9, Section 110
The Department opposes the statutory language in subsection 1 10(a)(1)(B) that specifically mentions the U.S. Government sponsored hotlines for reporting instances of- trafficking in persons. Statutorily providing for the names of the hotlincs would interfcre with the President’s policy-making authority to change the hotline structure at a later date. Furthermore, the Act, as written, misnames the hotlines.
10. Section 201
In section 201, the Department objects to the new subsection “(bb).” To the extent that such a subsection is necessary, a question that we defer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the decision regarding cooperation should include the Attomey General in addition to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as it does in Section 201(b).
DOJ defers to DHS in regard to subsection (a)(1)(E), although we would note that by removing the “unusual and severe harm” standard, victims will be eligible for a T-visa upon a lower showing of “extreme hardship.”
The Department also defers to DHS in regard to subsection (a)(2), which would extend T-visas to parents and siblings of trafficking victims. As a factual matter, however, the provision should be amended to strike any reference to “as a result of the alien’s cooperation with law enforcement.” Traffickers threaten victims to intimidate them into compliance with traffickers’ demands and to retaliate for victims’ escape, not because of law enforcement cooperation. It is counter-factual to describe the pattern of threats and retaliation as linked to law enforcement cooperation, and disregards the fact that threats often only subside when law enforcement takes measures to secure the family or punish the traffickers and their associates who threaten victims’ families, Furthermore, it is unclear whether the reference to siblings encompasses both minor and adult siblings, and whether spouses and children of adult siblings would be eligible for a T- visa, :
In subsection (b), DOJ opposes the new subsection (8)(B), which grants sole authority to the Secretary of DHS to consider whether “extreme hardship” exists. The new section, however, also requires consultation with “prosecutors,” which presumably refers to prosecutors at DOJ, since DOJ is the lead prosecutorial agency for cases involving human trafficking. Since these prosecutors are under the Attomey General’s authority, the consultation requirement should include consultation with the Attorncy General.
Subsection (c)(1), which creates the new subsection (3)(A)(i) in section 107(c) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), should limit applications for continued presence to those being made by “Federal” law enforcement officials, Limiting the applications to those submitted by Federal law enforcement assists in the victim identification process. The Department has established a memorandum of understanding with DHS that ensures that the Department’s prosecutors are informed when investigators apply for continued presence. Furthermore, limiting the applications to those submitted by Federal law enforcement ensures the uniformity of standards in making the determination as to whether an individual is a victim of a
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012375