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
February 19, 2013
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 contemporary international criminal activity and is of significant interest to the
United States and the international community as a serious human rights concern. TIP is both an
international and a domestic crime that involves violations of labor, public health, and human
rights standards, and criminal law.
In general, the trafficking business feeds on conditions of vulnerability, such as youth, gender,
poverty, ignorance, social exclusion, political instability, and ongoing demand. Actors engaged in
human trafficking range from amateur family-run organizations to sophisticated transnational
organized crime syndicates. Trafficking victims are often subjected to mental and physical abuse
in order to control them, including debt bondage, social isolation, removal of identification cards
and travel documents, violence, and fear of reprisals against them or their families. According to
the International Labor Organization (ILO), some 20.9 million individuals today are estimated to
be victims of forced labor, including 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.
Human trafficking is of great concern to the United States and the international community. Anti-
TIP efforts have accelerated in the United States since the enactment of the Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, P.L. 106-386) and internationally since the passage
of the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, adopted in 2000.
Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, Division A of P.L. 106-386) and
its reauthorizations (TVPRAs), Congress has aimed to eliminate human trafficking by creating
international and domestic grant programs for both victims and law enforcement, 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).
The United States engages in anti-TIP efforts internationally and domestically. The bulk of U.S.
anti-trafficking programs abroad is administered by the State Department, United States Agency
for International Development, and Department of Labor. In keeping with U.S. anti-trafficking
policy, these programs have emphasized prevention, protection, and prosecution (the three “Ps”).
Prevention programs have combined public awareness and education campaigns with education
and employment opportunities for those at risk of trafficking, particularly women and girls.
Protection programs have involved direct support for shelters, as well as training of local service
providers, public officials, and religious groups. Programs to improve the prosecution rates of
traffickers have helped countries draft or amend existing anti-TIP laws, as well as provided
training for law enforcement and judiciaries to enforce those laws. However, it is difficult to
evaluate the impact of international U.S. anti-trafficking efforts since few reliable measures of
TIP have been identified.
Domestically, anti-TIP efforts also include protection for victims, education of the public, and the
investigation and prosecution of trafficking offenses. The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health
and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL) have programs or administer grants to other
entities to provide assistance specific to the needs of victims of trafficking. These needs include
temporary housing, independent living skills, cultural orientation, transportation needs, job
training, mental health counseling, and legal assistance. Both HHS and the Department of
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Homeland Security (DHS) administer public awareness campaigns on recognizing human
trafficking victims. In addition, within the United States at the federal level, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) in DOJ, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS both have
primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting traffickers.
Some of the issues surrounding U.S. policy to combat human trafficking include whether there is
equal treatment of all victims—both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens (USCs), as well as
victims of labor and sex trafficking; whether current law and services are adequate to deal with
the emerging issue of minor sex trafficking in the United States (i.e., the prostitution of children
in the United States); and whether U.S. efforts to stem human trafficking internationally are
efficacious especially with the use of the TIP report and aid restrictions.
In addition, the current budget situation has heightened interest in Congress on the funding and
oversight of current efforts to fight TIP, to make sure that the grant programs authorized under the
TVPA as amended do not duplicate efforts and that funding is being used in the most efficacious
manner. 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.
Authorizations for the grant programs under TVPA expired at the end of FY2011. On February
12, 2013, the Senate passed S. 47. Among other things, S. 47 would modify some of the grant
programs, expand reporting requirements, create new criminal penalties for trafficking offenses,
and reauthorize appropriations from FY2014 through FY2017.
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 ....................................................................................... 5
Global Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 7
Sex and Labor Trafficking ................................................................................................... 8
Child Trafficking ................................................................................................................. 8
Continuing Global Challenges................................................................................................... 9
Overview of U.S. Foreign Policy Responses ................................................................................. 10
Foreign Country Reporting and Product Blacklisting ............................................................. 11
Foreign Aid and International Anti-Trafficking Projects ......................................................... 11
Foreign Aid Restrictions .......................................................................................................... 12
Conditions on Country Beneficiary Status for Trade Preference Programs ............................ 12
Preventing U.S. Government Participation in Trafficking Overseas ....................................... 12
Trafficking in the United States ..................................................................................................... 15
Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States ..................................................................... 15
Estimates of Human Trafficking in the United States ............................................................. 16
Estimates Into the United States ........................................................................................ 16
Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States .......................................... 17
Response to Trafficking within the United States .......................................................................... 18
Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims............................................................................. 19
T Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 19
Continued Presence ........................................................................................................... 23
U Nonimmigrant Status ..................................................................................................... 23
Aid Available to Victims of Trafficking in the United States .................................................. 25
Health and Human Services Grants................................................................................... 26
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime ......................................................... 28
Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 29
Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses .................................................................... 29
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center ....................................................................... 31
Policy Issues .................................................................................................................................. 32
TIP Awareness Among U.S. Diplomats ................................................................................... 32
Credibility of TIP Rankings ..................................................................................................... 32
U.S. Aid Restrictions: A Useful Tool? ..................................................................................... 33
Debates Regarding Prostitution and Sex Trafficking .............................................................. 34
Distinctions Between Trafficking and Alien Smuggling ......................................................... 34
How to Measure the Effectiveness of Global Anti-TIP Programs ........................................... 35
Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims .............................................. 35
Stringency of T Determination .......................................................................................... 36
Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims ..................................................................... 37
Victims’ Safety .................................................................................................................. 37
Congressional Research Service
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Funding and Authority to Assist U.S. Citizen and LPR Victims of Trafficking ...................... 38
Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services ..................................................................... 39
Oversight of Domestic Grants ................................................................................................. 39
Legislation in the 113th Congress ................................................................................................... 40
Title XII of S. 47 ...................................................................................................................... 40
Trafficking Provisions in Other Titles of S. 47 ........................................................................ 45
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Figures
Figure B-1. Anti-TIP Obligations by Agency: FY2005-FY2010................................................... 58
Figure B-2. International Anti-TIP Obligations by Region: FY2005-FY2010 .............................. 62
Tables
Table 1. Number of Suspected Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Victims by Location ................ 18
Table 2. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2012 ........................................................................ 21
Table 3. U Visas Issued FY2009-FY2012 ..................................................................................... 24
Table 4. Current Law and S. 47 as passed by the Senate: A Comparison of Authorizations
of Appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 43
Table 5. H.R. 2830 and S. 1301: Comparison of Authorizations of Appropriations ..................... 68
Table B-1. Current Authorizations to Implement TVPA, as amended ........................................... 55
Table B-2. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as Amended,
Authorizations and Appropriations, FY2001-2011 ..................................................................... 57
Table B-3. Authorizations and Appropriations for Grant Programs to Assist Victims of
Trafficking in the United States: FY2001-FY2012 .................................................................... 58
Table B-4. Anti-TIP Assistance through the Foreign Operations Budget ...................................... 60
Appendixes
Appendix A. Anti-Trafficking Administrative Directives and Legislation .................................... 47
Appendix B. Domestic and International TIP Funding ................................................................. 55
Appendix C. TVPA Reauthorization Activity in the 112th Congress ............................................. 63
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 70
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 70
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 is often also associated with 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, Division 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. In the 113th Congress, the
Senate passed S. 47, which would amend the TVPA. Among other things, S. 47 would modify
some of the grant programs, expand reporting requirements, create new criminal penalties for
trafficking offenses, and reauthorize appropriations from FY2014 through FY2017.
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 TIP. These terms are variously used in international treaties as well as domestic statutes 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. Protocol’s definition of TIP 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 TIP is unique among other trafficking and commodity
smuggling crimes, as it does not require that victims move across national borders to trigger the
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, 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
Federal statutes do not formally define human trafficking or trafficking in persons. Instead,
Section 103(8) of the TVPA defines “severe forms of trafficking in persons” 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. TIP definition of trafficking in persons, is applied in the context of
U.S. anti-trafficking policies and programs—including in the State Department annual Trafficking
in Persons Report (TIP Report), which measures and ranks foreign countries’ progress to
eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. 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.” U.N. 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
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.
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 terminology is similar to the U.N. Protocol’s, 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 U.S. and U.N. definitions appear to differ somewhat with
respect to the concept of exploitation.9 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. 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.
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.
9 On the one hand, 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.”10
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[.]11
Section 103(5) of the TVPA also defines “involuntary servitude” (see above), a term often used to
describe forced labor in the U.S. context of human trafficking. The State Department also
describes forced labor as a key form of human trafficking, which factors into its country
assessments in the annual TIP Report. 12
10 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 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.
11 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.”
12 See also U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Office of Inspector General
(OIG), Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June 2012.
Congressional Research Service
4
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Child Soldiers
Section 402 of the Child Soldiers Protection Act (CSPA) of 2008 (Title IV of P.L. 110-457)
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 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 a leading law enforcement challenge as
well as a pervasive and widespread manifestation of modern-day violations of human rights.
Observers have also emphasized how TIP can impact economic development and public health.13
The following 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
13 Economic costs associated with human trafficking have at times been described in terms of lost labor productivity,
human resources, taxable revenues, and migrant remittances, as well as unlawfully redistributed wealth and heightened
law enforcement and public health costs. See 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; and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, June 2007.
Congressional Research Service
5
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.16
Reports suggest that traffickers exploit a range of tactics, techniques, and procedures for
recruiting and forcibly maintaining victims in situations of human trafficking. 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 may force their employees to sign new contracts upon arrival;
others may alter the contract terms without notifying employees, while others may deny
employees a copy of their signed contract or provide a copy of the contract in a language not
understood by the employees.19 Traffickers, including in particular Nigerian and Chinese groups,
have been known to use debt bondage schemes on individuals who desire to be smuggled across
international borders. Such irregular migrants thus become TIP 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 may be better positioned to gain a
victim’s trust and, ultimately, recruit such victims through deception.21 In order to maintain a
victim in circumstances of human trafficking, perpetrators may manipulate a victim’s perception
of the amount of credit and debt owed, keep victims in extreme social and community isolation,
facilitate alcohol and drug addictions, threaten victims with physical violence, and instill in
victims a fear of local authorities and the possibility of arrest or deportation.
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, 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, Trafficking in
Persons, June 2008.
17 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
18 Ibid.
19 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, June 2010.
20 UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
21 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Global Estimates
Estimates on the prevalence of human trafficking worldwide have varied widely. Overall,
however, reports suggest that TIP 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 TIP generated approximately $9.5 billion annually for organized crime.24
International organizations have also conducted research on the global scope of TIP, including the
ILO and United Nations. In 2005, for example, the ILO estimated 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, the ILO issued a new estimate in June 2012 on the
number of victims of forced labor worldwide, concluding that some 20.9 million individuals are
likely subjected to forced labor, including labor and sex trafficking as well as state-imposed forms
of forced labor.26 According to a December 2012 UNODC report, governments worldwide
identified TIP victims originating in 136 countries and exploited in 118 countries between 2007
and 2010.27
Several other researchers, academics, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have
conducted studies to estimate the scope of TIP internationally. For example, the NGO Free the
Slaves estimated that some 27 million people may be enslaved worldwide.28
Analysts often emphasize several limitations in human trafficking data, which contribute to
persistent questions about the true scope and severity of TIP. Stated limitations include
22 Clinton Administration, International Crime Threat Assessment, December 2000.
23 Most recently cited in U.S. Department of State, 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, 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. In 2005, the ILO also estimated that forced labor traffickers generated about $31.7 billion annually in illicit
profits. And in 2009, the ILO further assessed that forced labor trafficking also resulted in a tangible global opportunity
cost of approximately $21 billion—lost licit earning potential due to the underpayment of wages and the payment of
recruitment fees. See 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; and ILO, The Cost of Coercion, 2009.
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 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, December 2012. Earlier, in 2010, UNODC reported that some
140,000 sex trafficking victims are likely exploited in Europe at any given moment, enduring such abuses for, on
average, two years, and generating approximately $3 billion. See UNODC, “Chapter 2: Trafficking in Persons,” in The
Globalization of Crime, 2010.
28 Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Berkley: University of California Press, 1999,
2000 and 2004).
Congressional Research Service
7
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
differences in national definitions and political emphasis on TIP, as well as the varying nature of
national criminal justice systems and the extent to which countries engage in bilateral, regional,
and multilateral cooperation.29 Some forms of TIP 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 also 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 TIP manifestations 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 TIP, 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
58% of all trafficking cases involved sex trafficking, while 36% involved labor trafficking.30 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 forced labor trafficking cases globally (4.5 million out of
an estimated total of 20.9 million victims) involve trafficking for commercial sexual
exploitation.31 Reports also suggest that female victims are more common than male victims for
both labor trafficking in general and sex trafficking in particular (98% female).32
Child Trafficking
Children are particularly vulnerable as potential victims of human trafficking. According to the
UNODC, an estimated 27% of all trafficking victims detected globally are children.33 Examples
of TIP 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. As part of such
schemes, traffickers may employ various forms of physical and psychological deception and
coercion, including threats or use of violence and manipulation through drug and alcohol
dependencies.
29 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.
30 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, December 2012; and U.N. GIFT and UNODC, Global Report on
Trafficking in Persons, February 2009.
31 ILO, ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour: Results and Methodology, June 2012.
32 See for example UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, December 2012.
33 UNODC, Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, December 2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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 United Nations
has reported that each year an estimated 1.2 million children are trafficked.34 The ILO estimates
that some 5.5 million children are current victims of forced labor.35 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.36 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.37
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.
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, human trafficking feeds on structural vulnerabilities within a society, such
as poverty, political instability, social upheaval, and crisis.38 Socially isolated and culturally
excluded, 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.39 Globalization
has also contributed to an increase in the 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.40
34 U.N. GIFT, Human Trafficking: The Facts, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/labour/Forced_labour/
HUMAN_TRAFFICKING_-_THE_FACTS_-_final.pdf.
35 ILO, ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour, June 2012.
36 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.
37 U.N. General Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, Children and Armed Conflict,
A/66/782-S/2012/261, April 26, 2012, Annex I and II.
38 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, traffickers may exploit
gaps in a government’s ability or willingness to protect vulnerable populations. Such instability can generate new
populations of vulnerable people, including refugees, internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers. U.N. GIFT and
UNODC, An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008.
39 Many such marginalized and vulnerable 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. U.N. GIFT and UNODC, An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008; ILO, The Cost of Coercion,
2009; and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, June 2011.
40 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. U.N. GIFT and UNODC,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Limitations in the implementation and enforcement of anti-trafficking policies also contribute to
the challenges in combating human trafficking, resulting in a perception that human traffickers
are at low risk of detection by law enforcement and are rarely punished for their illicit activities in
many parts of the world.41 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. 42 Ongoing demand for cheap,
labor-intensive and low-skilled work, including for commercial sex, may also drive the markets
for both domestic and international human trafficking.
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-TIP programs by various executive branch departments and agencies. Key
elements of the U.S. foreign policy framework to address TIP 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).43 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 U.S. government offices: the
Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) and the President’s Interagency Task Force (PITF).44 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, annually produce the TIP Report, and administer an international anti-TIP
grants program, among other priorities.
(...continued)
An Introduction to Human Trafficking, 2008; U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, June 2011; and
UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010.
41 The State Department’s 2012 TIP Report stated that a total of 155,470 victims have been identified worldwide from
2008 through 2011. See also UNODC, The Globalization of Crime, 2010; and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in
Persons, June 2011.
42 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, June 2011.
43 Other relevant statutes and authorities that address international human trafficking issues, at least in part, include, in
chronological order: 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; the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008; 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; and Executive Order 13627 from September 2012 on Strengthening Protections Against
Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts.
44 See President George W. Bush, “President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons,”
Executive Order 13257 of February 13, 2002, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 33, February 19, 2002, pp. 7259-7260;
and President George W. Bush, “Amending Executive Order 13257 to Implement the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2003,” Executive Order 13333 of March 18, 2004, Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 56, March 23,
2004, pp. 13455-13456.
Congressional Research Service
10
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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 TIP-related issues to be issued by the
executive branch. Chief among these reports includes the State Department’s annual report on
Trafficking in Persons (TIP Report), as required by the TVPA, as amended and reauthorized. The
TIP 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 TIP Report is a legislatively mandated list of countries involved in
recruiting and using child soldiers. Other major U.S. government reports on TIP-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.45 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.46 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.
Foreign Aid and International Anti-Trafficking Projects
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.47 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
45 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.
46 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.
47 Separately, the Labor Department receives additional funds to implement assistance programs overseas to eliminate
the worst forms of child labor. At least some portion of such programs contributes to international anti-TIP goals.
Congressional Research Service
11
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
authorized a total of $63.8 million in foreign assistance to the State Department and to the
President for combating trafficking in persons.48 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.
Foreign Aid Restrictions
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-TIP 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 severe forms of TIP. Under
this provision, countries that receive a Tier 3 ranking, the worst-performing category of countries,
in the TIP 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.
Conditions on Country Beneficiary Status for Trade
Preference Programs
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
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.
Preventing U.S. Government Participation in Trafficking 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
48 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
12
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
overseas. Several laws, regulations, awareness trainings, and contracts enforcement mechanisms
already exist to combat trafficking related to U.S. government activities overseas.49 For example,
the TVPA, as amended most recently in the 112th Congress by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013,50 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 engages in or uses labor recruiters, brokers, or other
agents who engage in (1) severe forms of trafficking in persons; (2) the procurement of a
commercial sex act while the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement is in effect; (3) the use of
forced labor in the performance of the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement; or (4) one of
several specified acts that directly support or advance trafficking in persons.51 (For a discussion of
the laws that amended the TVPA, see Appendix A.)
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. Additional U.S. government reports have addressed this issue, including in
the State Department’s annual TIP Report as well as in periodic audits and investigations
conducted by departmental inspectors general offices.
49 For a full discussion of these mechanisms, see CRS Report R42497, Trafficking in Persons: International
Dimensions and Foreign Policy Issues for Congress, by Liana Sun Wyler.
50 On January 2, 2013, the bill was signed by the President. H.R. 4310 incorporated elements of other bills introduced
in the 112th Congress, including S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013; H.R. 4259 and
S. 2234, the End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012; and S. 3286 and S. 2139, the Comprehensive
Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012.
51 Such specified acts include the withholding employee identity or immigration documents; refusing to provide or pay
for return transportation for foreign national employees, if requested, under certain circumstances; soliciting
prospective employees by means of materially false or fraudulent pretenses; charging recruited employees
unreasonable placement or recruitment fees; and providing housing that fails to meet host country housing and safety
standards.
Congressional Research Service
13
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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 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.52 The migrant
workers experienced under- or non-payment of wages, harsh and isolating living conditions, and in some cases
physical abuse and sexual harassment.53 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 that has garnered international attention involves 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, the multinational confectionery
company Nestle, 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.54 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 also are reportedly susceptible to labor trafficking.55
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.56
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, cal ed 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 introduced and variously acted on bills that sought 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 were contained in H.R. 3589 and H.R. 2830, both
entitled the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011.
52 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (New Zealand), Report of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Use and Operation of
Foreign Charter Vessels, February 2012.
53 E. Benjamin Skinner, “The Fishing Industry’s Cruelest Catch,” Businessweek, February 23, 2012.
54 Fair Labor Association, Sustainable Management of Nestle’s Cocoa Supply Chain in the Ivory Coast—Focus on
Labor Standards, June 2012.
55 For example, U.S. prosecutors alleged that a Los Angeles-based labor recruiting agency, Global Horizons, had
trafficked several hundred Thai nationals into the United States to work at several farms in Washington and Hawaii.
Although three defendants agreed to plead guilty to federal charges in June 2011, which included conspiring to commit
forced labor and conspiring to commit document servitude, the U.S. Department of Justice later requested that the case
be dismissed in July 2012. 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. See U.S. Department
of Justice, “Six People Charged in Human Trafficking Conspiracy for Exploiting 400 Thai Farm Workers,” press
release, September 2, 2010; 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; Jennifer Sinco
Kelleher, “Feds Dismiss Largest US Human Trafficking Case, Associated Press, July 20, 2012; and U.S. Equal
Opportunity Commission, “EEOC Files Its Largest Farm Worker Human Trafficking Suit Against Global Horizons,
Farms,” press release, April 20, 2011.
56 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.
Congressional Research Service
14
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.57 Human trafficking happens in the United States to both U.S.
citizens and noncitizens, and occurs in every state.58 As many as 17,500 people are trafficked to
the United States each year, according to U.S. government estimates.59 The trafficking of
individuals within U.S. borders is commonly referred to as domestic or “internal” human
trafficking. Domestic human trafficking occurs primarily for labor and most commonly in
domestic servitude, agriculture, manufacturing, janitorial services, hotel services, construction,
health and elder care, hair and nail salons, and strip club dancing. However, more investigations
and prosecutions have taken place for sex trafficking offenses than for labor trafficking offenses.60
Noncitizens are more susceptible than U.S. citizens to labor trafficking,61 and more foreign
victims62 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.63 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.64
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.65 Most of the victims are U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs).66,67 There
57 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 359.
58 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.
59 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.
60 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 360.
61 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.
62 Foreign victims do not include Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). For the purposes of discussing trafficking
victims in the United States, LPRs are grouped with U.S. citizens.
63 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
64 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.
65 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.
66 A lawful permanent resident (LPR) is a foreign national who lives permanently in the United States. LPRs are also
called immigrants.
67 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
15
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
appears to be a consensus that prostitution by minors fits the definition of “severe forms of human
trafficking” as defined under the TVPA.
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.68 U.S. governmental estimates of trafficking victims focus on the number of
foreign victims who are trafficked into the United States, while two nongovernmental 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.69 As of January 2013, this remains the
most recent U.S. government estimate of trafficking victims.70 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,71 and subsequent reports have not included estimates of the number of
trafficking victims.72 The Attorney General’s Report on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons Fiscal Year 200673 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
Intelligence estimated that 45,000 to 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually to the
68 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.
69 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.)
70 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.
71 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.
72 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.
73 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2005.
Congressional Research Service
16
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
United States.74 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.75
Estimates of Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States76
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 studies that attempt to measure the problem in
specific geographic areas.77
Shared Hope International
In 2006, Shared Hope International began working with 10 Department of Justice-funded human
trafficking task forces to assess the scope of sex trafficking of children in the United States.78 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 1 presents the findings from the 10 study sites. Notably, the data collected are not
uniform and represent different time periods.79
74 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.
75 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.
76 For a fuller discussion of estimates of domestic sex trafficking of minors, 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.
77 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.
78 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.
79 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
17
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Table 1. 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: 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. 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
In 2009, 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.80. 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.”81
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—such as temporary housing, medical care, counseling; (2) efforts to
increase public awareness about human trafficking; and (3) law enforcement efforts to arrest and
prosecute traffickers, and identify victims.
80 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.
81 Ibid, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
18
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.82 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,83 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;84
• have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law enforcement85 in
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking unless unable to do so due
to physical or psychological trauma,86 or be under the age of 18;87 and
82 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.
83 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.
84 Prior to P.L. 110-457, this was interpreted in the regulations to apply to those aliens who (1) are present because they
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.
85 Applicants for T status may submit a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) Enforcement to prove that they are
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• 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.88 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).89 Additionally, aliens who are present without
being admitted or paroled90 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.91 Individuals who are eligible for T status
may be granted work authorization.92 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
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.93
Under law, aliens who have bona fide T applications94 are eligible to receive certain public
benefits to the same extent as refugees.95 Aliens who receive derivative T status (i.e., the family
(...continued)
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.
86 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.
87 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.
88 INA §212(d)(13).
89 INA §212(a)(2)(D).
90 “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.
91 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.
92 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.
93 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).
94 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.
Congressional Research Service
20
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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);96
• the right to restitution; and
• the rights of privacy and confidentiality.97
T Visas Issued
As Table 2 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 4,201 applications for derivative T status (i.e., family members of trafficking victims),
and 3,302 applications were approved. Of the adjudicated applications for T-1 status, 68% were
approved. In addition, of the adjudicated applications for derivative T status, 79% were approved.
Table 2. T-visas Issued: FY2002 through FY2012
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
(...continued)
95 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.
96 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.) U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 361.
97 28 C.F.R. §1100.3-§1100.33.
Congressional Research Service
21
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Total
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.98
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 lawful 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);99
• have been physically present in the United States for either (1) a continuous
period of at least three years since the date of admission under T status, or (2) a
continuous period during the investigation or prosecution of the acts of
trafficking, provided that the Attorney General has certified that the investigation
or prosecution is complete;
• since being granted T status, has been a person of good moral character; and
98 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.
99 For more on the grounds on inadmissibility, see CRS Report R41104, Immigration Visa Issuances and Grounds for
Exclusion: Policy and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
22
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• establish that (1) they have complied with reasonable requests of assistance in the
investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, or (2) that they would suffer
extreme hardship upon removal from the United States.100
The regulations concerning adjustment to LPR status from T status were released on December
12, 2008, and became effective on January 12, 2009.101 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 that 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.102
Most of the statutory and administrative mechanisms for continued presence require 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.103 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 FY2011, continued presence was granted to 285 potential trafficking victims, an
increase from 186 in FY2010, and a decrease from 299 in FY2009.104
U Nonimmigrant Status
Some victims of trafficking are eligible for U nonimmigrant status. The Violence Against Women
Act of 2000, Division B of TVPA, created the U nonimmigrant status, often called the U-visa, for
victims of physical or mental abuse.105 To qualify for U status, the alien must file a petition and
establish that
100 INA §245(l)
101 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.
102 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.
103 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.
104 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.
105 INA 101(a)(15)(U).
Congressional Research Service
23
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
• he/she suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a
victim of certain criminal activities;106
• 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.107 After three years, those in U
status may apply for LPR status.108 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 3. U Visas Issued FY2009-FY2012
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 59,113 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.
From FY2009 through FY2012, there were 59,113 applications for U-1 status, and 36,108 were
approved.109 During the same time period, there were 35,679 applications for derivative U status,
106 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.
107 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.
108 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.
109 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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, the U category is statutorily limited to 10,000 principal aliens per fiscal year.110 The
statutory cap of 10,000 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.111
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 Corporation112 has instructed its lawyers to
provide legal assistance to trafficking victims.113
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.114 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.”115 Nonetheless, each year since FY2008, Congress has appropriated
approximately $10 million116 to HHS to “carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
(...continued)
2010: U Visa Protects Victims of Crime and Strengthens Law Enforcement Efforts,” press release, July 15, 2010.
110 P.L. 106-386, §1513(c). 8 U.S.C. 1184(o)(2).
111 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.
112 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.
113 In FY2010, nine LSC grantees assisted 115 trafficking victims. DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons: FY2010, p.48.
114 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.
115 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.)
116 FY2010 appropriations were $12.5 million, which was higher than in all other years.
Congressional Research Service
25
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
2000.”117 Thus, it appears likely that the funding could 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 in this section. 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, as enacted in 2000.118 Certification is a process that
enables noncitizen trafficking victims to be classified as such, and therefore become eligible for
services.119 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.120 In addition, only noncitizen trafficking victims who receive T status are eligible
for refugee-specific programs.121
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.122 Under the law, to
receive these benefits and services, victims of severe forms of trafficking who are at least 18
117 (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).
118 “[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.” (P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1), 22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(1)).
119 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). 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, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview
and Trends, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
120 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.
121 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
122 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
26
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
years of age must be certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security,123 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.124
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.125 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.126
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.127 In addition, in FY2011, there were 463 adult victims who received certifications, and
101 children who received eligibility letters.128 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.129
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.130 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
123 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.
124 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.
125 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.
126 Personal conversation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Congressional Affairs, April 2, 2007.
127 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.
128 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 364.
129 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.
130 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
27
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
administered by the states, are intended to help needy refugees who are ineligible to receive
benefits from mainstream federal assistance programs. In addition, minor noncitizen victims can
participate in DHS’s Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program.131 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.132
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.133
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.134 Another component of
the campaign is the creation of a toll-free National Human Trafficking Resource Center available
for advice 24 hours a day.135 (For a discussion of authorizations and appropriations for the HHS
grant program, see Table B-3.)
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.136 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. The program also provides grants
to build community capacity in addressing the needs of trafficking victims by enhancing
131 P.L. 110-457, §235(b)(2).
132 For additional information on programs for refugees see CRS Report R41570, U.S. Refugee Resettlement
Assistance, by Andorra Bruno.
133 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.
134 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.
135 Department of Health and Human Services, “About Human Trafficking,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
trafficking/about/index.html#wwd.
136 P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service
28
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
interagency collaboration and supporting coordinated victim responses.137 According 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.138 (For a discussion of authorizations and appropriations for
this program, see Table B-3, in Appendix B.)
Department of Labor
DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) One-Stop Career Centers139 provide job
search assistance, career counseling, and occupational skills training to trafficking victims.140
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.141
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.142 Job Corps
does not collect information on the extent to which these services are offered to or utilized by
trafficking victims.143 (For program authorizations, see Table B-3.)
Domestic Investigations of Trafficking Offenses
In addition to providing victims services, and educational outreach, U.S. domestic anti-TIP efforts
include the investigation and prosecution of trafficking offenses by law enforcement. Human
137 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
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.)
138 DOJ, Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: FY2008, p.6.
139 For more information on One-Stop Career Centers, see CRS Report RL34251, Federal Programs Available to
Unemployed Workers, coordinated by Katelin P. Isaacs.
140 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.
141 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, pp. 32-33.
142 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.
143 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
29
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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 delivery
operations,144 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.145
Within the United States, DOJ, DHS, and DOL have primary responsibility for investigating and
prosecuting traffickers.146 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,147 and are prosecuted by DOJ.148 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.149
In addition, DOJ funds anti-trafficking task forces nationwide. As of June 2012, there were
approximately 29 task forces, a decrease from 40 in the beginning of FY2011.150 These task
forces are composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement investigators and prosecutors,
labor enforcement, and non-governmental organizations 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
144 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.
145 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.)
146 This section is based on the information in DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S.
Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2010, and U.S. Department of State, Trafficking
in Persons Report, June 2012.
147 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.
148 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.
149 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.
150 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 361.
Congressional Research Service
30
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
locales with task forces are more likely to identify and prosecute trafficking cases.151 These
taskforces reported 900 trafficking investigations during FY2011.152
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.153 In addition, DOL is involved in cases of
trafficking through enforcement of labor standards laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act154
and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.155
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.156 In The Implementing the 9/11
151 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.
152 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2012, p. 361.
153 Ibid.
154 29 U.S.C. §§201-219.
155 29 U.S.C. Chapter 20.
156 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and
Oversight, 9/11 Reform Act: Examining the Implementation of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, hearings,
109th Cong., 2nd sess., March 8, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
31
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.
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 long-standing 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 longstanding and ongoing executive and legislative branch policy
guidance (see Appendix A on Anti-Trafficking Administrative Directives and Legislation). 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.157 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.158
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 assessments. As discussed earlier, countries receive one of four possible ranking
designations in the TIP report: Tier 1 (best), Tier 2, Tier 2 Watch List, and Tier 3 (worst). The
annual publication of the TIP report often garners significant media attention and its country
assessments have variously spurred international action against human trafficking while also
generating diplomatic resentment and bilateral tensions with certain poorly ranked countries.
157 U.S. Department of State and the BBG, OIG, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June 2012.
158 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
32
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.”159 Some nevertheless argue that “inconsistent application of the minimum
standards [mandated by TVPA] and superficial country assessments have compromised their
credibility.”160 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.”161
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.162 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.163 Some argue that aid
cuts are often only 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.164
159 U.S. Department of State and the BBG, OIG, Inspection of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons, Report No. ISP-I-12-37, June 2012.
160 Janie Chuang, “The United States as Global Sheriff: Using Unilateral Sanctions to Combat Human Trafficking,”
Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, 2006, pp. 437-494.
161 GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts
Abroad, GAO-06-825, July 2006.
162 Sarah H. Cleveland, “Norm Internationalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions,” Yale Journal of International Law,
Vol. 26, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1-102.
163 Janie Chuang, “The United States as Global Sheriff: Using Unilateral Sanctions to Combat Human Trafficking,”
Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, 2006, pp. 437-494.
164 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
33
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.165
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.”166 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.167
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.”168 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.169
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.170
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
165 §103 (8-9) of P.L. 106-386, as amended.
166 Janice G. Raymond, “Sex Trafficking is Not ‘Sex Work,’” Conscience, Spring 2005.
167 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.
168 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons, 2008.
169 U.S. Department of State website, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/index.htm; Feingold, September/October 2005.
170 The U.N. Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and Its Protocols, available at http://www.unodc.org/
unodc/en/crime_cicp_convention.html.
Congressional Research Service
34
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.171
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.172 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.173 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.174
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 current 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
questioned the adequacy of any of the estimates.175
Issues Concerning Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims
Although there was debate in 2000 about whether the T status should be created,176 in general,
most are supportive of the T status. Nonetheless, the trafficking victims’ advocacy community
171 Ibid.
172 Statement by Claire Antonelli of Global Rights, Center for Strategic and International Studies Event on Human
Trafficking in Latin America, July 9, 2004.
173 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); and “Mexico-U.S.-Caribbean: Tighter Borders Spur People Traffickers,” Latin America
Weekly Report, April 11, 2006.
174 UNODC and U.N. GIFT, An Introduction to Human Trafficking: Vulnerability, Impact, and Action, 2008, p. 88.
175 GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts
Abroad, GAO-06-825, July 2006.
176 The opponents to the creation of the T status contend that the status would reward 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 argued 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.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
and groups working to end trafficking 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.177 Some have questioned whether the T status protects the victims
or is primarily a tool for law enforcement.178
As shown in Table 2, between FY2002 and FY2012, DHS approved 3,269 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?179 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.”180
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.”181 Some contend that the extreme hardship threshold
makes it difficult for victims to receive T status.182 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.183
(...continued)
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. 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.
177 April Rieger, “Missing the Mark: Why The Trafficking Victims Protection Act Fails to Protect Sex Trafficking
Victims in the United States,” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, vol. 30, no. 1 (Winter, 2007), p. 248. (Hereafter,
Rieger, “Missing the Mark: Why The Trafficking Victims Protection Act Fails to Protect Sex Trafficking Victims in
the United States.”) Some of these concerns were also raised in the minority views expressed in the House Judiciary
Committee Report on H.R. 3244 which became the TVPA. See, U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary,
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Report to accompany H.R. 3244, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., April 13, 2000,
H.Rept. 106-487.
178 Ibid, and Erin Bistricer, “’U’ Stands for Underutilization: The U Visa’s Vulnerability for Underuse in the Sex
Trafficking Context,” Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, vol. 18, no.1 (Winter, 2012), pp. 458-459. (Hereafter,
Bistricer, “’U’ Stands for Underutilization: The U Visa’s Vulnerability for Underuse in the Sex Trafficking Context.”)
179 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.
180 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
181 Federal Register vol. 67, no. 21: p. 4785. January 31, 2002.
182 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; and Rieger, “Missing the Mark: Why The Trafficking Victims Protection Act
Fails to Protect Sex Trafficking Victims in the United States.” p. 250.
183 Personal communication with ICE special agents in Los Angeles, California, August 16, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
36
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Tool of Law Enforcement or Aid to Victims
According to the policy memorandum on T status, “the T classification provides an immigration
mechanism for cooperating victims to remain temporarily in the United States to assist in
investigations and prosecutions and provide humanitarian protection to the victims.” Some are
concerned that the emphasis on aiding law enforcement is more important than aiding the victims,
and note that a controversial aspect of the continued presence provision is that federal agents may
supersede a victim’s wishes and require the victim to remain in the United States, if the victim’s
“departure is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”184 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.185 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.186 In addition, according to the DOS report, law
officials are sometimes untrained or unwilling to undertake victim protection measures.187 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.188 Dianne Post, an attorney for the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, argues
that the TVPA may create problems for victims, because victims cannot receive services and
benefits until they apply for T status, and if they do not speak English, they cannot 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.189
184 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.”) Rieger, “Missing the Mark:
Why The Trafficking Victims Protection Act Fails to Protect Sex Trafficking Victims in the United States,” p. 248.
Erin Bistricer, “’U’ Stands for Underutilization: The U Visa’s Vulnerability for Underuse in the Sex Trafficking
Context,” Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, vol. 18, pp. 458-459.
185 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
186 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p.4. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons
Report, June 2010, p. 340.
187 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2010, p. 338.
188 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.)
189 Raffonelli, “INS Final Rule to Assist Victims of Trafficking.” p. 9. These issues are also discussed in Rieger,
“Missing the Mark: Why The Trafficking Victims Protection Act Fails to Protect Sex Trafficking Victims in the United
States.”
Congressional Research Service
37
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.190 As discussed, 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.191 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.”192 ORR, however, has stated that they do not provide services
to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.193 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.”194
In addition, between FY2009 and FY2012, OVC funded a grant, Services for Domestic Minor
Victims of Human Trafficking, that included U.S. citizen and LPR victims.195 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 2000.196 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.197
Additionally, in 2010, DOJ provided grant funding to six NGO service providers to assist U.S.
citizen and lawful permanent resident victims, and DOJ published a notice of a funding
190 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.
191 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.
192 DOJ, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons: Fiscal Year 2009, p. 17.
193 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.
194 P.L. 111-117, P.L. 111-8, P.L. 110-161.
195 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.
196 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.
197 22 U.S.C §7105(b)(2)(A).
Congressional Research Service
38
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
opportunity that included a focus on adult U.S. citizen victims, including Native Americans.198
The funding of these grants appears to be inconsistent with the statement in the FY2009 AG’s
report that the funds appropriated under TVPA can be used only for noncitizen victims. Thus, it
appears that there is ongoing confusion over the authority and funding available under TVPA to
provide services to U.S. citizen trafficking victims.
Resources for Trafficking Victims’ Services
A corollary issue is the overall amount of funding for victim services, especially as the focus on
sex trafficking is broadening to include minor sex trafficking victims in the United States who are
U.S. citizens. In FY2012, 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.199
It is estimated that there are approximately 14,500 noncitizens trafficked into the United States
each year.200 Some have estimated that the number of minor sex trafficking victims could be in
the hundreds of thousands.201 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?202 Are there other public benefit entitlement programs that
noncitizen victims are ineligible for that could serve the needs of U.S. citizen trafficking
victims?203
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.204 Notably, one of the roles of the
198 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
199 U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2011, p. 375.
200 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.
201 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.
202 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.
203 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.
204 At a 2011 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
39
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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,205 and noted that while the agency has built significant
capacities to serve victims, they had not been effective at identifying and serving a significant
number of victims.206
Moreover, a 2011 IG report that examined general grant management by DOJ noted that since
2007 the agency had made significant improvement in the monitoring and oversight of grant
recipients.207 However, this report did not specifically examine grants awarded under the TVPA.
Legislation in the 113th Congress
On February 12, 2013, the Senate passed S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2013. During Senate-floor debate of S. 47, Senator Patrick Leahy offered an amendment
(S.Amdt. 21) that would reauthorize the TVPA through FY2017, and make other changes to the
act. The amendment was passed by a vote of 93 to 5. S.Amdt. 21 became Title XII of S. 47, and
the title is almost identical to S. 1301, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 112th
Congress.
Title XII of S. 47
Subtitle A of Title XII, would address efforts to combat trafficking in persons
internationally, and among certain noncitizens coming to the United States.
Section 1201 would require regional bureaus within the State Department to develop annually a
list of anti-trafficking goals and objectives for each country within its geographic area of
responsibility. The bill would also mandate the State Department to forge and sustain partnerships
to combat human trafficking among private and non-governmental entities (§1202). Section 1202
would also authorize the creation of an anti-trafficking fund to support foreign governments in
emergencies as well as the provision of anti-trafficking assistance through child protection
compacts. The bill would direct the interagency task force against human trafficking to increase
(...continued)
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.
205 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.
206 Ibid.
207 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
40
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
its efforts to publicize the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline and brief
Congress annually on its activities (§1203). Section 1204 would enhance and expand the criteria
for determining whether governments have achieved serious and sustained efforts to eliminate
severe forms of human trafficking. The bill would also require the State Department’s TIP report
to include a section on best practices in the eradication of human trafficking (§1205).
Section 1206 would require that a video be shown in consular waiting rooms to provide
information on the rights and responsibilities of employees 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 (§1207). Section 1208 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.
Subtitle B of S. 47, contains provisions to address trafficking in person within
the United States
S. 47 (§1211) would make it a criminal offense to knowingly destroy, or for a period of more than
48 hours, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess another person’s passport, or immigration or
personal identification documents in the course of committing or attempting to commit the
offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling. It would also be a criminal
offense 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. 47 would allow for civil
remedies for personal injuries caused during the commission of most criminal trafficking offenses
(§1212).
Section 1221 of the bill would make the adult or minor children of a beneficiary of derivative T
eligible for T status if it is determined that such a person faces a present danger of retaliation as a
result of the trafficking victim’s cooperation with law enforcement. S. 47 would also add “fraud
in foreign labor contracting”208 as a criminal activity that would make alien victims of that crime
eligible for a U visa (§1222).209 The bill 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
(§1231).
208 18 U.S.C. §1351
209 §801 would add stalking as an offense for which a victim would be eligible for a U visa. In addition, §805 would
protect children applying for derivative U status from “ageing out.” Currently, if the unmarried child of a parent who
was granted U status turns 21 while their application is pending, the child would no longer be eligible for a U visa. The
bill would allow such aliens who parents petitioned for them their 21st birthday but whose applications were still
pending after the aliens turned 21 to remain eligible for a U visa.
Congressional Research Service
41
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Section 1232 would 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 (§1233). S. 47 would require training on the identification
of trafficking victims for appropriate personnel at the Department of Labor.210 The bill would also
require GAO to produce a report on the use of foreign labor contractors and abuses by such
contractors (§1235).
Section 1226 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 specify in awarding grants that priority should be given to eligible applicants that did not
have an unresolved audit funding211 during the previous three fiscal years. The DOJ Inspector
General would be tasked with determining the number of grants to be audited each year. S. 47
would also set procedures related to using grant monies for conferences that cost more
than $20,000.
Section 1241 of S. 47 would replace the HHS grant program for states, Indian tribes, units of
local government, and nonprofit, non-governmental victims’ service organizations to provide
assistance programs for U.S. citizens or LPR trafficking victims created in P.L. 109-164 (§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
grantees 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.212 The bill would authorize $8 million each year from
FY2014 through FY2017 for this program.
In addition, the bill would amend the grant program for state and local law enforcement’s anti-
trafficking programs that focus on U.S. citizen victims,213so that the grants could be used for anti-
trafficking programs for noncitizen victims. The grant program would also be modified so that
funding could also be used for training in victim identification and the prioritization of cases
involving minor victims of sex trafficking (§1242).
S. 47 would also 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
210 Currently, the TVPA requires training of appropriate personnel from DHS, HHS, and DOJ.
211 The bill would define “unresolved audit finding” as a finding in the final audit report of the DOJ Inspector General
that the audited grantee utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not
closed or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final audit report is issued.
212 The proposed grant program is identical to S. 596 in the 112th Congress, and S. 2925 in the 111th Congress.
213 This grant program was created in P.L. 109-164, §204 (42 U.S.C. 14044c(d)).
Congressional Research Service
42
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
such as person, and refer them to the service providers who provide assistance to victims of
commercial sexual exploitation (§1243).
Subtitle C of S. 47, would reauthorize appropriations for the TVPA
The Senate bill would reauthorize appropriations for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 for FY2014 through FY2017, decreasing some authorization levels and increasing others.214
(See Table 4 for a detailed list of authorization levels.)
Subtitle D of S. 47, contains provisions dealing with the care and custody of
unaccompanied alien children
Section 1261 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. S. 47 (§1262) would
require the DHS Secretary to create a pilot program in three states to provide independent child
advocates at immigration detention sites for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable
unaccompanied alien children.215 In addition, the 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 to these
children (§1263), 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 (§1264).
Table 4. Current Law and S. 47 as passed by the Senate: A Comparison of
Authorizations of Appropriations
(in $ U.S. millions)
FY14-
FY11
FY17
Authorized Programs
P.L. 110-
S. 47
457
International Programs
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID: Pilot Program for Rehabilitation Facilities (22 U.S.C. 7105 note)
$2.5
Struck
U.S. Department of State (DOS)
DOS: Interagency Task Force (22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
$5.5
$2
DOS: Interagency Task Force: Reception Expenses (22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
$.003
Struck
DOS: Interagency Task Force: Additional Personnel (22 U.S.C. 7110(a))
$1.5
N/A
DOS: Prevention (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(1)(A))
$10.0
$10.0
DOS: Protection (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(1)(B))
$10.0
$10.0
214 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.
215 Unaccompanied minors are aliens who are in the United States without a parent or guardian.
Congressional Research Service
43
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY14-
FY11
FY17
Authorized Programs
P.L. 110-
S. 47
457
DOS: Prosecution and Meeting Minimum Standards (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(1)(C))
$10.0
$10.0
DOS: Refugees and Internal y Displaced Persons (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(1)(B))
$1.0
$1.0
President
President: Foreign Assistance for Law Enforcement Training (22 U.S.C. 7110(d)(B)
$0.25
N/A
President: Foreign Victim Assistance (22 U.S.C. 7110(e)(1))
$15.0
$7.5
President: Foreign Assistance to Meet Minimum Standards (22 U.S.C. 7110(e)(2))
$15.0
$7.5
President: Research (22 U.S.C. 7110(e)(3))
$2.0
N/A
President: Award for Extraordinary Efforts (22 U.S.C. 7109b(d))
—a
N/A
Domestic Programs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
HHS: Assistance for Trafficking Victims
(22 U.S.C. 7110(b)(1))
$12.5 $14.5
HHS: Assistance for U.S. Citizens (USCs) and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) (22
U.S.C. 7110(b)(2))
$7.0 $8.0
HHS: Local Grant for USC/LPR Sex Trafficking Victims
(42 U.S.C. 14044a(d))
$8.0 $8.0c
HHS: Pilot Program for Juveniles
(42 U.S.C. 14044b(g))
$5.0 N/A
HHS: Child Advocates for Unaccompanied Minors
—b $1.0
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Investigations
$18.0 $10.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(i))
DHS: Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC)
$2.0 $1.0
(22 U.S.C. 7109a(b)(4))
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ: Assistance for Tracking Victims
(22 U.S.C. 7110(d)(A))
$10.0 $11.0
DOJ: Assistance for USCs and LPRs
(22 U.S.C. 7110(d)(C))
$7.0 $11.0
DOJ: Prevent Domestic Sex Trafficking (DST)—Study on Trafficking
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(1))
$1.5 N/A
DOJ: Prevent DST—Conference
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(2))
$1.0 $0.25
DOJ: Local Grant for Law Enforcement
(42 U.S.C. 14044c(d))
$20.0 $10.0
DOJ: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
(22 U.S.C. 7110(h))
$15.0 N/A
Congressional Research Service
44
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY14-
FY11
FY17
Authorized Programs
P.L. 110-
S. 47
457
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
DOL: Assistance for Trafficking Victims
$10.0 $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, and S. 47 as passed by the Senate
on Feburary 12, 2013.
Notes: N/A = Authorized program not referenced in bill. Struck = the program would be struck from law by
the bill. 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 mil ion for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the Department of Justice for
state and local law enforcement grants for human trafficking victim identification.
a. With respect to the presidential award for extraordinary efforts to combat trafficking in persons, §112B of
P.L. 106-386, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7109b(d)), authorizes to be appropriated for fiscal years 2008 through
2011 “such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.”
b. This program would be created in S. 47.
c. This program would be moved to the Department of Justice.
Trafficking Provisions in Other Titles of S. 47
There are several provisions in S. 47 outside Title XII that deal with anti-trafficking efforts.216 S.
47 (§3) would define “sex trafficking” for the purpose of grants under the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) of 1994217 as any conduct proscribed by §1591 of Title 18, United States
Code, whether or not the conduct occurs in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The bill would also clarify that victims’
services and legal assistance under VAWA include services and assistance to victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are also victims of severe forms of
trafficking in persons. Section 302 of the bill would expand the purpose of certain grants to
enhance the safety of youth and children to include those who are victims of or have been
exposed to sex trafficking.218
Section 803 is similar to §1231 in that both provisions require similar information about the
issuances of T and U status, and continued presence.219 However, whereas §1231 would require
216 For more information on immigration-related provisions in VAWA, see CRS Report R42477, Immigration
Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), by William A. Kandel.
217 42 U.S.C. 13925(a).
218 For more on these grants, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and
Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
219 As discussed in the section entitled, “Immigration Relief for Trafficking Victims,” continued presence is not an
immigration status, it is the term used for the discretionary authority under a variety of statutory and administrative
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
45
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
the information to be included the AG’s annual report on anti-trafficking activities, §803 would
require that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit the report annually to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees. S. 47 would also clarify that physical presence in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands counts as physical presence in the United States
for the purpose of qualifying for T or U status (§809).
In addition, S. 47 would amend the purpose area for grants to tribal governments to combat
violence against women to include sex trafficking, and would create a new purpose area to
provide services to address the needs of youth who are victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, sex trafficking, or stalking (§901). Section 902 of the bill would create a
new grant for tribal coalitions. The grants would be administered by DOJ for several purposes
including (1) identifying and providing technical assistance to coalition membership and tribal
communities to enhance access to essential services to Indian women victimized by domestic and
sexual violence, including sex trafficking; and (2) assisting Indian tribes in developing and
promoting state, local, and tribal legislation and policies that enhance best practices for
responding to violent crimes against Indian women, including sex trafficking.220
Conclusion
The U.S. has created a system to combat human trafficking that combines prosecution, protection,
and prevention within the United States with help and encouragement to other governments to do
the same. Nonetheless, as with combating most criminal activities, it is difficult to understand the
extent of the problem, and as a corollary evaluate how policies are working to combat the issue.
The number of trafficking victims in the United States and throughout the world is elusive, and as
such it is difficult to evaluate whether the number of prosecutions for human trafficking and the
number of victims rescued illustrate a successful strategy.
In addition, given limited resources, there are tensions between whether equal attention is being
given to all types of TIP (e.g., sex trafficking vs. labor trafficking), and all victims (e.g.,
noncitizen victims vs. U.S. citizen victims). Internationally, the effectiveness of the TIP report
and sanctions as a tool to combat human trafficking continue to be divisive. Human trafficking by
U.S. contractors overseas is also an area of focus to the United States. Domestically, the
complexity of trafficking investigations and difficulties locating victims raise questions
concerning the allocation of resources to trafficking investigations. Furthermore, policies relating
to assistance to victims try to ensure that the needed services are available for all victims, and that
the resources exist as well as the programs (e.g., shelters for minor victims of sex trafficking) that
can help the victims recover and reintegrate into society. As with all criminal activity, it is
unlikely that human trafficking will be totally eradicated worldwide, but Congress has been active
in trying to reduce the prevalence of this crime, and will likely continue to do so.
(...continued)
mechanisms to ensure the alien’s continued presence in the United States.
220 For more on these grants, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and
Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
Congressional Research Service
46
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,
George W. 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.221
The strategy, as announced, had strong domestic and international policy components. 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.
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.
On December 16, 2002, President George W. Bush issued National Security Presidential
Directive 22 (NSPD-22), which establishes as U.S. government-wide policy the goal “to attack
vigorously the worldwide problem of trafficking in persons, using law enforcement efforts,
diplomacy, and all other appropriate tools.”222 As part of its plan of action, NSPD-22 required that
federal departments and agencies be fully trained to carry out their specific responsibilities with
respect to combating human trafficking and established a “zero tolerance” policy against U.S.
government employees and contractors representing the United States abroad who engage in
trafficking in persons. NSPD-22 also encouraged the development of federal cooperation with
state and local law enforcement in the United States, U.S. support to strengthen regional and
international organization efforts to combat human trafficking, and improved coordination of U.S.
foreign assistance and grant programs to combat human trafficking.
Expanding on NSPD-22’s zero tolerance policy, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order
(EO) 13657 on September 25, 2012, to strengthen protections against trafficking in persons in
federal contracts. This executive order mandated that the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR)
Council revise existing contractor guidelines for preventing human trafficking to include
prohibitions on misleading or fraudulent recruitment practices; charging employees recruitment
fees; and destroying or confiscating employee identity documents, such as passports and driver’s
licenses. Among other provisions, it also required certain contractors and subcontractors
221 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.
222 President George W. Bush, National Security Presidential Directive 22 (NSPD-22), Combating Trafficking in
Persons, December 16, 2002, partially declassified for publication as “Appendix C” in U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Inspections and Evaluations: Evaluation of DOD Efforts to Combat
Trafficking in Persons, Report No. IE-2007-002, November 21, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
47
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
performing services abroad to establish compliance plans to prevent trafficking-related
activities.223
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;224
• 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
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
223 President Barack Obama, “Executive Order 13627 of September 25, 2012: Strengthening Protections Against
Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts,” Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 191, October 2, 2012, pp. 60029-60033.
224 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
48
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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 George W. 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.225 The State Department issued its first congressionally
mandated report on worldwide trafficking in July 2001.
On January 24, 2002, then-Attorney General John 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 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
225 Attorney General John Ashcroft’s news conference on March 27, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
49
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
status, the victims are eligible to apply for permanent residency and for non-immigrant status for
their spouses and children.226
On February 13, 2002, President George W. 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
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
226 U.S. Department of State, Washington File, January 24, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
50
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.227 In addition,
227 The act specifies a number of agencies from which, as appropriate, staff may be detailed to the HSTC, including but
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
51
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, 2008.228 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,229 P.L. 110-457
(...continued)
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.
228 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.
229 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
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)),
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
52
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 holders230 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.231 Furthermore, P.L. 110-457 requires the Secretary of
HHS to make a prompt determination of eligibility for assistance for child trafficking victims.
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
(...continued)
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.
230 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.
231 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
53
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
contiguous countries regarding the return of unaccompanied minors designed to protect children
from severe forms of TIP,232 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.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
Title XVII of P.L. 112-239, Ending Trafficking in Government Contracting, amends §106(g) of
the TVPA to authorize federal agencies and departments to terminate, without penalty, grants,
contracts, and cooperative agreements if the grantee, subgrantee, contractor, or subcontractor
engages in or uses labor recruiters, brokers, or other agents who engage in (1) severe forms of
trafficking in persons; (2) the procurement of a commercial sex act while the grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement is in effect; (3) the use of forced labor in the performance of the grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement; or (4) one of several specified acts that directly support or
advance trafficking in persons. Such specified acts include the withholding employee identity or
immigration documents; refusing to provide or pay for return transportation for foreign national
employees, if requested, under certain circumstances; soliciting prospective employees by means
of materially false or fraudulent pretenses; charging recruited employees unreasonable placement
or recruitment fees; and providing housing that fails to meet host country housing and safety
standards. The provisions of P.L. 112-239 specify a range of heightened compliance and
certification requirements to ensure that grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements are
performed free of human trafficking. P.L. 112-239 also enhances federal monitoring and
investigation of by inspectors general agencies and expands the criminal penalties for fraud in
foreign labor contracting to include attempted fraud and work outside the United States.
232 Unaccompanied minors are aliens who are in the United States without a parent or guardian.
Congressional Research Service
54
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 Expenses P.L. 109-164, §301
$.003 $.003 $.003 $.003
DOS: Interagency Task Force: Additional
P.L. 110-457, §301(1)(B)(i)
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
Personnel
DOS: Prevention
P.L. 106-386 §106
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
DOS: Protection
P.L. 106-386 §107(a)
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
DOS: Prosecution and Meeting Minimum
P.L. 106-386 §§108-109
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Standards
Congressional Research Service
55
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Authorized Programs
Original Authorizing
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Source
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
P.L. 110-457, §213
$2.5
$5.0
$7.0
$7.0
Lawful 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,
$1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5
persons in U.S.
§201(a)(1)(B)(i)
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 for P.L. 109-164, §204
$20.0 $20.0 $20.0 $20.0
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
P.L. 110-457, §213
$2.5
$5.0
$7.0
$7.0
Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)
Department of Labor (DOL)
DOL: Expand services to trafficking victims
P.L. 106-386, §107(b)(1)(B)
$10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 106-386, P.L. 108-193, P.L. 109-164, and P.L. 110-457.
Note: The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations include several additional provisions without specific
funding amounts. Such provisions include §107A(f) of P.L. 106-386, as amended, which authorizes not more than
5% of the amounts made available to carry out the TVPA, as amended, in each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to
the President to evaluate anti-trafficking programs and projects. §112B of P.L. 106-386, as amended, authorizes
such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the President to provide an award for
Congressional Research Service
56
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
“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.233 FY2011 obligations by agency are not yet
available for all agencies. In FY2010, the U.S. government obligated an estimated $85.3 million
for international anti-trafficking assistance programs, up from $83.7 million obligated in FY2009.
In FY2010, the U.S. government obligated roughly $24.2 million for domestic anti-TIP programs,
233 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
57
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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
FY2003 N.A. $10 N.A. $9.9
Congressional Research Service
58
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Victims Services—DOJ
Office of Refugee Resettlementa
Fiscal Year
Authorized Appropriated Authorized
Appropriated
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
FY2013 N.A. f
N.A.
f
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.
f.
Congress did not enact any of the regular appropriations bills prior to the beginning of FY2013. Instead,
FY2013 funding for programs has been provided—through March 27, 2013—by a government-wide
continuing resolution (CR). The CR (H.J.Res. 117) was signed into law (P.L. 112-175) on September 28,
2012, and general y maintains funding for discretionary programs at their FY2012 rates, plus 0.612%.
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
59
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 are 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).
With funding budgeted for Foreign Operations, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons (J/TIP) administers an international grants program. For FY2013, U.S. and foreign non-
profit, non-governmental, and academic institutions, as well as for-profit organizations in select
circumstances, may compete for J/TIP grants to conduct anti-trafficking projects in 14 selected
priority countries, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Honduras, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, and
Uganda.234
Within the State Department, multiple bureaus and offices address various aspects of human
trafficking issues, including J/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
234 U.S. Department of State, Request for Statements of Interest: J/TIP FY 2013 International Program to Combat
Trafficking in Persons, December 18, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
60
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.
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.235 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.236
235 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.
236 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
61
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
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.
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
62
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. 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 were bills introduced in the 112th Congress
that would have reauthorized the TVPA, making changes to the act and extending authorizations
for some current programs. Two bills that would have reauthorized the TVPA received action in
the 112th Congress. S. 1301237 was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 13,
2011, and H.R. 2830238 was ordered reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on October
5, 2011. The reported versions of both bills, due in part to the state of the economy,239 were 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 2011240
H.R. 2830 would have authorized 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 have also changed 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 have expanded existing authorities to provide economic
alternatives to human trafficking, including public-private partnerships for youth employment
opportunities. Section 103 identified specific vulnerable populations for which to prioritize
trafficking prevention efforts and would have also authorized the State Department to provide
assistance specifically in post-conflict and humanitarian emergencies. Section 104 would have
required 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.241 Section 105 of the House bill would
237 S. 1301 was introduced on June 29, 2011 by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator Leahy offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the mark-up of S. 1301. The amendment was
agreed to by voice-vote.
238 H.R. 2830 was introduced on August 30, 2011 by Representative Christopher H. Smith. Representative Smith
offered an 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.
239 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.
240 U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs, Mark-Up of H.R. 2830, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2011.
241 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
63
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
have also extended the additional $1 issuance fee for machine-readable visas till September 30,
2015. The bill would have mandated that the Department of Labor monitor and report on forced
and child labor practices in foreign countries as well as the United States (§106).
H.R. 2830 would have expanded 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 have required that the annual reports to Congress on
U.S. anti-trafficking activities include expanded data collection on U.S. contractors or
subcontractors engaging in trafficking in persons. The report would also have had 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 have also required
information on these trafficking victims such as age, gender, citizenship, and type of trafficking
(i.e., labor or sex). The bill would have also required 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 expected to do so. The DHS Secretary would have had to approve or deny the application
within one month (§202). Section 203 would have mandated that the State Department 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.242
Section 214 of H.R. 2830 would have made it a criminal offense to knowingly destroy, or for a
period of more than 48 hours, conceal, remove, confiscate, or possess another person’s passport
or immigration or personal identification documents in the course of committing or attempting to
commit the offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling. It would have also
been 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 have been subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than one year. The bill would
have added foreign labor contracting fraud (18 U.S.C. 1351) to the list of racketeering (RICO)
(...continued)
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.
242 Joanna Anderson, “House Panel Approves U.N. Population Fund, Anti-Trafficking Measures,” Congressional
Quarterly, October 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
64
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
predicate offenses with the additional result that such fraud would have automatically become a
money laundering predicate offense as well (§215). Currently, foreign labor contracting fraud is a
five-year felony; RICO and money laundering are 20-year felonies, and both trigger asset
forfeiture provisions.
Also, the House bill (§221) would have required 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 DHS’ Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including the outcomes of the
screenings. H.R. 2830 would also have lowered from 48 hours to 24 hours the required time that a
federal agency must notify HHS when they encountered an unaccompanied alien child. The bill
would have made several other 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 have also amended
the law so that a home study was 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 have required that states as part of their plans for adoption and
foster care assistance 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 contained provisions that would have
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 have reauthorized 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
have maintained most programs at current authorization levels.243 (See Table 5 for a detailed list
of authorization levels.) Section 303 of H.R. 2830 would have required 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 have also required the Senior Policy Operating Group in coordination with the Department
of State to submit a report to Congress on internet-facilitated human trafficking.
H.R. 2830, as reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, would have prohibited 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. It also would
have required the Secretary of State to encourage any publicly traded or private entity with
worldwide receipts in excess of $100 million to disclose on an annual basis on the company’s
website and to the Secretary of State any efforts that have been taken to identify and address
human trafficking within the supply chains. The reported bill would have also required that the
243 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
65
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
Senior Policy Operating Group submit a report to Congress on internet-facilitated human
trafficking. 244
S. 1301 as Reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee: The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011245
Sections 101 and 102 of the Senate bill (S. 1301) would have required the State Department’s
regional bureaus to create bilateral plans and objectives for combating trafficking and would have
authorized the appointment of anti-trafficking officers to promote anti-trafficking diplomacy and
initiatives. The bill would also have attempted 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 have mandated that the President and the Secretary of State
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 have directed 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 have required the State Department’s TIP report to
include a section on best practices in the eradication of human trafficking (§106). Section 105
would have updated the criteria used to determine whether governments are achieving
congressionally designated “minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”
Section 107 of S. 1301 would have required 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 had to be developed and available within one
year after enactment. The Senate bill would have also required the Secretary of State to develop a
multi-year, multi-sectoral strategy to prevent child marriage, and the Secretary of State would
have been required to report on countries where child marriage was prevalent (§108). Section 109
would have prohibited, except in certain circumstances, foreign assistance from the peacekeeping
operations account to countries that the Secretary of State annually designated as conscripting or
harboring child soldiers in armed conflict. Section 110 would have created a presidential award
for technological innovations to combat trafficking in persons. The Senate bill would have
created additional requirements to provide oversight that contractors and subcontactors were not
engaging in human trafficking (§111). Section 112 of S. 1301 would have required that all known
trafficking in persons cases be 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 have made 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
244 The House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted, en bloc, four amendments to H.R. 2830. The three provisions
discussed in this paragraph were amendments and, thus, do not have section numbers. One of the adopted amendments
was Sense of Congress on human trafficking in Cambodia, stating that it should be designated a Tier 3 country.
245 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
66
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
attempting to commit the offense of fraud in foreign labor contracting or alien smuggling. It
would have also been 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 have been subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than one
year. Moreover, S. 1301 would have allowed for civil remedies for personal injuries caused
during the commission of most criminal trafficking offenses (§202).
S. 1301 (§221) would have required 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 took 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
have required 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. Also, the bill would have required 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). Additionally, the Senate bill would have required GAO to
produce a report on the use of foreign labor contractors and abuses by such contractors. Section
226 of the Senate bill would have required 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 have required non-federal grantees to secure a 25% non-federal match
of funds before the federal funds could be expended. S. 1301 would have set procedures and
prohibitions related to using grant monies for administrative expenses, conferences, and lobbying.
Section 231 of S. 1301 would have replaced 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, §202,
with a new grant program for child sex trafficking victims. The new grant program 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 to combat sex trafficking of children in the United States. Each grant could have ranged
from $2 million to $2.5 million. Of the grant amounts, at least 67% would have had 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 had to
be allocated provide services to victims or training for service providers on sex trafficking of
children. 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.246
In addition, S. 1301 would have specified 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 a person, and refer them to the service providers who provide assistance to victims of
commercial sexual exploitation (§233). The Senate bill would have reauthorized appropriations
for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 for FY2012 through FY2015, decreasing some
246 The proposed grant program is identical to S. 596 in the 112th Congress, and S. 2925 in the 111th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
67
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
authorization levels and increasing others.247 (See Table 5 for a detailed list of authorization
levels.)
As in H.R. 2830, S. 1301 contained provisions dealing with the care and custody of
unaccompanied alien children. The provisions in the Senate bill were similar but not identical to
the House bill. As in H.R. 2830, §401 would have specified 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 have required the DHS Secretary to
create a pilot program in three states to provide independent child advocates at immigration
detention sites for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable unaccompanied alien children. In
addition, the Senate bill would have specified 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 had to reimburse states for foster care provided these children (§403). S. 1301
would have required GAO to study 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)
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Authorized Programs
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
USAID: Pilot Program for
Rehabilitation Facilities (22 U.S.C.
$1.5 Struck $1.5 Struck — Struck — Struck
7105 note)
DOS: Interagency Task Force (22
U.S.C. 7110(a))
$5.5 $2.0 $5.5 $2.0 — $2.0 — $2.0
DOS: Interagency Task Force:
Reception Expenses (22 U.S.C.
$.003
Struck
$.003
Struck — Struck — Struck
7110(a))
DOS: Interagency Task Force:
Additional Personnel (22 U.S.C.
$1.5 N/A $1.5 N/A — N/A — N/A
7110(a))
DOS: Prevention (22 U.S.C.
7110(c)(1)(A))
$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
DOS: Prosecution and Meeting
Minimum Standards (22 U.S.C.
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0 — $10.0 — $10.0
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
7110(c)(1)(B))
247 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
68
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Authorized Programs
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
President: Foreign Assistance for Law
Enforcement Training (22 U.S.C.
$0.25
N/A
$0.25
N/A — N/A — N/A
7110(d)(B)
President: Foreign Victim Assistance
$15.0
$7.5
$15.0
$7.5 — $7.5 — $7.5
(22 U.S.C. 7110(e)(1))
President: Foreign Assistance to
Meet Minimum Standards (22 U.S.C.
$15.0
$7.5
$15.0
$7.5 — $7.5 — $7.5
7110(e)(2))
President: Research (22 U.S.C.
$2.0 N/A $2.0 N/A — N/A — N/A
7110(e)(3))
President: Award for Extraordinary
$0.5 N/A $0.5 N/A — N/A — N/A
Efforts (22 U.S.C. 7109b(d))
HHS: Assistance for Trafficking
Victims
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 Lawful Permanent
7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 — 7.0 — 7.0
Residents (LPRs) (22 U.S.C.
7110(b)(2))
HHS: Local Grant for USC/LPR Sex
Trafficking Victims
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 — 8.0 — 8.0
(42 U.S.C. 14044a(d))
HHS: Pilot Program for Juveniles
3.0 — 3.0 — — — — —
(42 U.S.C. 14044b(g))
HHS: Child Advocates for
— 1.0 — 1.0 — 2.0 — 2.0
Unaccompanied Minors
DHS: Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Investigations
18.0 10.0 18.0 10.0 — 10.0 — 10.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(i))
DHS: Human Smuggling and
Trafficking Center (HSTC)
2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 — 1.0 — 1.0
(22 U.S.C. 7109a(b)(4))
DOJ: Assistance for Tracking Victims
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 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
Trafficking
(42 U.S.C. 14044(c)(1))
DOJ: Prevent DST—Conference
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
10.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 — 11.0 — 11.0
(42 U.S.C. 14044c(d))
Congressional Research Service
69
Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Authorized Programs
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
H.R.
S.
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
2830
1301
DOJ: Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)
15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 — 15.0 — 15.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(h))
DOL: Assistance for Trafficking
Victims
10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 — 5.0 — 5.0
(22 U.S.C. 7110(f))
Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 106-386, P.L. 108-193, P.L. 109-164, P.L. 110-457, H.R. 2830, as ordered reported
by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and S. 1301, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Notes: N/A = Authorized program not referenced in bill. Struck = the program would be struck from law by
the bill. H.R. 2830 seeks to reauthorize TVPA programs through FY2013, whereas S. 1301 seeks to reauthorize
TVPA programs through FY2015. The TVPA and its subsequent reauthorizations include several additional
provisions without specific funding amounts. Such provisions include §107A(f) of P.L. 106-386, as amended (22
U.S.C. 7104a), which authorizes not more than 5% of the amounts made available to carry out the TVPA, as
amended, in each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the President to evaluate anti-trafficking programs and
projects. §114(c)(2) of P.L. 106-386, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7110(c)(2)), also authorizes such sums as may be
necessary for each fiscal year 2008 through 2011 to the Department of State for the preparation of
congressional y mandated human rights reports with reference to human trafficking issues. Note also that
additional funding outside the scope of the TVPA and its reauthorizations has been authorized in separate
legislative vehicles. See for example, §111 of P.L. 109-162, which authorizes $10 million for each fiscal year 2008
through 2011 to the Department of Justice for state and local law enforcement grants for human trafficking
victim identification.
a. With respect to the presidential award for extraordinary efforts to combat trafficking in persons, §112B of
P.L. 106-386, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7109b(d)), authorizes to be appropriated for fiscal years 2008 through
2011 “such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.”
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
70