Congress finds the following:
(1)
The Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) rely on contractors to provide various services in foreign countries such as construction, security, and facilities maintenance.
(2)
In certain cases, such as where the employment of local labor is impractical or poses security risks, Department of State and USAID contractors sometimes employ foreign workers who are citizens neither of the United States nor of the host country and are recruited from developing countries where low wages and recruitment methods often make them vulnerable to a variety of trafficking-related abuses.
(3)
A January 2011 report of the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of State, while it found no evidence of direct coercion by contractors, found that a significant majority of their foreign workers in certain Middle East countries reported paying substantial fees to recruiters that, according to the Inspector General, “effectively resulted in debt bondage at their destinations”. Approximately one-half of the workers were charged recruitment fees equaling more than six months’ salary. More than a quarter of the workers reported fees greater than one year’s salary and, in some of those cases, fees that could not be paid off in two years, the standard length of a contract.
(4)
A November 2014 report of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO–15–102) found that the Department of State, USAID, and the Defense Department need to strengthen their oversight of contractors’ use of foreign workers in high-risk environments in order to better protect against trafficking in persons.
(5)
The GAO report recommended that those agencies should develop more precise definitions of recruitment fees, and that they should better ensure that contracting officials include prevention of trafficking in persons in contract monitoring plans and processes, especially in areas where the risk of trafficking in persons is high.
(6)
Of the 3 agencies addressed in the GAO report, only the Department of Defense expressly concurred with GAO’s definitional recommendation and committed to defining recruitment fees and to incorporating that definition in its acquisition regulations as necessary.
(7)
In formal comments to GAO, the Department of State stated that it forbids the charging of any recruitment fees by contractors, and both the Department of State and USAID noted a proposed Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule that prohibits charging any recruitment fees to employees.
(8)
However, according to GAO, neither the Department of State nor USAID specifically defines what constitutes a prohibited recruitment fee: “Contracting officers and agency officials with monitoring responsibilities currently rely on policy and guidance regarding recruitment fees that are ambiguous. Without an explicit definition of the components of recruitment fees, prohibited fees may be renamed and passed on to foreign workers, increasing the risk of debt bondage and other conditions that contribute to trafficking.”.
(9)
GAO found that, although Department of State and USAID guidance requires their respective contracting officials to monitor compliance with trafficking in persons requirements, they did not consistently have specific processes in place to do so in all of the contracts that GAO sampled.