[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18055-18058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3244, TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION 
                              ACT OF 2000

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons, 
especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in 
the United States and countries around the world through prevention, 
through prosecution and enforcement against traffickers, and through 
protection and assistance to victims of trafficking, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


        Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. WATT of North Carolina moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
     3244 be instructed to recede to the Senate on provisions 
     contained in section 7 of the Senate amendment (relating to 
     obtaining visas for victims of trafficking without numerical 
     limitation) in order to ensure that any victim of trafficking 
     in the United States who has been forced, coerced, or 
     defrauded into sexual slavery, involuntary servitude, or 
     other relevant conditions and who has escaped such bondage 
     may obtain a visa and remain in the United States and to 
     encourage such victims to assist United States law 
     enforcement authorities to break up trafficking rings and end 
     the terrible practice of trafficking in human beings.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) 
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am offering this motion to instruct conferees at the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who may show up 
here at any moment and participate in this discussion, but in the 
interim I am trying to carry his water for him.
  Of all the human rights violations currently occurring in our world, 
the trafficking of human beings, predominately women and children, has 
to be one of the most horrific practices of our time. At its core, the 
international trade in women and children is about abduction, coercion, 
violence and exploitation in the most reprehensible ways. H.R. 3244 is 
a modest effort to eradicate forcible and/or fraudulent

[[Page 18056]]

trafficking of persons into prostitution or involuntary servitude.
  Among other things, the bill increases penalties and provides some 
protection for victims who would otherwise be deportable if identified 
by law enforcement, by creating a new ``T'' visa category for eligible 
victims. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and approved by the House is much more restrictive than the 
bill originally introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). Instead, a much 
narrower bill was substituted by the Committee on the Judiciary markup 
to satisfy unrealistic concerns that the bill would somehow enable 
persons to fraudulently obtain a lawful status by claiming that they 
were a victim of sex trafficking or involuntary servitude.
  Most significantly, the bill unnecessarily caps at 5,000 per year the 
number of victims who can receive a nonimmigrant visa and caps at 5,000 
per year the number of victims who can become permanent residents.
  Because estimates of the number of trafficking victims entering the 
United States are greater than 5,000 per year, I see no reason not to 
provide protection to the 5,001 and the 5,025 victims who have been the 
subject of such terrible acts. As a result, my motion to instruct 
instructs the conferees to recede to the Senate provision which 
contains no such cap.
  We have no arbitrary limit on the number of refugees who can enter 
this country. We have no arbitrary limit on the number of asylees who 
can enter this country and, in my judgment, it is beneath our dignity 
as a nation to use an arbitrary cap to shut our doors to victims of 
slavery and sex trafficking.
  The Members should know that this motion is supported by the Catholic 
Conference, the National Organization for Women, Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center. I urge the 
Members to support this common sense and compassionate motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I 
would like to briefly address the motion. I need to point out to the 
Members that the bill that passed the House was a carefully crafted 
compromise that took into account all the input that we had received in 
the committee process on this legislation. It is my understanding that 
of all the estimates that have been made concerning the number of 
potential beneficiaries under this legislation, who would be eligible 
to obtain visas, none of those estimates have exceeded the 5,000 cap.
  The original estimates were substantially below the 5,000 cap that is 
included in the bill, so I believe that it is unlikely, extremely 
unlikely, that this cap would have any practical impact. The cap is 
there, however, to make certain that this bill does not result in 
admissions that are beyond what was anticipated when the legislation 
was considered.
  The chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), is on his way to further discuss the motion to 
instruct and to express his opposition so I would just make that 
general observation that I have made.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to the 5,000 per year cap 
on trafficking of victim visas imposed by the majority. The majority 
has not been able to cite a single bit of evidence in the hearing or in 
the markup to support a cap of 5,000. We understand from the prior 
speaker that there is opinion that this may be sufficient, and if that 
is the case there is certainly no harm in not having an arbitrary cap. 
If it is less than 5,000, then there will be no issue but if, if, one 
year there is more than 5,000 we would find this cap to be morally 
wrong.
  It is an unfortunate fact of life that we can never predict how many 
people will be the victim of trafficking and how serious their plight 
will be; how many of them will seek refuge in our wonderful country, a 
bastion of freedom. Congress has granted similar discretion to increase 
refugee caps and there are no caps for asylum candidates. So it is my 
view that we have room in this vast, wonderful, prosperous country for 
victims of sex trafficking and slavery, and I do not want to be an 
American who says to the 5,001 victim, they are out of luck.
  In fact, the evidence is that the cap of 5,000, in fact, may be too 
low. There was recently an exhaustive report by the Central 
Intelligence Agency titled, the International Trafficking in Women to 
the United States, a Contemporary Manifestation of Slavery. That is the 
name of the report. It outlines women who are brought to the United 
States to work as prostitutes who are abused as laborers or servants, 
and even if this report overestimates the number of trafficking victims 
by a large factor, the limit of 5,000 would still be too low and it 
would deny thousands of victims of trafficking any right to remain in 
this country.
  So I think we ought to put this into context. We have already in this 
country women who have been brought here and really held in virtual 
slavery, sometimes as victims of sexual oppression. When those women 
break free, we want to make sure that they have found refuge in this 
country of freedom. We do not want to then turn them away back to their 
abusers.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to lift up their hearts, remember that America stands for 
freedom, to understand that we have room for the 5,001 victim of 
slavery who is held here and seeks freedom and to support the motion to 
instruct conferees.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims, and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), for yielding me his 
time and for speaking in opposition to this motion. I, too, oppose this 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to strike the cap on the number of 
visas and green cards given to trafficking victims. The bipartisan 
authors of this bill gave us this number of 5,000 when estimating the 
size of the victim group. In fact, at one point, the estimated size of 
victims was 1,500, so 5,000 is a very, very generous level.
  We ought to stand by their estimate and respect the desires of the 
bipartisan authors of this bill. Also, Mr. Speaker, imposing a cap 
obviously safeguards against fraud. Rather than having an unlimited 
number of visas available that might be taken advantage of by 
individuals wanting to get into the system, we need to have that cap to 
avoid people being tempted to take advantage of the system and abuse 
the privilege.
  This bill is a merging of both Republican and Democratic trafficking 
bills. The authors of this bill estimated the number of trafficking 
victims in the United States to be no more than 5,000. Both Democrats 
and Republicans agreed on this cap at the Committee on the Judiciary 
because it was the number given to us by the authors of the bill. Now 
some want to eliminate the cap altogether.
  Whenever a new form of immigration relief is created, many aliens 
apply for that relief. Too often, those applications do not contain 
bona fide claims of relief. We need tools to prevent this form of 
relief from being abused and jeopardizing relief for valid and 
legitimate claimants. One of those tools is a cap.
  When a group of people needs protections or relief from deportation, 
it is

[[Page 18057]]

important to know the size of that group to understand the size of the 
problem. If the group size is known or estimated, no harm is done in 
creating a cap that correlates to that group's size. The size of 
trafficking victims has been estimated. The authors of the bill have 
told us the group size is 5,000 people so no harm comes from imposing a 
cap of 5,000 and, in fact, much good comes from having a cap to stop 
the fraud and abuse.
  This cap will prevent large numbers of aliens from falsely claiming 
to be trafficking victims. It safeguards against fraud, which everyone 
should be concerned about.
  Finally, the caps in this bill are on the victims only. They are not 
on the victims' family members. So spouses, sons and daughters, 
children of the victim and even parents of the victim, if the victim is 
under 21, may all receive a visa and a green card free from this cap.

                              {time}  1645

  The same is true for the green cards themselves. The green card cap 
of 5,000 is again just for the victims only. It is not on the victims' 
family members, so obviously many more than 5,000 individuals will be 
admitted and be able to avail themselves of this new category. There is 
no reason to remove this cap, and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  The bipartisan authors of the bill, I want to repeat again, gave us 
the number of 5,000 because they thought that was more than adequate to 
satisfy the needs of all legitimate victims, and we should stand by 
that number. Having a cap in place prevents fraud, and I urge all of 
those who are concerned about fraud, as we seen so often in our 
immigration system, to oppose this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  My colleague from Texas (Mr. Smith) would have us believe that this 
is about fraud. It is not. Regardless of how many people come in having 
been imported into our country as slaves or as sex objects, there still 
has to be an application to stay, and that application has to be 
evaluated, so the fraud is taken out in that context.
  It may be that if the gentleman is worried about fraud, it would be 
4,000 in the first 5,000 who have engaged in some fraudulent activity. 
That is not the issue here. The issue is would we send a woman or child 
who has been sexually abused and put into slavery in this country back 
into another country where that kind of activity was going on, so 
whether the victim is the 499th or the 4,099th, or the 515th or the 
5,015th should not be the issue. The issue is what should our policy 
be, and we should open our arms to these people.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing these estimates and the statement that 
there was some bipartisan agreement. Let me be clear that there was no 
bipartisan agreement about this number. The bill came out of the 
committee, but there was substantial disagreement. There was an effort 
to revise the number in the committee, and I am looking at a report 
here from the Central Intelligence Agency briefing in April of 1999 
that estimated that the number of women and children who are trafficked 
annually into the United States primarily by small crime rings and 
loosely connected criminal networks is between 45,000 and 50,000.
  Now, the estimate, the guess, about how many of those people will 
come forward and present themselves is no more than conjecture. One-
tenth of them might come forward, in which case we would have a number 
between 4,500 and 5,000; but if 20 percent of them came forward, you 
would have a number at 10,000, and would it be in our own conscience as 
a Nation to deprive that extra 5,000 or that extra 100 by some 
arbitrary cap that really is just an arbitrary figure?
  Our policy is to welcome people in, who have been abused, into other 
countries, and that should continue to be our policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) for yielding me the time.
  This is a human rights issue of great moment to me. One of the worst 
practices that has come to the Congress' attention is this trafficking 
of women and children and the coercion and exploitation and violence 
that accompanies it.
  We are disappointed that the bill introduced formally by our 
colleagues the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has been narrowed in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and we have put caps at 5,000 per year on the number of 
victims.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina has pointed out, this is 
arbitrary and beneath our dignity as a Nation. I am happy to say that 
many of the immigration and human rights organizations support us, and 
so I urge that this motion to instruct be given very careful attention 
by our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the cap is arbitrary and does frankly a good 
disservice to our international image as a country concerned with human 
rights.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt), because I know him well enough to know that he would never 
intentionally mislead anyone, but I would like to clarify a figure that 
he used, 45,000, and emphasize that is a worldwide figure of possible 
victims. That is not the number expected, I understand, to come to the 
United States.
  I would repeat the point that the authors of the bill who represented 
Republicans and Democrats are very comfortable with this cap of 5,000. 
It does guard against fraud. In fact, going back to the cap, we think 
it is more than generous, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
motion, one, because we need to prevent fraud; and, two, because the 
bipartisan authors of the bill are happy with that cap.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the point that my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) has raised. I am reading a report from the Center for 
the Study of Intelligence, and I am reading verbatim from that report. 
It says, and I quote: ``An estimated 45,000 to 50,000 women and 
children are trafficked annually to the United States.'' Now, that 
might be worldwide being trafficked into the United States, but that is 
what this bill is about.
  How many of them are we going to allow? How many are going to come 
forward and seek to stay here once they have been trafficked in? If the 
figure is wrong, it is because the report is wrong; it is not because I 
have misstated the record. I am stating it in good conscience. I cannot 
verify it. I was reading from a report. Maybe the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren) will have some clarification.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the gentleman his 
judgment. It is my understanding from law enforcement that the ability 
to actually prosecute these traffickers and to put an end and decrease 
the number of people who are brought in and abused is really very much 
dependent on the ability of these women to escape and to understand 
that they will be given refuge; and if you cannot escape and be given 
refuge, then you really cannot cooperate with the police, and we will 
never be successful in eliminating and prosecuting and ending this 
trafficking in human beings as sex slaves.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from North Carolina if that is 
his understanding as well.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I think the 
gentlewoman from California makes an exceptionally good point that in 
addition to the human rights argument, there are actually public safety 
and criminal law administrative reasons that we should not have this 
cap, because we

[[Page 18058]]

want to have in place an incentive for these women and children to be 
able to come forward and break out of this sex ring and slave ring and 
come forward. The primary incentive they have is to seek to be able to 
stay in the United States, and if they cannot do that, then we provide 
no protection to them as a Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding the 3 minutes to me.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for this 
motion to instruct and the leadership of the Members on this floor. I 
hope that our colleagues are listening to us. The gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and myself offered an amendment, or 
legislation, dealing with battered immigrant women, which is not a 
directly pointed point, but it does deal with the abuse of women.
  So we know that overall in these issues dealing with sexual abuse or 
physical abuse, it is most necessary to have some kind of relief. The 
capping that is going on with respect to the victims of trafficking is 
egregious, and it is important that we should not cap the numbers to 
avoid helping people. What happens is with this motion, it answers the 
need, because it eliminates the arbitrary 5,000 annual cap so we can 
provide these as to all victims who have been forced into involuntary 
servitude and sexual trafficking.
  Mr. Speaker, needless to say, we can document today with stories that 
recount for us that sexual trafficking or trafficking of human beings 
for sexual activities continues today. When we traveled to Southeast 
Asia and Bangladesh and India and Pakistan, there were women there who 
told us they were victims of it.
  It has happened to us, there were children who were able to relay the 
story of what happens, and sometimes these people are able to make 
their way to a refuge in the United States, and that is why the 
Catholic Conference, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense 
and Education Fund, and The National Immigration Law Center see the 
merit in this motion to instruct, that the cap is dangerous, the cap is 
devastating, and in some sense, Mr. Speaker, it is inhuman.
  It is extremely important that we begin to look at this problem as a 
real-life, 21st century problem; and the act itself combats trafficking 
with a three-tier approach. It has prevention, prosecution, and 
enforcement against the traffickers, but we must find a way to protect 
the victims.
  This motion to instruct says the victims are important. The capping 
is wrong. Let us remove the arbitrary cap. Let us make sure that we 
provide visas to all of those in need. This is reasonable, Mr. Speaker. 
It addresses the current problem. I hope my colleagues will see the 
good sense of it, and that they will vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, trafficking in human beings is a form of modern-day 
slavery. At its core, the international trade in women and children is 
about abduction, coercion, violence, and exploitation in the most 
reprehensible ways.
  Trafficking victims suffer extreme physical and mental abuses, 
including rape, torture, starvation, imprisonment, death threats, and 
physical brutality. Women and children trafficked into the sex industry 
and exposed to deadly diseases, including HIV and AIDS. Victims 
trafficked into domestic servitude, bonded sweatshop labor and other 
industries are subject to violence and sometimes literally worked to 
death.
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 1999 combats trafficking 
with a three-tier approach. It provides for prevention, prosecution and 
enforcement against the traffickers, and assistance to the victims of 
trafficking. We can and should provide assistance to the victims of 
trafficking.
  However, the bill unnecessarily caps at 5,000 per year the number of 
victims who can receive a nonimmigrant visa and caps at 5,000 per year 
the number of victims which can become permanent residents.
  This is unfortunate because estimates of victims entering the United 
States are greater than 5,000, and we should not cut off protection.
  This Motion To Instruct is supported by the Catholic Conference and 
the National Organization for Women Legal Conference and the National 
Organization for Women's Legal Defense And Education Fund. I urge 
Members to support this Motion to Instruct.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will remember to vote against this motion 
because it will prevent fraud, and the cap has been agreed to by the 
authors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Gilman, Goodling, Smith of New Jersey, 
Hyde, Smith of Texas, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut; and Messrs. 
Gejdenson, Lantos, Conyers, and Cardin.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________