-------

In response to the posting by the Forced Migration Project of OSI, I
would

like to make a slight amendment.  The participants at the meeting were

unable to arrive at any consensus upon the definition of trafficking in
the

Wellstone bill.  Some, including myself, were of the view that the

definition in the bill is inclusive as it covers everyone who, through

deception, coercion or debt bondage, is or is intended to be moved into
or

held in conditions of forced labor, involuntary servitude or
slavery-like

conditions.  Some others were of the view that everyone who is involved
in

any way with the movement of women into prostitution or into marriages

through a mail order bride business should be criminalized, even if
there

is no deception, coercion or debt bondage and no forced labor,
involuntary

servitude or slavery-like conditions.  This would include voluntary

movement of women into countries where prostitution and mail order
bride

businesses are legal and when the women involved do not view themselves
as

victims of any crime.  


We did not discuss the Smith bill definition in detail but it is

underinclusive because it only focusses on trafficking into the sex

industry and not into any other forms of labor.  It does, however,
also

require deception or coercion as an element of trafficking.


We did agree, as mentioned by FMP, to consider ways in which we could
work

together on improving the protections in the bills as neither bill

addresses the essential human rights protections that must be accorded
to

all trafficked persons, no matter the definition.


Both of the bills are available on the web at:  www.congress.gov.  The

Wellstone bill is S600 and the Smith bill is HR 1356.


Ann Jordan

Director, Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons

International Human Rights Law Group

trafficking@hrlawgroup.org