[House Report 108-264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                            Rept. 108-264
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
       TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

 September 29, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                        [To accompany H.R. 2620]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2620) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 
2004 and 2005 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000, and for other purposes, having considered the same report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.
    The amendment adopted by this committee is identical to the 
text reported by the Committee on International Relations shown 
in their report filed September 5, 2003 (Rept. 108-264, Part 
1).

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Vote of the Committee............................................     7
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    11
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    11
Agency Views.....................................................    13
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    20
Markup Transcript................................................    20

                             The Amendment

    The amendment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary is 
identical to the text reported by the Committee on 
International Relations shown in their report filed September 
5, 2003 (H. Rept No. 108-264, Part 1).

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2620 authorizes appropriations for, and makes minor 
modifications to, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000, which was intended to prevent trafficking in persons, to 
ensure punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.

                Background and Need for the Legislation


                               BACKGROUND

    Trafficking of persons has been a growing phenomenon within 
and across international borders, including those of the United 
States. Many trafficked persons are forced into the sex 
industry. The rapid expansion of the sex industry and the low 
status of women in many parts of the world have contributed to 
a burgeoning of the trafficking industry. Trafficking of 
persons also involves forced labor, involuntary servitude, or 
slavery.
    The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 \1\ 
(``TVPA'') was enacted to combat the trafficking of persons, 
especially into the sex trade and slavery in the U.S. and 
countries around the world through prosecution of traffickers 
and through protection and assistance to victims of 
trafficking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 106-386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The TVPA created a new nonimmigrant ``T'' visa for persons 
who: (1) are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons 
(sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by 
force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to 
perform such acts has not attained 18 years of age, or the 
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining 
of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, 
fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary 
servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery, (2) are in the 
U.S. or at a U.S. port of entry on account of such trafficking, 
(3) have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in 
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking or have 
not attained 15 years of age, and (4) would suffer extreme 
hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal from 
the U.S. The TVPA also permits the Department of Homeland 
Security (``DHS'') to grant a T visa, if necessary to avoid 
extreme hardship, to the victim's spouse, children, and parents 
if the victim is under 21 years of age, and the victim's spouse 
and children if the victim is 21 years of age or older.
    The TVPA precludes anyone from receiving a T visa if there 
is substantial reason to believe that the person has committed 
an act of a severe form of trafficking in persons. It also 
places an annual cap of 5,000 on T visas for trafficking 
victims and permits DHS to waive certain grounds of 
inadmissibility.
    The TVPA requires DHS to grant a trafficking victim 
authorization to engage in employment in the United States 
during the period the alien is in lawful temporary resident 
status as a trafficking victim. It provides that DHS is not 
prohibited from instituting removal proceedings against an 
alien admitted with a T visa for conduct committed after the 
alien's admission into the U.S., or for conduct or a condition 
that was not disclosed to DHS prior to the alien's admission.
    The TVPA permits DHS to adjust the status of a T visa 
holder to that of a permanent resident if the alien: (1) has 
been physically present in the U.S. for a continuous period of 
at least three years since the date of admission, (2) has 
throughout such period been a person of good moral character, 
and (3) has, during such period, complied with any reasonable 
request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of 
acts of trafficking, or would suffer extreme hardship involving 
unusual and severe harm upon removal from the U.S. It also 
permits DHS to adjust the status of the victim's spouse, 
parent, or child, if admitted with a T visa, to that of an 
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. DHS may waive 
certain grounds of inadmissibility. An annual cap of 5,000 is 
placed on adjustments of status for trafficking victims.
    Finally, the TVPA excludes significant traffickers, persons 
who knowingly assist them, and their spouses, sons, or 
daughters who knowingly benefit from the proceeds of their 
trafficking activities from entry into the U.S. A son or 
daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the 
benefit is exempt from such exclusion from the U.S.
    It would be valuable at this point to recall language from 
the Judiciary Committee's report on the TVPA:

          Each year, tens of thousands of aliens pay smugglers 
        to be brought to the United States. Once here, they 
        must work long hours to pay off their smuggling debts 
        of tens of thousands of dollars. It is not the 
        committee's intent that such people receive the new 
        nonimmigrant ``T'' visa created by [the TVPA] or the 
        permanent residence provided by the [TVPA]. Otherwise, 
        [the TVPA] would become a general amnesty for aliens 
        who, we must remember, voluntarily sought out smugglers 
        to bring them illegally to the United States. 
        Additionally, the [TVPA] would actually encourage alien 
        smuggling by providing the expectation of eventual 
        amnesty.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 106-487, pt. II, at 17 (2000).

    What has been the experience with T visas since enactment 
of the TVPA? In January of 2002, the INS issued interim 
regulation establishing the T visa program.\3\ Since the 
regulation has gone into effect, and as of June 30, 2003, 172 T 
visas have been granted to applicants and 13 have been denied 
and 238 applications are currently pending.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 67 Fed. Reg. 4784 (2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. sec. 214.11).
    \4\ Data provided by DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The commentary to the regulations states that ``[i]n most 
cases, aliens who are voluntarily smuggled into the United 
States will not be considered victims of a severe form of 
trafficking in persons.'' \5\ This is consistent with the 
intent of the Committee. Then, the commentary states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 67 Fed. Reg. at 4787.

          However, individuals who are voluntarily smuggled 
        into the United States in order to be used for labor or 
        services may become victims of a severe form of 
        trafficking in persons, if, for example, after arrival 
        the smuggler uses threats of serious harm or physical 
        restraint to force the individual into involuntary 
        servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id.

    Such a situation might be justification for the granting of 
a T visa under certain circumstances. In order to give more 
guidance as to which circumstances merit the granting of a T 
visa, and which do not, the intent of the Judiciary Committee 
is as follows: an alien who voluntarily comes to the U.S.--an 
alien who makes use of a smuggler \7\--would only be eligible 
for a T visa if he or she was then forced upon arrival in the 
U.S. to perform labor which was illegal, such as prostitution 
or trafficking in controlled substances, or was upon arrival in 
the U.S. forcibly detained on a round the clock basis with no 
prospect of release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ A child who was sold to a smuggler by his or her parents would 
not be considered to have voluntarily come to the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The regulations provide that ``the [INS] has determined 
that applicants may apply individually for T-1 nonimmigrant 
status without requiring third party sponsorship from a law 
enforcement agency, as is the case for the existing S 
nonimmigrant status for alien witnesses and informants.'' \8\ 
The Judiciary Committee is quite concerned about this decision. 
If the primary goal of the T visa is the prosecution of 
traffickers, and an alien is only eligible for a T visa if he 
or she has complied with any reasonable request for assistance 
in the investigation or prosecution of his or her traffickers, 
the Committee finds it hard to think of a situation that would 
merit the granting of a T visa where the investigating or 
prosecuting law enforcement agency was not willing to sponsor 
the alien for a visa. Because the Committee cannot rule out 
that such a situation might exist, it will not require that T 
visa applications be filed by a law enforcement agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 67 Fed. Reg. at 4785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, if the aliens themselves are to be the applicants, 
it is crucial that a law enforcement agency officially 
certifies that the alien has complied with any reasonable 
request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of 
the alien's traffickers. In drafting the regulations, the INS 
created a ``Supplement B, Declaration of a Law Enforcement 
Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, of Form I-914, 
Application for T Nonimmigrant Status,\9\ in which the 
investigating or prosecuting law enforcement agency certifies 
that an alien has complied with any reasonable request for 
assistance. The commentary to the regulations states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See id. at 4819-20.

          A [law enforcement agency] endorsement is not a 
        mandatory part of a T-1 nonimmigrant status 
        application. * * * If the applicant chooses not to 
        include an * * * endorsement, the [DHS] will make an 
        independent assessment of any credible evidence 
        presented * * * to determine if the applicant meets the 
        cooperation with law enforcement requirement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id. at 4788. See 8 C.F.R. sec. 214.11(h).

    This is inconsistent with the intent of the Judiciary 
Committee. If the investigating or prosecuting agency does not 
believe that the alien has provided adequate assistance, the 
alien will not be eligible for a T visa. In order to be 
eligible for a T visa, an applicant must include with his or 
her application a form, such as Supplement B, in which the 
investigating or prosecuting law enforcement agency has 
certified that the alien has complied with any reasonable 
request for assistance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ H.R. 2620 allows a state or local law enforcement agency, as 
well as a federal agency, to be the investigating or prosecuting 
agency. Since immigration is a purely federal function, DHS will retain 
the right to decide that an alien has not complied with any reasonable 
request for assistance even if a state or local law enforcement agency 
has submitted a form certifying that such assistance has been provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, it is the intent of the Committee that 
applications for T visas be adjudicated at the district office 
level, and not by a service center. A district office possesses 
distinct advantages: for instance, it is situated near where 
the trafficking crime has taken place and is in a 
betterposition to have knowledge of the trafficking activities in the 
area, and it can easily interview in person all the relevant 
parties.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The regulations provide that DHS may require a personal 
interview of the T visa applicant. See 8 C.F.R. 214.11(d)(6). It is the 
intent of the Committee that such an interview be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 2620

    H.R. 2620 authorizes appropriations for, and makes minor 
modifications to, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000.
            Immigration provisions
    H.R. 2620 would make the following modifications to the 
immigration provisions of the TVPA:
     Aliens could qualify for T visas by cooperating 
with state and local law enforcement agencies well as federal 
agencies. The state or local agency would have to be 
investigating or prosecuting the alien's traffickers through 
relevant state law, such as anti-trafficking or kidnapping 
laws.
     The age of aliens who could receive T visas 
without cooperating with law enforcement authorities would be 
raised from under 15 years of age to under 18 years of age.
     If an alien receiving a T visa was under 21, 
unmarried siblings under 21 would be added to the list of 
family members who could also receive T visas.
     The public charge ground of inadmissibility would 
never apply to aliens seeking T visas.
     In order to protect traffickers from obtaining the 
applications for T visas of the aliens they trafficked, the 
dissemination of information that relates to an applicant would 
be extremely limited. The State Department and DHS could not 
permit use by or disclosure to anyone other than a sworn 
officer or employee of the two departments for legitimate 
departmental purposes of such information. Certain exceptions 
are made, such as disclosure to a judicial body or to law 
enforcement officials to be used for legitimate law enforcement 
purposes.
            Criminal law provisions
    H.R. 2620 would make the following modifications to the 
criminal law provisions in the TVPA:
     The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. sec. 1591, dealing 
with the prosecution of traffickers, by striking ``in or 
affecting interstate commerce and inserting ``in or affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'' This 
change is an expansion of Federal jurisdiction to cover foreign 
commerce situations and open seas situations.
     Currently the law provides that ``whoever 
knowingly * * * recruits, entices, harbors, transports, 
provides, or obtains by any means a person * * * knowing that 
force, fraud, or coercions will be used to have the person 
engage in a commercial sex act'' has committed a crime. 
However, currently punishment is only provided for in certain 
instances if the alien was transported for the purposes of 
trafficking. The subsection clarifies that punishment is 
provided for if the alien has been recruited, enticed, 
harbored, transported, provided, or obtained, for the purposes 
of trafficking
     The bill adds three new predicate crimes to the 
RICO statute. The first relates to forced labor, the second 
relates to slavery, and the third relates to sex trafficking of 
children. Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
Organization (RICO) provisions as part of the Organized Crime 
Control Act of 1970 to increase civil and criminal consequences 
for crimes under certain circumstances. RICO was created to 
cover those activities which Congress characterized as 
organized crime. RICO crimes are punishable by fines, 
forfeiture, and imprisonment for not more than 20 years or life 
if a predicate offense carries such a penalty. Civil RICO 
allows the injured person to recover treble damages, costs, and 
attorneys' fees.
            Courts provisions
    H.R. 2620 makes the following modification to the courts 
provisions of the TVPA:
     Three provisions of title 18 of the U.S. Code 
criminalize specific acts of trafficking. Section 1589 
prohibits coercion and other acts resulting in forced labor; 
section 1590 forbids trafficking with respect to peonage, 
slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor; and section 
1591 forbids sex trafficking. Transgressors convicted of any of 
these offenses may be fined or imprisoned or both under title 
18. The bill creates a civil cause of action for any victim of 
a violation of sections 1589, 1590 or 1591. Under the 
provision, a civil suit may be filed ``in any appropriate 
[U.S.] district court[, which would be empowered to] award 
actual damages, punitive damage, reasonable attorneys' fees, 
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.''

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held in the Committee on the Judiciary on 
H.R. 2620.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 24, 2003, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2620 with an 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, theCommittee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the Judiciary Committee's consideration 
of H.R. 2620.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because the provisions of H.R. 
2620 within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee do not 
provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to H.R. 2620, the following estimate and comparison 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 26, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2620, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Sunita 
D'Monte (for federal costs), and Paige Piper/Bach (for the 
private-sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2620--Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003

    Summary: H.R. 2620 would reauthorize several programs 
within the Departments of State, Labor, Justice, and Health and 
Human Services, and within other agencies that combat 
trafficking in persons. It would expand the current federal 
prohibitions against such trafficking and would make more 
victims of trafficking and their relatives eligible to enter 
and remain in the United States.
    The bill would authorize appropriations of almost $106 
million a year in 2004 and 2005. CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would cost $197 million over the 2004-
2008 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 
The bill also contains provisions that would affect direct 
spending and revenues, but CBO estimates these provisions would 
not have a significant effect.
    H.R. 2620 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on airlines 
organized under the laws of the United States and other 
airlines that operate in the United States. CBO expects that 
the direct costs of the mandate would fall well below the 
annual threshold established by UMRA ($117 million in 2003, 
adjusted annually for inflation). H.R. 2620 contains no 
intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose 
no significant costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2610 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 150 
(international affairs), 500 (education, employment, training, 
and social services), 550 (health), 600 (income security), and 
750 (administration of justice).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2004     2005     2006     2007     2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\

Overseas Assistance:
    Authorization Level............................................       61       61        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        8       32       37       21       10
Department of Health and Human Services:
    Authorization Level............................................       15       15        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        5       10        8        4        2
Department of Justice:
    Authorization Level............................................       15       15        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        4       10       11        5        0
Department of Labor:
    Authorization Level............................................       10       10        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        *        4        9        6        1
Department of State:
    Authorization Level............................................        5        5        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................        4        5        1        *        *
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
Total:
    Authorization Level............................................      106      106        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays..............................................       21       61       66       36       13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to effects on spending subject to appropriation, CBO estimates enacting H.R. 2620 would have an
  insignificant effect on direct spending and receipts.

 ANote.--*=less than $500,000.

 Spending subject to appropriation

    The bill would authorize appropriations of about $106 
million a year in 2004 and 2005 for various programs to combat 
trafficking in persons. This compares to less than $60 million 
in funding for similar programs in 2003, not counting spending 
by the Department of Labor that may benefit individual victims 
of trafficking under more general authority. Assuming that H.R. 
2620 will be enacted late in calendar year 2003, that the 
amounts authorized are appropriated near the start of each 
fiscal year, and that outlays follow historical spending 
patterns, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 
$21 million in 2004 and $197 million over the 2004-2008 period.
    Overseas Assistance. The bill would authorize 
appropriations in 2004 and 2005 of $30 million a year to the 
Secretary of State and $30 million a year to the President for 
programs to prevent trafficking in persons, to protect victims 
of trafficking, and to assist foreign states in meeting minimum 
standards for the elimination of trafficking. In addition, the 
bill would authorize $0.3 million a year in 2004 and 2005 for 
voluntary contributions to international organizations to 
prevent such trafficking and assist in related legal reform, 
$0.25 million a year in 2004 and 2005 for training at the 
International Law Enforcement Academies, and $0.3 million a 
year in 2004 and 2005 for research on domestic and 
international trafficking in persons. CBO estimates that 
implementing these provisions would cost $8 million in 2004 and 
$108 million over the 2004-2008 period.
    Department of Health and Human Services. The bill also 
would authorize appropriations of $15 million in 2004 and 2005 
for refugee assistance to trafficking victims. Under current 
law, the department plans to spend $10 million for these 
activities in 2003. Assuming appropriation of the authorized 
amounts and that spending from the authorized amounts would be 
similar to the larger refugee assistance programs administered 
by the department, CBO estimates that this assistance would 
cost $5 million in 2004 and $29 million over the 2004-2008 
period.
    Department of Justice. Section 7 would authorize 
appropriations of $15 million a year in 2004 and 2005 for the 
Attorney General to provide assistance to victims of 
trafficking living in the United States. CBO estimates that 
implementing this section would cost $30 million over the 2004-
2008 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
    Department of Labor. H.R. 2620 would authorize 
appropriations of $10 million in 2004 and 2005 for services to 
trafficking victims. Services for these refugees are currently 
provided through the Employment and Training Administration, 
and CBO assumes that spending from the authorized amounts would 
be similar to those employment and training programs. Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that 
providing these services would cost $500,000 in 2004 and $20 
million over the 2004-2008 period.
    Department of State. Section 7 would authorize 
appropriations of $5 million each year in 2004 and 2005 to the 
State Department for the expenses of monitoring, combating, and 
reporting on trafficking in persons. Assuming appropriation of 
the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this 
section would cost $10 million over the 2004-2008 period.

Direct spending and revenues

    Enacting H.R. 2620 also could affect direct spending and 
revenues; but CBO estimates that any such changes would not be 
significant.
    Medicaid and Other Entitlement Benefits. Certifications 
under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act have averaged 
fewer than 15 individuals a month since the program began early 
in fiscal year 2001. Only a minority of persons certified in 
2001 applied for benefits in that year--the only year for which 
these data are available--and fewer still actually received 
Medicaid, Food Stamps, or other entitlement benefits. Although 
the provisions in H.R. 2620 could increase the number of 
individuals applying for and becoming entitled to certain 
federal public benefits, CBO expects the changes would result 
in few new beneficiaries for these benefits. Thus, CBO 
estimates that under H.R. 2620 any increase in direct spending 
for these benefit programs would not be significant.
    Immigration Status for Certain Victims. The bill would make 
it easier for more victims of trafficking and their relatives 
to enter and remain in the United States. Costs to the Bureau 
of Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudicating such 
cases would be funded from fees collected by the agency. CBO 
estimates that any such costs would not be significant because 
of the relatively small number of trafficking victims likely to 
be involved.
    Civil and Criminal Fines. The bill would expand the current 
federal crimes relating to trafficking in persons. Because 
those prosecuted and convicted under the bill could be subject 
to civil and criminal fines, the government might collect 
additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collection of civil 
fines are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts 
(revenues) and are deposited in the general fund. Collections 
of criminal fines are recorded as receipts and are deposited in 
the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO expects that any 
additional receipts and direct spending would not be 
significant.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 2620 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 2620 would 
impose a new private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, on 
airlines organized under the laws of the United States and 
other airlines that operate in the United States. The bill 
would require such airlines to develop and disseminate 
materials alerting travelers that sex tourism, as defined in 
the bill, is illegal, will be prosecuted, and presents dangers 
to those involved. Based on information from industry and 
government sources, CBO expects that the direct costs of the 
mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established 
by UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Previous CBO estimate: On August 13, 2003, CBO transmitted 
a cost estimate for H.R. 2620, the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, as ordered reported by 
the House Committee on International Relations on July 23, 
2003. The two versions of the bill and their estimated costs 
are identical.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Department of State--
Sunita D'Monte; Overseas Assistance--Joseph C. Whitehill; 
Immigration and Department of Justice--Mark Grabowicz; 
Medicaid--Eric Rollins; and Other Programs--Paul R. Cullinan. 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa 
Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee believes that 
the funding authorized should be used to eliminate trafficking 
and assist its victims.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following is a discussion of the most important of the 
provisions of the bill that fall within the Judiciary 
Committee's jurisdiction. A full section by section analysis 
can be found in the report of the Committee on International 
Relations (H. Rept. No. 108-264, pt. 1).

Section 4. Enhancing protection for trafficking victims

    Subsection (a)(4) creates a civil cause of action for any 
victim of a violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1589 (forced 
labor), 1590 (trafficking) , or 1591 (sex trafficking). Under 
the provision, a civil suit may be filed ``in any appropriate 
[U.S.] district court[, which would be empowered to] award 
actual damages, punitive damage, reasonable attorneys' fees, 
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.''
    Subsection (b)(1) amends section 101(a)(15)(T) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that the assistance 
an alien seeking a T visa provides in the investigation or 
prosecution of acts of trafficking may be made to state and 
local, as well as to federal, law enforcement agencies; to 
raise the age of aliens who can receive T visas without having 
provided assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts 
of trafficking from under 15 years of age to under 18 years of 
age; and to provide T visas where necessary to avoid extreme 
hardship to unmarried siblings under 18 years of age of primary 
T visa recipients who are under 21 years of age.
    Subsection (b)(2) amends section 214(n)(3) of the INA to 
clarify that the 5,000 annual visa cap for T visa recipients 
does not apply to the siblings of primary T visa recipients.
    Subsection (b)(3) amends section 245(l) of the INA to 
provide that an alien provided a T visa as the sibling of a 
primary T visa recipient can have his or her status adjusted to 
permanent residence if meeting certain criteria.
    Subsection (c) amends section 214(n) of the INA to provide 
that an alien may receive a T visa regardless of his or her 
inadmissibility as a public charge (section 212(a)(4) of the 
INA).
    Subsection (c) also amends section 214(n) of the INA to 
provide that in no case may the State Department or the 
Homeland Security Department permit use by, or disclosure to, 
anyone, other than a sworn officer or employee of one of such 
Departments for legitimate Department purposes, of any 
information that relates to an alien who has properly filed a 
bona fide application for, or been granted, a T visa. This 
limitation shall not apply if the alien is an adult and has 
waived the limitation, and it shall terminate when the 
application is denied and all opportunities for appeal have 
been exhausted. The two Departments may each provide for the 
disclosure of such information in the same manner and 
circumstances as census information may be disclosed by the 
Commerce Department under section 8 of title 13, U.S. Code, to 
law enforcement officials to be used solely for a legitimate 
law enforcement purpose, and in connection with judicial review 
for a determination in a manner that protects its 
confidentiality. These amendments shall not be construed to 
supersede section 222(f) of the INA (regarding records of the 
State Department and of diplomatic and consular offices). 
Whoever willfully uses, publishes, or permits information to be 
disclosed in violation of these restrictions shall be subject 
to appropriate disciplinary action and subject to a civil 
monetary penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation.

Section 5. Enhancing prosecutions of traffickers

    Section (5)(a), dealing with the prosecution of 
traffickers, amends 18 U.S.C. section 1591 by striking ``in or 
affecting interstate commerce'' and inserting ``in or affecting 
interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'' This 
change is an expansion of Federal jurisdiction to cover foreign 
commerce situations and open seas situations. The subsection 
also makes a conforming amendment. Currently the law provides 
that ``whoever knowingly * * * recruits, entices, harbors, 
transports, provides, or obtains by any means a person * * * 
knowing that force, fraud, or coercions will be used to have 
the person engage in a commercial sex act'' has committed a 
crime. However, currently, punishment is only provided for in 
certain instances if the alien was transported for the purposes 
of trafficking. The subsection clarifies that punishment is 
provided for if the alien has been recruited, enticed, 
harbored, transported, provided, or obtained, for the purposes 
of trafficking.
    Section (5)(b) adds three new predicate crimes to the RICO 
statute. Section 1589 of title 18, U.S. Code, prohibits 
coercion and other acts resulting in forced labor; section 1590 
forbids trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, 
involuntary servitude, or forced labor; and section 1591 
forbids sex trafficking.

Section 7. Authorization of appropriations; related matters

    Section 7 provides authorization for the State Department 
to carry out section 134 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
to authorize International Law Enforcement Academies (``ILEA'') 
to train prosecutors and law enforcement regarding trafficking. 
ILEAs offer a law enforcement program targeted at mid-level 
officials in the police and criminal justice services of 
countries throughout the world. The Department of State works 
with the Departments of Justice and Treasury in running these 
programs. The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs runs the State ILEA programs.

Section 8. Technical corrections

    Subsection 8(a) makes technical changes in the INA.
    Subsection 8(b) makes a technical change in the TVPA to a 
reference to the INA.

                              AGENCY VIEWS

                             Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                Washington, DC, September 24, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the 
Department of Justice on H.R. 2620, the ``Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003.'' We support 
reauthorization of this important program, which is aimed at 
strengthening our efforts to combat trafficking in persons. 
However, we have several concerns about the bill, particularly 
the way it would alter the current statutory standard for 
certifying trafficking victims as eligible to receive benefits 
and services, the need for confidentiality provisions in T visa 
applications, and a new private right of action provision. In 
addition, we recommend adding the new trafficking crimes as 
RICO predicates and providing for the death penalty in human 
trafficking cases where the death of a victim results.

Subsection 3(a): Border Interdiction

    Subsection 3(a) would amend section 106 of the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act of 2000 (``TVPA''), Pub. L. 106-386, 
Div. A, to require the President to make grants to non-
governmental organizations (``NGOs'') to fund training for 
trafficking survivors who, in turn, would ``educate and train 
border guards and officials, and other local law enforcement 
officials.* * *'' Specifically, this subsection would establish 
grants to monitor ``the implementation of border interdiction 
programs, including helping in the identification of such 
victims.* * *''
    While we support training border and local officials in the 
identification of trafficking victims, we believe that 
subsection 3(a) is unnecessary and would potentially undermine 
the ability of Federal law enforcement to conduct border 
interdiction. We would therefore urge striking this subsection 
from the bill. Border security and intelligence gathering are 
Federal law enforcement functions. The TVPA mandated training 
for border officials and other Federal law enforcement officers 
on the identification of and assistance to trafficking victims, 
and the U.S. Government carriers it out.\1\ While NGOs have an 
important role to play in helping trafficking victims, it 
remains nonetheless the purview of Federal law enforcement, 
while carrying out their law enforcement duties, to identify 
victims at the border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Departments of State and Justice articulated their plans 
for U.S. Government anti-trafficking training responsibilities in the 
Federal Register. See 66 Fed. Reg. 38514 (July 24, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, we do not believe that monitoring border 
interdiction programs is the most effective use of Federal 
funding. Because it is not always clear who at the border is a 
``trafficking victim,'' as a victim must be destined for an 
exploitative labor or commercial sexual situation in order to 
have been ``trafficked,'' the money appropriated for 
interdiction programs would be better spent enhancing our 
official border control efforts and increasing our ability to 
investigate and prosecute human trafficking.
    The provision does not clarify to what extent NGOs would 
monitor these programs or what authority NGOs would have to 
attempt to influence these programs. The lack of specificity 
makes it unclear as to how these functions would implicate the 
exercise of Federal law enforcement authority by civilians and/
or local law enforcement officials. Additionally, it is not 
clear whether training will be provided to such organizations, 
and whether principles such as agency law and vicarious 
liability will apply to any functions performed by such 
organizations or local law enforcement.
    We note that use of the term ``transit shelter'' implies 
that the victims are passing through the United States 
temporarily and will be returning to their countries of origin. 
This has not been the U.S. Government's experience with the 
majority of trafficking victims who have been identified. Most 
of them choose to access immigration relief available under the 
TVPA, rather than self-repatriation.
    If Congress chooses to proceed with this provision despite 
our opposition, we suggest amending the section on border 
interdiction by inserting (in the bill, following the first 
occurrence of the word ``interdiction'' in the first sentence) 
``, including'', thereby authorizing support to NGO programs, 
while not strictly limiting such programs solely to NGOs.
    Subsection 3(a) also would ``ensure that any program 
established under this subsection provides the opportunity for 
any trafficking victims who is freed to return to his or her 
previous residence if the victim so chooses.'' Guaranteeing 
immediate return could undermine law enforcement needs, which 
often will require the presence of the victim in the country as 
a material witness or for other purposes. In the event the 
Committee retains this subsection, we urge that it contain a 
mechanism to ensure that the interests of law enforcement be 
protected in any provision for the return of trafficking 
victims to their own or third countries.

Subsection 3(b): Termination of Certain Grants, Contracts and 
        Cooperative Agreements

    The State Department will be submitting a separate views 
letter on H.R. 2620, in which it will address concerns 
regarding subsection 3(b). We simply note that we defer to, and 
concur in, the State Department's position.

Subsections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(1)(a): State and Local Law Enforcement

    Subsection 4(a)(3) would broaden the availability of 
certification of trafficking victims (as would section 
4(b)(1)(a) in similar ways) by permitting individuals to obtain 
certification as trafficking victims based on endorsements made 
by State and local law enforcement agencies (in addition to 
Federal law enforcement). We have reservations about altering 
the current statutory standard for the certification of victims 
to receive benefits and services.
    In our experience, accurate certification requires some 
investigation to determine whether the victim actually has 
suffered as the result of conduct that satisfies the elements 
of the TVPA. This investigation is best performed by trained 
investigators who are familiar with the TVPA. Currently, the 
Attorney General is consulted on whether a trafficking victim 
is assisting in an investigation or prosecution of human 
trafficking and a Federal law enforcement agency is in charge 
of the investigation and prosecution. We are concerned that 
State and local agencies may lack the resources or expertise to 
conduct the necessary inquiry. Only two States (Washington and 
Texas) have passed anti-trafficking laws. Hence, the vast 
majority of State and local law enforcement officials do not 
have the jurisdiction to investigate human trafficking. It is 
unclear whether State and local officials could determine that 
victims were cooperating with the investigation or prosecution 
of human trafficking, because the investigation would most 
likely be Federal. Further confusion may arise due to 
overlapping jurisdiction in cases in which State and local 
officials could be investigating activity that might constitute 
human trafficking under the Federal definition but that under 
State law would violate only non-trafficking laws, such as 
kidnaping.
    We do not believe that these changes would result in 
substantial benefits in enforcing the anti-trafficking laws. 
Moreover, we are concerned about forcing the Department of 
Health and Human Services, when certifying trafficking victims, 
to reconcile possibly conflicting factual conclusions made by 
various Federal, State and local law enforcement authorities. 
For example, an individual might be cooperating with local law 
enforcement in a human trafficking investigation, but the 
Federal prosecutors, who are investigating the underlying 
activities, might have information that the victim does not 
meet the definition of a victim of a ``severe form of 
trafficking in persons,'' the statutory standard for receipt of 
benefits. We note that the bill would continue to require the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to consult with the 
Attorney General in making trafficking victim certifications, 
which we strongly support. Continuing to limit the endorsements 
to Federal law enforcement is more efficient and ensures 
uniformity in determining whether victims are cooperating with 
(the likely) Federal investigation or prosecution.
    Congress may be looking to the Battered Immigrant Women 
Protection Act of 2000, Sec. 1512 (regarding the U visa), Pub. 
L. 106-386, Div. B., Tit. V, as a model for allowing Federal, 
State or local officials to determine victimization and 
cooperation. Unlike that Act, where crimes related to battery 
are also crimes at the State level, enforcement against human 
trafficking remains predominantly a Federal sphere of activity. 
In many cases, it may be easier for State and local law 
enforcement to identify a crime that also violates State law 
than it would be to identify human trafficking. Therefore, we 
do not believe the U visa to be an analogous situation or a 
valid model to follow in trafficking cases.
    We also are wary that this subsection would create the 
potential for forum shopping. We already are aware of persons 
who claim to be victims contacting multiple Federal agencies in 
the hope that one of them will support that person's request 
for certification from the Department of Health and Human 
Services. Extending the authority to determine that an 
individual meets one of the key criteria for certification to 
the 17,000 State and local law enforcement agencies in the 
country will exacerbate this situation. Under current law, 
Federal law enforcement analyzes claims of victimization and 
cooperation with law enforcement and ensures that certification 
is requested for legitimate, cooperating victims, so that such 
victims can receive the benefits mandated by the TVPA.
    We believe this provision would cause confusion and 
potentially place Federal law enforcement against State and 
local law enforcement in determinations regarding cooperation 
in what is likely to be a Federal preserve.

Subsection 4(a)(4): Private Right of Action

    The Department of Justice opposes the private right of 
action that would be established by subsection 4(a)(4), because 
it is unnecessary and could be accomplished by amending the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1589-1594).
    Creation of a private right of action is a complex 
undertaking that should be approached only after careful 
consideration of collateral consequences and the appropriate 
standard for establishing a civil violation. It is common for 
civil rights violations to give rise to both civil and criminal 
sanctions. While these arrangements have produced some 
complexity in criminal prosecutions, Congress has concluded 
that the additional enforcement activity resulting from private 
civil actions is worthwhile. However, many such statutory 
schemes establish different elements for civil and criminal 
violations. If Congress believes that a civil action for human 
trafficking might be appropriate, it should consider in depth 
the conduct that should trigger a civil violation and the 
processes that would be helpful in protecting criminal 
enforcement.
    We note that the amendment to the RICO Act included in H.R. 
2620 would allow civil RICO claims for human trafficking, which 
may cover the universe of civil proceedings Congressis 
intending to extend to trafficking victims.
    The creation of a federal civil remedy, one that would 
include treble damages, is best accomplished through the 
amendment to RICO. If the purpose is to establish a new Federal 
tort, we question the need for it. The entire range of 
trafficking behaviors is already captured under State tort law, 
under which a victim may already recover. We do not see a need 
to recreate such a scheme at the Federal level.
    If Congress concludes that a private right of action beyond 
RICO is warranted in these circumstances, we suggest several 
improvements to this subsection. The subsection does not 
indicate who can be sued. For example, the class of defendants 
needs to be defined. Foreign governments with lax border 
enforcement policies could be called into court under the 
provision, as could anyone linked to the trafficking. Even 
prosecutors could face a civil suit if a trafficking victim 
believed that the prosecutor did not pursue the trafficking 
prosecution with sufficient diligence. Presumably the 
traffickers who knew (or ought to have known) about the 
victim's plight would be the intended class of defendants.
    The subsection should stay all pending civil actions in the 
wake of a criminal prosecution. Notably, in the context of 18 
USC Sec. 2255 (``civil remedy for personal injuries''), all 
civil actions are stayed pending the completion of a criminal 
action. See also 18 USC Sec. 3509(k) (``child victims' and 
child witnesses' rights'') (``If, at any time that a cause of 
action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to * * 
* a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out 
of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, 
the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of 
the criminal action.* * *'').
    Without delineating who can be sued and whether the suit 
would be stayed until a prosecution was complete, this 
provision would provide unbridled discretion to trafficking 
victims to sue whomever they feel has victimized them and could 
hinder prosecutors' abilities to try a case unfettered by the 
complications of civil discovery. While perhaps unlikely, this 
provision could become an incentive for victims to skip 
criminal prosecution and go directly to Federal court to sue 
their traffickers for damages. We believe that prosecutions 
should take priority over civil redress and that prosecutions 
should be complete prior to going forward with civil suits.

Subsection 4(c): Waiver of Public Charge Ground for Inadmissibility

    It is not clear what benefits would accrue from the 
amendments subsection 4(c) would make to Sec. 214(n) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to disallow consideration 
of the ``public charge'' grounds for inadmissibility to the 
United States based on an approved T visa. The TVPA allows the 
Attorney General (now the Secretary of Homeland Security) to 
grant waivers generously for the public charge grounds of 
inadmissibility under Sec. 212(d) of the INA and does not 
require that the public charge activity be linked to the 
trafficking victimization (as it did with regard to the 
criminal grounds, see 212(d)(13)(B)(ii)). That having been 
said, we believe the drafters probably intended to amend 
Sec. 212(d)(13)(B)(i) to require DHS to waive the public charge 
ground in determining whether to grant the T visa application, 
rather than subsection 214(n).

Subsection 4(c): Penalties for Unlawful Disclosure of Information

    We strongly oppose the new provisions governing 
confidentiality of T visa applications, and consequent 
penalties for unlawful disclosure of information, as 
unnecessary and inappropriate. Section 222(f) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act already deems as confidential 
(with certain exceptions) information related to the issuance 
or denial of visas.
    We are unaware of any inappropriate disclosures of 
information during the T visa process. That said, this 
provision does appear to preclude Federal law enforcement 
officials from reviewing T visa applications for the purpose of 
investigating or prosecuting human trafficking crimes. Proposed 
INA subsection 214(n)(5) states that ``in no case'' may DHS or 
Department of State officials ``permit use by, or disclosure 
to, anyone, other than a sworn officer or employee of one of 
such Departments for legitimate Department purposes, of any 
information that relates to an alien'' who has filed a T visa 
application.
    This provision has the potential to derail our prosecutions 
when T visa applicants are prosecution witnesses, given 
prosecutors' discovery responsibilities. There is language in 
subparagraph (n)(5)(D) that may cover prosecutors' discovery 
obligations (``may each provide, in each Secretary's 
discretion, for the disclosure of information described in 
subparagraph (A) to law enforcement officials to be used solely 
for a legitimate law enforcement purpose'' [followed by a 
series of examples unrelated to prosecutors' discovery 
obligations]). However, it is not clear that this would allow 
for disclosure to defense counsel. And if it does not, then it 
might result in dismissal of the indictment because prosecutors 
could not comply with disclosure obligations. Moreover, it is 
unclear whether such a provision would require regulations to 
be issued by DHS or the State Department, that could 
potentially affect prosecutors' abilities to meet discovery 
obligations.
    This provision does not appear to permit compliance with a 
judge's order to produce certain ``confidential'' information. 
Subparagraph (E) states ``Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
construed as preventing disclosure of information in connection 
with judicial review of a determination in a manner that 
protects the confidentiality of such information.'' This 
language appears to provide for review of records in the case 
of judicial review of the applications, but not was regard to 
other forms of judicial requests.
    Finally, these confidentiality provisions allow a penalty 
of $5,000 for each disclosure. We believe it unwise to subject 
prosecutors (or DHS or State Department personnel who allow 
them access) to these sanctions if they legitimately disclose 
information in the course of a prosecution that is not deemed 
to be a ``law enforcement purpose.''
    If this provision is to remain, in carrying out the 
certification responsibilities in section 107(b)(1)(E) of the 
TVPA, the Department of Health and Human Services must be able 
to receive information from DHS regarding a person's bona fide 
application for a T via. We recommend that a new subparagraph 
(I) be added to section 214(n)(5) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as added by the bill. The new subparagraph 
would read as follows:

          ``(I) The Secretary of Homeland Security may disclose 
        information described in subparagraph (A) to the 
        Department of Health and Human Services for the 
        purposes of implementing section 107(b)(1)(E) of the 
        Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.''.

     In summary, provisions and safeguards exist for sharing 
visa information for routine law enforcement activity. The 
provisions of this subsection would impede domestic and 
international criminal investigations to identify and gather 
evidence against traffickers.

Section 5: Enhancing Prosecutions of Traffickers (18 USC Amendments)

    Subsection 5(a) would extend the jurisdictional nexus of 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1591 to include foreign commerce and the special 
maritime jurisdiction of the United States; these changes are 
technical fixes to the original TVPA. We welcome these 
jurisdictional changes that will enhance prosecutors' ability 
to bring human trafficking cases.

Trafficking Crimes as RICO Predicates

    We support the inclusion of human trafficking crimes as 
RICO predicates. These crimes occasionally are perpetrated by 
organized groups that RICO was intended to target. Indeed, the 
RICO predicate list in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1) includes various 
offenses that overlap with human trafficking offenses, 
including the substantive offenses in the peonage and slavery 
chapter of the criminal code (18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1581-88) and 
the main prostitution offenses (18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2421-24). 
This existing offense coverage under RICO is useful. 
Furthermore, we believe adding human trafficking offenses to 
RICO's coverage would prove to be beneficial.
    We would suggest two changes to the RICO section as 
currently drafted. In section 5(b),which amends 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1961(1) (definition of ``racketeering activity'') by 
adding the three criminal offenses related to trafficking in 
persons, we suggest that the amendatory language be inserted in 
section 1961(1) after ``sections 1581-1588 (relating to peonage 
and slavery),'' instead of after ``murder-for-hire),'' as 
proposed. The offenses that define ``racketeering activity'' 
should be placed in numerical order and with offenses in the 
same chapter of title 18 of easy reference. As proposed, the 
three offenses found in Chapter 77 (peonage and slavery) of 
title 18 have been inexplicably inserted in the list of 
statutes without consideration of their subject matter. Instead 
of being inserted to follow other offenses in Chapter 77, they 
have been inserted after ``section 18 U.S.C. 1958 (relating to 
use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of 
murder-for-hire),'' an offense in Chapter 95 of title 18. We 
would also suggest that the Chapter 77 offenses be listed 
together. Therefore section 5(b) would now read:

          ``(b) Definition of Racketeering Activity.--Section 
        1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
        striking `sections 1581-1588 (relating to peonage and 
        slavery)' and by inserting after `section 1546 
        (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and 
        other documents)' the following: ``section 1581-1591 
        (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in 
        persons,''.

Title of Chapter 77

    As a final edit to Chapter 77, we would suggest adding 
``trafficking in persons'' to its title, which would now read 
``Chapter 77--Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons''. 
Parallel edits would also have to be made to the ``Title 18 
Crimes and Criminal Procedure'' list of ``Part 1--Crimes''.

Death Penalty for Trafficking Crimes

    Questions also have arisen regarding the justification for 
the discrepancy between alien smuggling crimes and human 
trafficking crimes with regard to death penalty eligibility. 
Because we do not see a logical justification for the 
discrepancy, we support equalizing the penalties between the 
two. Therefore, we would suggest that this bill include amended 
criminal provisions extending death penalty eligibility to the 
relevant human trafficking crimes that result in the deaths of 
trafficking victims, namely 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1581, 1583, 
1584, 1587, 1589, 1590, and 1591. We recognize that these 
provisions would have to interact with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3591 
(``sentence of death'').

Subsection 7(7): Restriction on Organizations

    While we are not prepared to take the position that 
subsection 7(7) (proposed section 113(g)(2) of the TVPA) in 
unconstitutional, we do think that it raises serious First 
Amendment concerns and may not withstand judicial scrutiny. We 
therefore recommend that this provision be struck from the 
bill.
    The Federal Government may, consistent with the First 
Amendment, prohibit private organizations from using Federal 
funds to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or 
practice of prostitution. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 
196-198 (1991). There is substantial doubt, however, as to 
whether the Federal Government may restrict a domestic grant 
recipient participating in a Federal anti-trafficking program 
from using its own private, segregated funds to promote, 
support, or advocate the legalization or practice of 
prostitution, even if such a restriction applies only to those 
grant recipients providing assistance to victims of severe 
forms of trafficking. See Rust, 500 U.S. at 197; FCC v. League 
of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 399-401 (1984). As a result, 
because this provision of H.R. 2620 would, in effect, prevent 
any organization receiving Federal funds to implement a program 
targeting victims of severe forms of trafficking from using its 
own private funds to promote, support, or advocate the 
legalization or practice of prostitution, we believe that there 
is serious doubt as to whether that provisionwould survive 
judicial scrutiny I challenged in court. In particular, we note that 
the prohibition on grant recipients using their own private, segregated 
funds to promote the legalization of prostitution, as opposed to the 
practice of prostitution, would be particularly vulnerable to legal 
challenge.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If 
we may be of additional assistance, we trust that you will not 
hesitate to call upon us. The Office of Management and Budget 
has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of 
the Administration's program to the presentation of this 
report.
            Sincerely,
                                      William E. Moschella,
                                        Assistant Attorney General.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    The bill was referred to this committee for consideration 
of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of this committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of Rule 
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The changes 
made to existing law by the amendment reported by the Committee 
on International Relations are shown in the report filed by 
that committee (Rept. 108-264, Part 1).

                           Markup Transcript


       BUSINESS MEETING, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003, HOUSE OF 
      REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WASHINGTON, DC

    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 2620, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, for 
purposes of markup and moves it favorable recommendation to the 
House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read 
and open for amendment at any point, and the text as reported 
by the Committee on International Relations, which the members 
have before them, will be considered as read, considered as the 
original text for purposes of amendment, open for amendment at 
any point.
    [H.R. 2620 follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes to explain the bill.
    The State Department has estimated that 50,000 women and 
children are trafficked annually to the U.S. for the sex trade 
the slave-like labor. Others estimate that 100,000 aliens are 
smuggled into the U.S. annually from China alone and are forced 
into slave-like labor to pay off their smuggling debt of tens 
of thousands of dollars.
    The bill combats the trafficking of persons around the 
world through prosecution of traffickers and protection and 
assistance of victims of trafficking. Today's legislation 
authorizes appropriations under the act for the next 2 fiscal 
years and makes a number of modifications to the act. I have a 
more extensive opening statement, which I will put into the 
record at this point in time and yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner follows:]

                Statement of F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

    The State Department has estimated that 50,000 women and children 
are trafficked annually to the U.S. for the sex trade and slave-like 
labor. Others estimate that 100,000 aliens are smuggled into the U.S. 
annually from China alone and are forced into ``slave-like'' labor to 
pay off their smuggling debt of tens of thousands of dollars.
    The Trafficking Victims Protections Act of 2000 combats trafficking 
of persons around the world through prosecution of traffickers and 
through protection and assistance to victims of trafficking. Today's 
legislation, H.R. 2620, authorizes appropriations for programs under 
the Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and makes a number of 
modifications to the Act.
    Among the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act that 
are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary are 
immigration law sections that:
           Make available ``T'' non-immigrant visas to victims 
        of a severe form of trafficking who have complied with any 
        reasonable request for assistance in the investigations or 
        prosecution of acts of trafficking (unless they are younger 
        than 15) and who would suffer extreme hardship upon removal; 
        visas are also available to the victims' spouses, children, and 
        parents if the victims are under 21, and to the spouse and 
        children if the victims are over 21, and
           Grant such aliens permanent residence after three 
        years if they have been of good moral character and if they 
        have complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the 
        investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking or if they 
        would suffer extreme hardship upon removal from the U.S.
    H.R. 2620, as passed by the International Relations committee, 
modifies these provisions by providing that:
           Aliens can qualify to T visas by cooperating with 
        state and local law enforcement agencies as well as federal 
        agencies,
           The age of aliens who can receive T visas without 
        cooperating with law enforcement would be raised from under 15 
        to under 18,
           If an alien receiving a T visa is under 21, 
        unmarried siblings under 21 would be added to the list of 
        family members who can receive visas,
           The ``public charge'' ground of inadmissibility 
        would not apply to aliens seeking T visas, and
           In order to prevent traffickers from obtaining 
        information contain in applications for T visas filed by 
        trafficking victims, the dissemination of information that 
        relates to an applicant would be extremely limited.
    H.R. 2602 also makes a number of other modifications to the 
provisions in the TVPA within the jurisdiction of the Committee, such 
as:
           Adding three new predicate crimes to the RICO 
        statute, relating to forced labor, slavery, and the sex 
        trafficking of children; RICO crimes are punishable by fines, 
        forfeiture, and imprisonment for not more than 20 years or life 
        if a predicate offense carries such a penalty and civil RICO 
        allows the injured person to recover treble damages, costs and 
        attorneys' fees, and
           Authorizing International Law Enforcement Academies, 
        which are targeted at mid-level officials in the police and 
        criminal justice services of countries throughout the world, to 
        train prosecutors and law enforcement regarding trafficking.
    I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would point out that the 
sequential expires on this bill on Monday, and its is unlikely 
that we will get an extension. So we are going to have to 
figure out how to get this bill out before the next vote; 
otherwise, we'll lose jurisdiction.
    The gentleman from Michigan?
    Mr. Conyers. I have a record--a statement to put in the 
record, not a record to put in the statement.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, whatever the 
gentleman wants to put in the record will be done.
    [The statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

               Statement of Congressman John Conyers, Jr.

    Of all the human rights violations currently occurring in our 
world, the trafficking of human beings, predominantly 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.
    In the 106th Congress, we passed the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 2000 in a modest effort to eradicate this form of modern day 
slavery. At that time, thousands of men and women were being forced to 
labor in our fields without pay, to work endless hours in sweatshops, 
and to serve in sexual slavery in cities across this country. And U.S. 
prosecution of traffickers faltered because attorneys in our Department 
of Justice did not have the right tools to pursue the new forms of 
trafficking.
    Today the picture is visibly brighter. Because of the enactment of 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the Attorney General is 
prosecuting cases from American Samoa to Massachusetts. And victims are 
coming forward because of the federal benefits we are offering to them, 
treating them like the refugees that they are.
    But we need to do more. The legislation before us today, the 
Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2003, takes us one step 
further in our commitment to ending modern day slavery.
    This bill authorizes new strategies for prevention, including using 
trafficking victims to identify traffickers at the borders and 
deterring sex tourism, which is part of the fuel of sex slavery around 
the world.
    It increases protection by making measured expansions of the visa 
category for trafficking victims. And it enhances prosecution of 
traffickers by, ensuring that trafficking is treated like the organized 
crime that it is.
    This is good bi-partisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And without objection, all members 
may put opening statements into the record at this point.
    Are there amendments?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question. 
Looking through the bill, it looks like there are a lot of 
grant programs that are extended--that are extended. Are there 
any changes in criminal law in the bill? Criminal penalties?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, the 
answer is yes, there are some changes in criminal law.
    Mr. Scott. And could you----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, there 
are RICO provisions that are added to this bill, and they add 
them as predicate offenses as well for sex trafficking.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Other amendments?
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2620, offered by Mr. 
Hostettler. Page 9, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the 
following----
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
it be considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Hostettler follows:]

    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hostettler. I thank the chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a simple but important 
clarification to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000. Under the act, temporary visas and eventual permanent 
residency are available to aliens who are found to be victims 
of trafficking. A T visa is available to a victim of a severe 
form of trafficking in persons who, if 15 or older, has 
complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the 
investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking and who 
would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual or severe harm 
upon removal.
    A severe form of trafficking means, when not in thecontext 
of sex trafficking, ``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 of 
involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.''
    But what is the difference between aliens who are smuggled 
into the U.S. and aliens who are trafficked into the U.S.? What 
is to prevent an alien who sought out a smuggler and promised 
to pay the smuggler tens of thousands of dollars after being 
smuggled into the United States from then turning around and 
claiming he deserves a victim of trafficking visa?
    What if he claimed that he was subjected to debt bondage or 
peonage because he was put to work by the smuggler? After all, 
most illegal aliens from countries such as China agree to these 
very sort of deals when their smugglers--with their smugglers 
in order to obtain passage. This perverse result is all too 
possible under the trafficking Act as it now exists.
    The T visa regulations demonstrate the trouble the INS had 
in differentiating smuggled and trafficked aliens. The 
commentary on the regulation states that, ``Unlike alien 
smuggling, severe forms of trafficking in persons must involve 
both a particular means, such as the use of force, fraud, or 
coercion, and a particular ends, such as involuntary servitude 
or a commercial sex act.''
    Well, this is not much help because much alien smuggling 
involves these very things. The commentary then states that, 
``Individuals who are voluntarily smuggled into the U.S. in 
order to be used for labor or services may become victims of a 
severe form of trafficking in persons if, for example, after 
arrival the smuggler uses threats of serious harm or physical 
restraint to force the individual into involuntary servitude, 
peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. Federal law prohibits forced 
labor, regardless of the victim's initial consent to work.''
    This is exactly what I was worried about, aliens who sought 
out their smugglers and now claim to be victims of trafficking. 
My amendment simply clarifies that adult aliens who are 
voluntarily smuggled into the U.S. are not eligible for 
trafficking T visas. Those with unclean hands should not be 
rewarded for their deeds. The real victims of trafficking, 
aliens who are brought here against their will or children--
they are children who are sold into bondage by their parents 
will continue to be eligible for visas and permanent residence 
under my amendment. Without this crucial amendment, abuse of 
the T visa will only grow as legions of immigration attorneys 
become familiar with its benefits for their smuggled clients. 
Smuggling will become an even more attractive option than it 
already is, as prospective illegal aliens learn that they can 
receive visas and amnesty oncebeing smuggled into the U.S. and 
forced into work.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I had amendments at the desk 
that I thought were extremely important regarding age-out 
provisions, but I'm prepared to work----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on----
    Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. With my colleague----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The current pending amendment is 
the Hostettler amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I'm speaking to that, then, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, these visas are for victims 
of abuse, victims of violent acts. I believe when you start 
trying to decipher how someone came into the country who is 
being abused, who may be in the process of seeking 
legalization, you make this extremely difficult. The victims 
are not the culprits. They're not the perpetrators of violence. 
And they may be in the country and be utilized in a trafficking 
aspect. They may come into that situation. They may come into 
prostitution. They may come into a situation where they cannot 
get out of in terms of slave employment, if you will.
    And so I would ask that we not have a limitation like this 
with respect to this visa because we are trying to help people, 
and the help then is limited by the restriction of this 
particular amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on--the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment, 
people who come in and are forced into slavery after they get 
here would lose their protection under the Act. I think that's 
going in the wrong direction, and I would hope that we would 
defeat the amendment.
    Mr. Hyde. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I'll yield.
    Mr. Hyde. I think a lot of these women are fraudulently 
lured into the country. You can't say they are forcibly moved 
into the country. But when they're promised a job, when they're 
promised all sorts of benefits, when they come over they find 
themselves working in a sweatshop or in the business of 
prostitution, they have been deceived and they ought to have 
the benefit of the--of the law and not be excluded because they 
were induced and seduced to come in through fraud. I think that 
is just as heinous as forcibly kidnapping them. So I--and, 
again, I don't think you're talking about a substantial number 
of people, but I think in all fairness they are truly victims 
and ought to be protected. So I respectfully will vote no on 
the amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time, those are exactly the kinds 
of people that would lose protection under this amendment, and 
I don't think we ought to victimize the victims as this 
amendment might do.
    Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I'll yield.
    Mr. Cannon. Let me just add--associate myself with the 
comments of the gentleman from Illinois and add that in his 
speech to the UN, the President focused directly on this issue. 
I don't know how we can possibly expect other nations to work 
with us and follow suit and track down this pernicious, ancient 
evil if we ourselves gut our enforcement processes here and 
refuse protection to those people who are defrauded into coming 
to America.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back. 
Thequestion is on the Hostettler amendment.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman has already been 
recognized.
    Mr. Hostettler. A unanimous consent request.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. State your request.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I, unanimous consent, ask to 
revise my amendment, to amend the amendment to state in line 6, 
``(V) did not voluntarily, unless found to be a victim of sex 
trafficking, come to the United States.'' And then on page 2, 
line 11, ``sibling, or parent did not voluntarily''--once again 
insert it--``unless found to be a victim of sex trafficking.''
    Mr. Watt. Reserving the right to object.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Watt. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
reserves the right to object.
    Mr. Watt. I may not object, but I would like to get a 
clarification on who would make this finding. Unless they are 
found to be by whom?
    Mr. Hostettler. The immigration authorities, immigration 
judge.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection?
    Ms. Waters. Objection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard. The question is 
on the Hostettler amendment, not as modified. Those in favor 
will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? If not, a reporting quorum--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Amendment 140.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee Print to H.R. 2620, 
offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Page 9, strike lines 15 
through 18 and insert the following: (2) Admission of 
Nonimmigrants. Section 214(n) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentlewoman's recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have amendments 
140, 141, and 142 that are dealing with issues of age-out. I 
would like to be able to--I see the chairman of the 
International Relations Committee here. I would like to be able 
to work with Mr. Hyde on this.
    Mr. Hyde, this has to do with a parent having a 20-year-old 
or a 19-year-old getting classification and then that 20-year-
old not being able to come under that visa because they might 
age out. I think that is something that we need to consider, 
and I'd appreciate if we'd have the opportunity to work on 
this, possibly before we went to the floor of the House.
    With that, I'll withdraw the amendment.
    [Statements of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee follows:]

    Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on Child Age-out 
                      Protection Amendment No. 140

    Under current law, a trafficking victim who has T visa status may 
be able to accord derivative T visa status to a child. Sometimes, 
however, the children of trafficking victims age-out during the 
approval process. For instance, consider the case of a mother who files 
a T visa application while her daughter is 20 years old. Subsequently, 
the mother's application is approved and her daughter now applies for a 
derivative T visa as the child of a trafficking victim. While the 
daughter's application is being processed, she turns 21 and her 
eligibility expires. She ages out of the child category. Under current 
law, the daughter is then ineligible for derivative T visa status.
    This can be a disaster in the case of a derivative T visa. The 
child waiting for derivative status is only eligible for the T visa in 
the first place if DHS has determined that granting the visa is 
necessary to avoid extreme hardship. My amendment would avoid extreme 
hardship in such cases by providing age-out protection. If the daughter 
was under the age of 21 when the mother applied for T visa status for 
herself, the daughter will continue to satisfy this age requirement 
even if she reaches the age of 21 before she can be granted derivative 
T visa status.
    I urge you to vote for this amendment to avoid such unnecessary and 
unwarranted consequences.
                                 ______
                                 

    Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on Parent Status 
                      Protection Amendment No. 141

    Under current law, a trafficking victim with T visa status who is 
under the age of 21 may accord derivative T visa status to a parent. 
Sometimes, however, the trafficking victim ages-out during the approval 
process. For instance, consider the case of a daughter who files a T 
visa application while she is 20 years old. When her application is 
approved, she applies for derivative T visa status for her mother. 
While the application is being processed, the daughter turns 21 and her 
eligibility to accord derivative status to her mother expires. Under 
current law, the mother is then ineligible for derivative T visa 
status.
    This can be a disaster in the case of a derivative T visa. The 
mother waiting for derivative status is only eligible for derivative T 
visa status in the first place if DHS has determined that granting the 
derivative visa is necessary to avoid extreme hardship. My amendment 
would avoid extreme hardship in such cases by providing age-out 
protection. If the daughter was under the age of 21 when the applied 
for T visa status for herself, the daughter will continue to satisfy 
this age requirement even if she reaches the age of 21 before her 
mother can be granted derivative T visa status.
    I urge you to vote for this amendment to avoid such unnecessary and 
unwarranted hardships to the parents of trafficking victims.
                                 ______
                                 

   Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on a T-Visa Renewal 
                               Amendment

    Trafficking victims may be able to obtain temporary status in this 
country if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that 
they meet the requirements for a nonimmigrant T visa under section 
101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These 
requirements include being a victim of a severe form of trafficking, 
being willing to comply with any reasonable request for assistance in 
the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, and a finding 
by DHS that the alien would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual 
and severe harm upon removal from the United States. When such a visa 
is issued to a trafficking victim, his or her immediate family members 
(spouses, children, or parents) may be eligible to receive a derivative 
T visa if DHS considers this necessary to avoid extreme hardship.
    When a trafficking victim has been present in the United States for 
a continuous period of at least 3 years on the basis of a T visa, DHS 
has discretionary authority to adjust the status of the trafficking 
victim and his or her immediate family members who have T visas too. 
DHS can grant them lawful permanent resident status if the trafficking 
victim continues to satisfy the requirements for the initial issuance 
of the T visa and has been a person of good moral character throughout 
his or her period of residence in the United States. Among other 
things, this means that DHS would have to find again that the 
trafficking victim would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and 
severe harm upon removal from the United States.
    The Immigration and Nationality Act does not limit the duration of 
T visas. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 
however, promulgated a regulation that limits T visa status to a 3-year 
period and specifies that the status cannot be renewed. Consequently, 
when a trafficking victim with T visa status has resided in the United 
States for 3 years, he or she must file for permanent residency or 
return to his or her country of origin.
    I question whether the INS had the authority to impose such a limit 
on the duration of T visa status. In any case, I amconcerned about the 
fact that trafficking victims may have provided information about 
trafficking operations as a condition for maintaining their T via 
status. In such cases, the possibility of retribution could make it too 
dangerous for them to return until the traffickers are incarcerated, 
yet they may not want to remain in the United States permanently. Many 
of them were taken by force from their families and would like to go 
home when it is safe for them to do so.
    My amendment would avoid this problem by permitting DHS to grant a 
3-year extension on T via status for trafficking victims and family 
members. This authority would be limited to the cases of trafficking 
victims and their family members who can satisfy the same hardship 
requirements that they had to satisfy to obtain their initial grants of 
T via status, which almost certainly would be the case where serious 
retribution is feared.
    I urge you to vote for my amendment. Thank you.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments? If not, a reporting quorum is 
present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill 
H.R. 2620 favorably. All those in favor will say aye, those 
opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
motion to report favorably is agreed to.
    Without objection, the chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House Rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, 
and all members may be given 2 days as provided by the House 
Rules in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, 
or minority views.

                                
