and an
estimated $38.2 million in FY2012. For FY2013, the State Department requested $38.2 million.
Pending FY2013 appropriations legislation, approved by the Appropriations Committees in both
chambers, indicates congressional support for the request: S. 3241 includes not less than $39.0
million in foreign aid to combat international human trafficking, while H.R. 5857 would
appropriate the full $38.2 million requested by the Administration. See also Appendix B on
“Domestic and International TIP Funding.”
Measures to Punish Poor Performers
Congress has enacted two provisions through which to deny certain types of foreign aid to
countries that are not advancing U.S. and international community anti-trafficking goals. One of
these provisions, pursuant to the TVPA, seeks to restrict non-humanitarian, nontrade-related
foreign aid from certain governments that do not show progress in eliminating human trafficking.
Under this provision, countries that receive a Tier 3 ranking in the Trafficking in Persons report
are ineligible to receive non-humanitarian, nontrade-related aid in the following fiscal year. The
second provision, which first went into effect in 2010 pursuant to the Child Soldiers Prevention
Act of 2008, seeks to restrict certain U.S. military assistance to countries known to recruit or use
child soldiers in their armed forces, or that host non-government armed forces that recruit or use
child soldiers. For both provisions, the President may reserve the option of waiving aid sanctions
in cases where the continuation of aid would promote U.S. national interests that supersede anti-
trafficking policy goals.
Trade Preferences
For decades, the U.S. government has implemented a variety of unilateral trade preference
programs designed to promote exports among selected developing countries. Through such trade
preference programs, designated beneficiary countries are provided duty-free entry for specified
products into the United States. Beneficiary countries may be designated (or removed) based on
eligibility criteria specified in the relevant authorizing legislation. Trade preference programs and
a country’s beneficiary status is relevant in an anti-human trafficking policy context because
53 Separately, the Department of Labor receives additional funds to implement assistance programs overseas to
eliminate the worst forms of child labor. At least some portion of such programs contribute to international anti-human
trafficking goals.
54 P.L. 110-457; not included in this total are additional funds authorized to the President for research ($2 million,
pursuant to Section 113(e)(3) of the TVPA) and to the State Department for the interagency task force, additional
personnel, and official reception and representation expenses (approximately $7 million, pursuant to Section 113(a) of
the TVPA).
Congressional Research Service
14
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
eligibility criteria include commitments to “internationally recognized worker rights,” such as
prohibiting the “use of any form of forced or compulsory labor,” as well as commitments to
eliminate the “worst forms of child labor,” such as child trafficking. In theory, conditioning
preferential trade status on foreign policy anti-trafficking goals may serve to encourage country
compliance with international efforts to combat human trafficking.
Addressing Trafficking in U.S. Government Activities Overseas
In recent decades, news reports have unearthed a range of international sex and labor trafficking
schemes that have allegedly involved U.S. government representatives overseas as the traffickers,
exploiters, and end-user consumers of services provided by trafficking victims. Several recent
trafficking cases identified by the media have centered on foreign recruitment agencies and
subcontractors that provide low-skill, labor-intensive services for U.S. contingency operations
overseas. Several laws, regulations, awareness trainings, and contracts enforcement mechanisms
already exist to combat trafficking related to U.S. government activities overseas. The TVPA, for
example, requires the President to authorize federal agencies and departments to terminate,
without penalty, grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements if the grantee, subgrantee,
contractor, or subcontractor (1) engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons while the grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement is in effect; (2) procures a commercial sex act while the grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement is in effect; or (3) uses forced labor in the performance of the
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. Also pursuant to the TVPA, actions to enforce the U.S.
government’s zero-tolerance policy against human trafficking in contracts are reported in an
annual report to Congress prepared by the Attorney General.
Human Trafficking in Global Supply Chains: Recent Cases and Responses
Public attention has centered on the prevalence of labor trafficking within global supply chains. In one recent example,
according to news reports and a New Zealand ministerial inquiry from early 2012, Indonesian laborers were recruited
to work on Korean-owned fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone.55 The migrant
workers experienced under- or non-payment of wages, harsh and isolating living conditions, and in some cases
physical abuse and sexual harassment.56 Investigative news reports indicate that seafood caught under these labor
conditions may be purchased by major multinational food distributors that, in turn, supply seafood to companies such
as Costco, P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Sam’s Club, Whole Foods, Safeway, and others.
Another example centers on the cocoa industry in West Africa, which has long been mired by al egations of forced
child labor and bonded labor. On June 29, 2012, Nestle, a multinational confectionery company, in conjunction with
the civil society organization Fair Labor Association, released a report that mapped the company’s cocoa supply chain
in Cote d’Ivoire for the first time.57 The report confirmed ongoing hiring and compensation practices that increase
the risk of child and bonded labor trafficking and documented the hazards experienced by children working in cocoa
fields, including machete injuries from breaking cocoa pods, long work hours, and the hauling of excessively heavy
materials. The report also identified gaps and vulnerabilities in the company’s internal monitoring system and other
socio-political factors that contribute to an environment where child trafficking can occur with impunity.
Supply chains within the United States are reportedly also be susceptible to labor trafficking. In one series of cases
against the Los Angeles-based labor recruiting agency Global Horizons, the company allegedly trafficked between 200
55 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (New Zealand), Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Use and Operation of
Foreign Charter Vessels, February 2012.
56 E. Benjamin Skinner, “The Fishing Industry’s Cruelest Catch,” Bloomberg Businessweek, February 23, 2012.
57 Fair Labor Association, Sustainable Management of Nestle’s Cocoa Supply Chain in the Ivory Coast—Focus on
Labor Standards, June 2012.
Congressional Research Service
15
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
and 600 Thai nationals to the United States between 2001 and 2007 to work at several farms in Washington and
Hawaii. The recruiters reportedly charged recruitment fees that caused the Thai workers to assume “insurmountable
debt,” and upon arrival in the United States, confiscated their passports threatened deportation in cases of
insubordination, and failed to honor the terms of the employment contracts.58 In June 2011, three of the six
defendants agreed to plead guilty to federal charges that included conspiring to commit forced labor and conspiring to
commit document servitude.59 Separately, in April 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) filed claims against Global Horizons as well as the farms where the Thai laborers were working—Captain
Cook Coffee Company, Del Monte Fresh Produce, Kauai Coffee Company, Kelena Farms, MacFarms of Hawaii, Maui
Pineapple Farms, Green Acre Farms, and Valley Fruit Orchards—claiming that the farms were not only aware of and
ignored abuses by Global Horizons, “but also participated in the obvious mistreatment, intimidation, harassment, and
unequal pay of the Thai workers.”60
In response to allegations of labor trafficking such as these, a variety of policy solutions have been advocated and
implemented over the years. These include public-private partnership efforts for specific agricultural sectors, such as
the so-cal ed Harkin-Engel Protocol of 2001, formal y the Protocol for the Growing and Processing of Cocoa Beans
and Their Derivative Products in a Manner that Complies with ILO Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and
Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Separately, a “consultative group,”
representing public and private interests, has been tasked with recommending a set of guidelines for eliminating child
and forced labor in agricultural supply chains, pursuant to Section 3205 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-246). On April 12, 2011, the consultative group published its recommended guidelines in the Federal
Register for public comment.61
Internationally, the private sector adopted in 2006 a set of commitments to combat human trafficking called the
Athens Ethical Principles and in 2010, business leaders reconvened to establish a plan to implement the Athens Ethical
Principles, called the Luxor Implementation Guidelines. Domestically within the United States, at the state-level, a
new California law went into effect on January 1, 2012, called the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of
2010, This state law requires certain firms that do business in California to disclose their efforts to combat human
trafficking within their supply chains. The 112th Congress has introduced and variously acted on bills that seek to
prevent trafficking in supply chains, such as H.R. 2759, the Business Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act.
Additional y, provisions related to supply chain transparency are contained in H.R. 3589 and H.R. 2830, both entitled
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011.
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.62 Human trafficking happens in the United States to both U.S.
citizens and noncitizens, and occurs in every state.63 As many as 17,500 people are trafficked to
the United States each year, according to U.S. government estimates.64 The trafficking of
58 U.S. Department of Justice, “Six People Charged in Human Trafficking Conspiracy for Exploiting 400 Thai Farm
Workers,” press release, September 2, 2010.
59 U.S. Department of Justice, “Three Defendants Plead Guilty in Honolulu in Connection with Human Trafficking
Scheme That Exploited 600 Thai Workers,” press release, June 15, 2011.
60 U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, “EEOC Files Its Largest Farm Worker Human Trafficking Suit Against Global
Horizons, Farms,” press release, April 20, 2011.
61 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Consultative Group to Eliminate the Use of Child
Labor and Forced Labor in Imported Agricultural Products,” Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 70, April 12, 2011.
62 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 359.
63 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.
64 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.
Congressional Research Service
16
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.65
Noncitizens are more susceptible than U.S. citizens to labor trafficking,66 and more foreign
victims67 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.68 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.69
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.70 Most of the victims are U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs).71
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:
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.
65 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 360.
66 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.
67 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.
68 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
69 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.
70 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.
71 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
17
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.72 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.73 As of December 2012, this remains
the most recent U.S. government estimate of trafficking victims.74 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,75 and subsequent reports have not included estimates of the
number of trafficking victims.76 The Attorney General’s Report on U.S. Government Activities to
Combat Trafficking in Persons Fiscal Year 200677 stated that this estimate may be “overstated,”
and 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
72 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.
73 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.)
74 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.
75 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.
76 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.
77 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2005.
Congressional Research Service
18
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Intelligence estimated that 45,000 to 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually to the
United States.78 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.79
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.80
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.81 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
victims. Table 2 presents the findings from the 10 study sites. Notably, the data collected are not
uniform and represent different time periods.82
78 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.
79 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.
80 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 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 approximately 42 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.
81 At that time, there were 42 task forces. 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.
82 The FY2011 Trafficking in Person Report reports that in 2010, 112 males and 542 females under 18 years of age –
some of whom were likely trafficking victims – were reported to the FBI as having been arrested for prostitution and
commercialized vice, a decrease from 167 males and 624 females in 2009. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in
Persons Report, June 2012, p. 364.
Congressional Research Service
19
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table 2. 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.83 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.84 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.”85
83 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.
84 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.
85 Ibid, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
20
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.86 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,87 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;88
86 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.
87 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.
88 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
21
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law enforcement89 in
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking unless unable to do so due
to physical or psychological trauma,90 or be under the age of 18;91 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.92 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).93 Additionally, aliens who are present without
being admitted or paroled94 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.95 Individuals who are eligible for T status
may be granted work authorization.96 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.
89 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.
90 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.
91 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.
92 INA §212(d)(13).
93 INA §212(a)(2)(D).
94 “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.
95 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.
96 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
22
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.97
Under law, aliens who have bona fide T applications98 are eligible to receive certain public
benefits to the same extent as refugees.99 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);100
• the right to restitution; and
• the rights of privacy and confidentiality.101
T Visas Issued
As Table 3 shows, between FY2002 and FY2012, there were 5,202 applications for T-1 status
(i.e., trafficking victims), and 3,269 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.
97 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).
98 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.
99 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.
100 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.)
101 28 C.F.R. §1100.3-§1100.33.
Congressional Research Service
23
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table 3. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2011
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Total
Principal Aliens (Victims)
Applied
163 587 352 229 346 230 394 475 574 967 885 5,202
Approved
17 285 156 112 182 279 247 313 447 557 674 3,269
Denied
12 72 303 213 46 70 64 77 138 223 194 1,412
Derivative Aliens (Family)
Applied
234 456 359 124 301 149 290 235 463 795 795 4,201
Approved
9 268 271 114 106 261 171 273 349 722 758 3,302
Denied
4 56 58 18 39 52 19 54 105 137 117 659
Source: Department of Homeland Security data provided to CRS.
Notes: At the end of FY2012, there were 560 applications pending for principal and 586 applications pending for
derivative T status. 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.
Between FY2007 and FY2011, the number of applications for T-1 status increased, and in
FY2011 there was a historically high number of applicants (967). The number of applications for
T-1 status decreased between FY2011 and FY2012, but the number of approved applications
increased. In the past four 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.102
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;
102 Between FY2006 and FY2009 the approval rate for T-1 status was approximately 80% and then declined slightly in
FY2010 (76%) and FY2011 (71%).In FY2012 the approval rate for T-1 status was 78 percent. CRS analysis of
unpublished data from DHS.
Congressional Research Service
24
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• since being granted T status, has been a person of good moral character; and
• 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.103
The regulations concerning adjustment to LPR status from T status were released on December
12, 2008, and became effective on January 12, 2009.104 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.105
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.106 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 FY201, continued presence was granted to 285 potential trafficking victims, an
increase from 186 in FY2010, and a decrease from 299 in FY2009.107
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
103 INA §245(l)
104 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.
105 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.
106 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.
107 In FY2010, there were 198 requests for continued presence relating to human trafficking cases; 186 were approved.
In addition, there were 288 requests for extensions of existing continued presence grants, all of which were approved.
In FY2010, aliens from 32 countries were granted continued presence due to human trafficking. Most victims were
from Thailand, Mexico, Honduras, and the Philippines. In addition, Chicago, Honolulu, New York City, and Tampa
were the cities 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 2010, Dec. 2011: pp. 49-50.
Congressional Research Service
25
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
victims of physical or mental abuse.108 To qualify for U status, the alien must file a petition and
establish that
• he/she suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a
victim of certain criminal activities;109
• 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.110 After three years, those in U
status may apply for LPR status.111 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 4. 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
2012 24,768 10,122 2,866
15,126 7,421 1,465
Total 34,345 36,108 7,904 35,679 27,176 5,844
Source: CRS presentation of unpublished data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notes: At the end of FY2012, there were 19,899 applications pending for U-1 status and 15,592 applications
pending for derivative U status.
108 INA 101(a)(15)(U).
109 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.
110 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.
111 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.
Congressional Research Service
26
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
From October 2008 through September 2012, there were 59,111 applications for U-1 status, and
36,108 were approved.112 During the same time period, there were 35,679 applications for
derivative U status, and 27,176 were approved. Of the adjudicated applications for U status,
approximately 82% 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.113 The statutory cap of 10,000 was has been reached before the end of the fiscal year every
year since FY2010. 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.114
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 addition, the Legal Services Corporation115 has instructed its lawyers to
provide legal assistance to trafficking victims.116
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.117 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.”118 Nonetheless, each year since FY2008, Congress has appropriated
112 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.
113 P.L. 106-386, §1513(c). 8 U.S.C. 1184(o)(2).
114 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS Reaches Milestone for Third Straight Year: 10,000 U Visas
Approved in Fiscal Year 2012,” press release, August 21, 2012; 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.
115 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.
116 In FY2009, seven LSC grantees assisted 92 trafficking victims. DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: FY2009, p.34.
117 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.
118 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.)
Congressional Research Service
27
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
approximately $10 million119 to HHS to “carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000.”120 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 2000.121
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.122 In addition, only noncitizen trafficking victims
are eligible for refugee-specific programs.123
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.124 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
119 FY2010 appropriations were $12.5 million, which was higher than in all other years.
120 (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).
121 “[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.”
122 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.
123 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
124 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)).
Congressional Research Service
28
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
with the Secretary of Homeland Security,125 as willing to assist in every reasonable way in the
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.126
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.127 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.128
HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provides certification and eligibility letters for
victims.
From FY2001 through FY2010, HHS certified 2,617 people; 304 (11.6%) of the victims were
minors.129 In addition, in FY2011, 463 adult victims received certifications, and 101 children
received eligibility letters. In FY2010, 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.130
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.131 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
125 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
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.
126 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.
127 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.
128 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
129 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.
130 Similar statistics were not reported for FY2011. 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.
131 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.
Congressional Research Service
29
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
participate in DHS’s Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program.132 TVPA and the subsequent
reauthorization acts, authorize funds for ORR to provide similar assistance to trafficking victims.
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.133
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.134
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.135 Another component of
the campaign is the creation of a toll-free National Human Trafficking Resource Center available
for advice 24 hours a day.136 (For a discussion of authorizations and appropriations for the HHS
grant program, see Appendix B.)
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.137 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.138 According
132 P.L. 110-457, §235(b)(2).
133 For additional information on programs for refugees see CRS Report R41570, U.S. Refugee Resettlement
Assistance, by Andorra Bruno.
134 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.
135 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.
136 Department of Health and Human Services, “About Human Trafficking,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
trafficking/about/index.html#wwd.
137 P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(2).
138 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
served more labor trafficking victims than sex trafficking victims. Notably, in some cases, services may be stopped if
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
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.139 (For a discussion of authorizations and appropriations for
this program, see Table B-3.)
Department of Labor
DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) One-Stop Career Centers140 provide job
search assistance, career counseling, and occupational skills training to trafficking victims.141
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.142
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.143 Job Corps
does not collect information on the extent to which these services are offered to or utilized by
trafficking victims.144 (For program authorizations, see Table B-3.)
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)
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.)
139 DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: FY2008, p.6.
140 For more information on One-Stop Career Centers, see CRS Report RL34251, Federal Programs Available to
Unemployed Workers, coordinated by Katelin P. Isaacs.
141 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.
142 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, pp. 32-33.
143 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.
144 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
31
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
delivery operations,145 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.146
Within the United States, the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Homeland Security (DHS), and
Labor (DOL) have primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting traffickers.147 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,148
and are prosecuted by DOJ.149 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.150
In addition, DOJ funds anti-trafficking task forces nationwide. Currently there are approximately
29 task forces, a decrease from 40 in the beginning of FY2011.151 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
145 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.
146 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.)
147 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.
148 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.
149 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.
150 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.
151 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 361.
Congressional Research Service
32
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
prosecute trafficking cases.152 These taskforces reported 900 trafficking investigations during
FY2011.153
ICE uses a global enforcement strategy to disrupt and dismantle domestic and international
criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking. In FY2011, ICE reported investigating
722 cases with a nexus to human trafficking.154 In addition, DOL is involved in cases of
trafficking through enforcement of labor standards laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act155
and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.156
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.157 In The Implementing the 9/11
152 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.
153 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 361.
154Ibid; 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 .
155 29 U.S.C. §§201-219.
156 29 U.S.C. Chapter 20.
157 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Commission Recommendations Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53, discussed in Appendix A), Congress
attempted to address these issues.
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. 1301158 was reported by the
Senate Judiciary Committee on October 13, 2011, and H.R. 2830159 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,160 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 2011161
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
(...continued)
Oversight, 9/11 Reform Act: Examining the Implementation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, hearings,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., March 8, 2006.
158 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.
159 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.
160 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.
161 U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs, Mark-Up of H.R. 2830, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
34
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.162 Section 105 of the House bill would also extend the
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.163
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
162 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.
163 Joanna Anderson, “House Panel Approves U.N. Population Fund, Anti-Trafficking Measures,” Congressional
Quarterly, October 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
35
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
predicate offense as well; foreign labor contracting fraud is a five-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.164 (See Table 5 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
164 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
36
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.
S. 1301 as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee: The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011165
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,
165 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
37
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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).
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.166
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
166 The proposed grant program is identical to S. 596 in the 112th Congress, and S. 2925 in the 111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
38
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 for FY2012 through FY2015, decreasing some
authorization levels and increasing others.167 (See Table 5 for a detailed list of authorization
levels.)
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 5. 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
(22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
$5.5 $5.5 $2.0 $5.5 $2.0 — $2.0 — $2.0
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.
7110(c)(1)(A))
$10.0 $10.0
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
DOS: Protection (22 U.S.C.
7110(c)(1)(B))
$10.0 $10.0
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
167 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
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
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
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
Permanent Residents (LPRs)
7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 — 7.0 — 7.0
(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
Unaccompanied Minors
— — 1.0 — 1.0 — 2.0 — 2.0
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS: Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Investigations
18.0 18.0 10.0 18.0 10.0 — 10.0 — 10.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(i))
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
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))
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.
Congressional Research Service
41
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
to how broadly human trafficking should be defined. In addition, questions have been raised
about the effective implementation of anti-trafficking programs. The following sections provide
an overview of longstanding policy challenges that continue to confront human trafficking
responses both domestically and internationally. For more detailed analysis of foreign policy-
related human trafficking issues, see CRS Report R42497, Trafficking in Persons: International
Dimensions and Foreign Policy Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler.
TIP Awareness Among U.S. Diplomats
Many observers consider human trafficking a high profile foreign policy concern for the United
States. It is the subject of executive and legislative branch mandates and directives and it is an
issue of longstanding interest and importance to current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.168 Yet,
a June 2012 report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed that
human trafficking issues and the requirements of the TVPA remain “poorly understood” among
“rank-and-file diplomats” serving in the U.S. foreign service—raising questions regarding the
perceived policy priority of human trafficking within the State Department. 169 Additionally, the
OIG report states that “Washington briefings for chiefs of missions and their deputies do not
always include TIP issues, even though all countries are now covered in the annual TIP report.”
The OIG report suggests that one reason for the lack of human trafficking awareness might be
due to outdated Washington guidance to U.S. diplomatic posts overseas on TVPA
implementation, which was issued in 2007. Diplomatic training on TIP issues is also reportedly
encouraged, but not required, including among consular personnel. Others have suggested that
human trafficking could be elevated as a foreign policy issue if the Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons were elevated to a status equivalent to a bureau within the State
Department.170
Credibility of TIP Rankings
Many analysts have asserted that the overall impact of the TIP report as a diplomatic tool to raise
international human trafficking awareness depends upon the credibility of the State Department’s
annual country TIP rankings. The annual publication of the TIP report often garners significant
168 In the mid-90s, for example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton served as Honorary Chair of the President’s Interagency
Council on Women, which served as one of the original platforms to advance international efforts to combat trafficking
in women and girls.
169 U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Inspections, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June
2012.
170 See for example testimony by Holly Burkhalter before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The Next Ten Years
in the Fight Against Human Trafficking: Attacking the Problem with the Right Tools, hearing, July 17, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
42
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
media attention. Its country assessments have variously spurred international action against
human trafficking and generated diplomatic resentment and bilateral tensions with certain low-
ranked countries. With time, many agree that the TIP reports have improved each year. A June
2012 report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General concluded that “[a]fter 10
years of publication, the TIP report has gained wide credibility for its thoroughness and is
recognized as the definitive work by the antitrafficking community on the status of antitrafficking
efforts and a catalyst for change globally.”171 Some nevertheless argue that “inconsistent
application of the minimum standards [mandated by TVPA] and superficial country assessments
have compromised their credibility.”172 Some have also argued 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.”173
U.S. Aid Restrictions: 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 the provision of financial and technical assistance, as well as the threat of
withholding certain forms of assistance. Some assert that unilateral aid restrictions, when
designed in accordance with international norms, can incite countries to internalize those
norms.174 Sanctions seem to be most effective when they are clearly defined and evenly applied,
criteria which some say U.S. trafficking aid restrictions have not yet met.175 Some argue that aid
cuts are often only be applied to countries already subject to other diplomatic restrictions 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 aid restrictions. In
2008, Congress added a new requirement to the TIP country rankings process, in which Tier 2
Watch List countries would become at risk of being automatically downgraded to the Tier 3
category after two consecutive years on the Tier 2 Watch List. Some have raised concerns that
bilateral relationships may be negatively affected as more countries are listed as Tier 3 and thus
subject to aid restrictions.176
171 U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Inspections, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June
2012.
172 Chuang, 2006.
173 GAO, July 2006, p. 3. (GAO-06-825).
174 Sarah H. Cleveland, “Norm Internationalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions,” Yale Journal of International Law,
2001, 1, 31.
175 Chuang, 2006.
176 U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Office of
Inspections, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June
2012.
Congressional Research Service
43
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.177
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.”178 Countries such as
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.179
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.”180 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.181
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.182
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
177 §103 (8-9) of P.L. 106-386, as amended.
178 Janice G. Raymond, “Sex Trafficking is Not ‘Sex Work,’” Conscience, Spring 2005.
179 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.
180 U.S. Department of State, 2008 TIP report.
181 U.S. Department of State website, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/index.htm; Feingold, September/October 2005.
182 The United Nations Convention Against Organized Crime and Its Protocols, available at http://www.unodc.org/
unodc/en/crime_cicp_convention.html.
Congressional Research Service
44
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.183
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.184 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.185 Despite the U.N.
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.186
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.187
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.188 Some advocacy groups have questioned whether
the T status protects the victims or is primarily a tool for law enforcement.
183 Ibid.
184 Statement by Claire Antonelli of Global Rights, Center for Strategic and International Studies Event on Human
Trafficking in Latin America, July 9, 2004.
185 Kinsey Aldan Dinan, “Globalization and National Sovereignty: From Migration to Trafficking,” In Trafficking in
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.
186 UNODC and UNGIFT, An Introduction to Human Trafficking: Vulnerability, Impact, and Action, 2008, p. 88.
187 GAO, July 2006, p. 3. (GAO-06-825).
188 Some of these concerns were also raised in the minority views expressed in the House Judiciary Committee Report
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
45
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
United States overestimated? Is the United States government doing a poor job locating and
identifying victims?189 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.”190
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.”191 Some contend that the extreme hardship threshold
makes it difficult for victims to receive T status.192 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.193
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
(...continued)
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.
189 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.
190 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
191 Federal Register vol. 67, no. 21: p. 4785. January 31, 2002.
192 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.
193 Personal communication with ICE special agents in Los Angeles, California, August 16, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
46
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
“departure is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”194 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.195 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.196 In addition, according to the DOS report, law
officials are sometimes untrained or unwilling to undertake victim protection measures.197 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.198 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.199
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.200 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
194 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p.4.
195 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
196 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,
Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 340.
197 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
198 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.)
199 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p. 9.
200 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.
Congressional Research Service
47
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
intensive case management services compared to noncitizens.201 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.”202 More recently, ORR has stated that they do
not provide services to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.203 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.”204
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.205
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 2000.206 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.207
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.208 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
201 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.
202 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 17.
203 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.
204 P.L. 111-117, P.L. 111-8, P.L. 110-161.
205 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.
206 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.
207 22 U.S.C §7105(b)(2)(A).
208 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
Congressional Research Service
48
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.209
It is estimated that there are approximately 14,500 noncitizens trafficked into the United States
each year.210 Some have estimated that the number of minor sex trafficking victims could be in
the hundreds of thousands.211 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
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?212 Are there other public benefit entitlement programs that
noncitizen victims are ineligible for that could serve the needs of U.S. citizen trafficking
victims?213
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.214 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,215 and noted that while the agency has built significant
209 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
210 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.
211 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.
212 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.
213 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.
214 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.
215 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.
Congressional Research Service
49
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
capacities to serve victims, they had not been effective at identifying and serving a significant
number of victims.216
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.217 However, this report did not specifically examine grants awarded under the TVPA.
216 Ibid.
217 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.218 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.219 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.
218 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.
219 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;220
• 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
220 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.221 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
221 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.222
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
222 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.223 In addition,
223 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, 2008.224 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,225 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.
224 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.
225 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 holders226 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.227 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.
226 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.
227 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,228 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.
228 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. Domestic and International TIP
Funding
U.S. anti-trafficking activities are primarily authorized by the TVPA, as amended, and separately
appropriated to several departments and agencies that manage program implementation both
domestically and internationally. The following appendix summarizes key sources of anti-
trafficking funding and budget data, including TVPA authorizations and appropriations, domestic
and overseas obligated funds, appropriations for grant programs for domestic TIP victims, foreign
aid budget estimates, and international anti-TIP obligations.
TVPA Authorizations and Appropriations
Table B-1 lists trafficking authorization levels for FY2008-FY2011. Those authorizations are for
TIP operations and programs.
Since many U.S. government agencies do not include 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,
including 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. According to OMB, funding for TVPA programs comes from
appropriations to a number of U.S. departments and agencies, including the Department of State;
the Department of Justice (DOJ); the Department of Labor (DOL); the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS); and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement TVPA, as amended
(in current U.S. $ millions)
Authorized Programs
Original Authorizing
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
Congressional Research Service
59
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Authorized Programs
Original Authorizing
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Source
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
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
Congressional Research Service
60
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
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 current 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
P.L. 108-193
Trafficking Victims Protection
$105.6 $109.8
Reauthorization Act of 2003
2005 $105.6
$109.6
2006
P.L. 109-164
Trafficking Victims Protection
$177.3 $152.4
Reauthorization Act of 2005
2007 $162.3
$153.1
2008
P.L. 110-457
Wil iam Wilberforce Trafficking
$182.3 $167.4
Victims Reauthorization Act of
20
2008
09 $187.3
$182.7
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).
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.229 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.
229 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
61
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.
Figure B-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.
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 B-3 for authorizations and appropriations for grant programs to
assist trafficking victims in the United States for FY2001-FY2010.
Table B-3. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims
of Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012
(in current U.S. $ millions)
Victims Services—DOJ
Office of Refugee Resettlementa
Fiscal Year
Authorized Appropriated Authorized
Appropriated
FY2001 $5 $0 $5
$5
FY2002 $10 $10 $10
$10
Congressional Research Service
62
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Victims Services—DOJ
Office of Refugee Resettlementa
Fiscal Year
Authorized Appropriated Authorized
Appropriated
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
R41161, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan
James, Oscar R. Gonzales, and Jennifer D. Williams.
Foreign Aid Budget Estimates
For FY2008 through FY2011, the 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 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 B-4). In FY2011, an estimated $24
million was provided for anti-TIP efforts through the Foreign Operations budget.
Congressional Research Service
63
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table B-4. 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.
The bulk of U.S. anti-trafficking assistance programs abroad is administered by the U.S.
Department of State, USAID, and 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. DHS and the 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.
Congressional Research Service
64
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
International Anti-TIP Obligations
Figure B-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.230 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.231
Figure B-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.
230 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.
231 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
65
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.
Congressional Research Service
66
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. 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, 2010.232 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 entities233 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.234
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
232 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.
233 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.
234 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
67
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
68
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
69