DOJ comments oppose and critique proposed human trafficking legislation sections

DOJ opposes section 214(d), as it could be construed to require the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make legislative recommendations to Congress in violation of the Recommendations Clause. To avoid this concern, we recommend inserting “, if any,” after “recommendations” in section 214(d)(2)(E). Further, DOJ finds subsection (d) redundant. A thorough study of services available to domestic and foreign victims was conducted by the Senior Policy Operating Group in 2005-2006 and found few statutory differences between the treatment of domestic and foreign victims. Subsection (d)(2)(C) contains a redundant statement. Victims of sex trafficking are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. 17. Section 221 In subscction (a), DOJ opposes the proposed change o This change of law would create a strict ability crime, similar to 18 U.S.C. § 2423{a), with a similarly severe 10 year } is exceedingly Therefore, the suggested subsection (a) would create a rare circumstance wherein there is a substantial mandatory minimum sentence for an already unusual strict liability crime. Accordingly, this provision is likely to face significant legal challenges. DOJ opposes subsection (b) in its entirety, The proposed language is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive of human trafficking activities, and the language is vague, Moreover, the provision is unnecessary because section 1589 already prohibits many of these activities when they result in “serious harm,” whether physical or emotional, to the victim. The Department opposes subsection (f)(1), which would expand the Mann Act to include cases “affecting” interstate commerce. The Department does not require any additional statutory authority or expanded jurisdiction in order to continue its successful prosecution of human <* The Department’s record during the last six years demonstrates its success gating prosecuting trafficking and related crimes and in convicting and securing appropriate sentences for traffickers. This allocation between state and Federal enforcement authority does not imply that these crimes are less serious, but rather rcflects important structural allocations of responsibility between state and Federal governments. The federalization of these crimes would treat them differently than other serious crimes such as murder and rape, which are prosecuted at the state level. Kidnapping, similarly, is a Federal crime only when it involves transportation “in” interstate commerce. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012379