U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–798 PDF 2015

CHILD EXPLOITATION RESTITUTION FOLLOWING 

THE PAROLINE v. UNITED STATES DECISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 19, 2015 

Serial No. 114–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 19, 2015 

Page 

WITNESSES 

Jill Steinberg, National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and 

Interdiction, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of 

Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, George Washington University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 80 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82 

Grier Weeks, Executive Director, National Association to Protect Children 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 100 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 102 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Witness Introductions ............................................................................................. 3 

Material submitted by the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ...... 19 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ...... 119 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 120 

Preparted Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ......................... 121 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 122 

Prepared Statement of Victims of Child Pornography ......................................... 124 

(1) 

CHILD EXPLOITATION RESTITUTION FOLLOWING THE PAROLINE v. UNITED STATES 

DECISION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Gohmert, 

Chabot, Poe, Buck, Bishop, Jackson Lee, and Conyers. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & 

General Counsel; Sarah Allen, Counsel; Alicia Church, Clerk; (Minority) Joe Graupensperger, Counsel; Vanessa Chen, Counsel; and 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will be in order. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses at 

any time due to votes on the House floor. 

Let me see, we are due to have votes sometime between 10:05 

and 10:15, and then another series of votes at 11:45. It is the 

Chair’s intent not to resume the hearing after the second series of 

votes, so we will have to go over there to vote, come on back, and 

then resume the hearing. So this is kind of going to be the rocket 

docket. 

The Chair will withhold his opening statement, and at this time 

ask unanimous consent to have all opening statements be placed 

in the record. If either the full Committee Chair or the Ranking 

Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, want to give an opening statement, 

which the Chair will discourage, they may do so. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I will put my statement in the record. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies. 

I will put in my statement, which I intend to have revised, and you 
2 

have given me a great opportunity. I will ask unanimous consent 

for that statement to be placed in the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ opening 

statements will be placed in the record. And the Chair will remember that you have—— 

Mr. CONYERS. You didn’t ask me. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Oh, I didn’t see you. The gentleman from 

Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. I am going along with the crowd here this morning. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Bless you. 

We have a very distinguished panel today, and I will begin by 

swearing you all in, if you would please rise. 

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony 

you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Let the record show that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Let me give a brief introduction of all of the witnesses, and ask 

unanimous consent that the full introduction be placed in the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Jill Steinberg serves as the national coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction at the 

United States Department of Justice. 

The Honorable Paul Cassell is an endowed chair of the University of Utah College of Law. Professor Cassell received a J.D. from 

Stanford, which shows that he is a person of great intellect, and 

he also makes good choices. 

Professor Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School. 

And Grier Weeks is the executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, which he helped establish in 2004. 

Without objection, all the witnesses’ statements will be placed in 

the record in full. Each witness will be asked to summarize their 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. You all know what the red, yellow, 

and green lights mean. 

Ms. Steinberg, you are first. 

TESTIMONY OF JILL STEINBERG, NATIONAL COORDINATOR 

FOR CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION AND INTERDICTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. STEINBERG. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank 

you for the leadership that you have taken in addressing restitution for child pornography victims. On behalf of the Justice Department, I look forward to working closely with you on this issue. 

Every day, individuals around the world advertise, distribute, 

and access child pornography. These images of child sexual abuse 

are moved from computer to smart phone to tablet to cloud storage 

and back, seamlessly crisscrossing international borders without 

detection. When sexually explicit images of children become actively traded, those victims necessarily are implicated in hundreds 

of cases all over the country and across time. 

In this way, these victims are unique among crime victims. Because of the mechanics of the crime committed against them, they 

continually suffer harm caused by countless individuals all over the 

country and the world. 

Like all crime victims, victims of child pornography are entitled 

to full and timely restitution as provided by law, including restitution for losses that arise from the collection and distribution of 

their images. 

In 2009, for the first time, a victim came forward and sought restitution not just from the person who produced and initially shared 

those images, but from the subsequent individuals who collected 

and traded those images. Soon, Federal prosecutors across the 

country were seeking restitution in collection and distribution cases 

for child pornography victims. For the most part, prosecutors were 

successful in obtaining restitution orders for those victims. 

Despite the department’s overall effort and success in obtaining 

restitution orders for these victims, there were some hard-fought 

losses. Some courts struggled to determine whether a defendant 

proximately caused a victim’s loss. If a defendant was one of thousands of individuals who harmed a victim, some courts found that 

he could not have proximately caused her losses because those 
7 

losses essentially would be the same if he had not committed the 

crime. On that logic, some courts denied restitution. 

Others demanded a showing as to how much an individual defendant incrementally increased a victim’s loss, which imposed a 

generally insurmountable evidentiary burden. 

Among courts that awarded restitution, many courts grappled 

with how much that restitution should be. Although most awards 

clustered in the range of $1,000 to $5,000, courts adopted numerous different approaches to come up with that number. 

These two issues were brought to the Supreme Court in Paroline 

v. United States last term. In its majority opinion, the Court found 

that the unique issue of imposing restitution in child pornography 

cases required the use of a less demanding causal standard. The 

majority opinion concluded that in these types of child pornography 

cases, a court should order restitution in an amount that comports 

with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process that 

underlies the victim’s general losses. 

Paroline has substantially improved the department’s ability to 

obtain restitution orders for these victims. Since Paroline, the department has obtained approximately 160 restitution orders in approximately 60 Federal districts across the country. In that time, 

we are not aware of any district court judge denying a restitution 

order in these kinds of cases because of the failure of proof on the 

Causation issue. Instead, courts can focus on how much restitution should be ordered. 

Although Paroline has significantly improved the department’s 

ability to obtain restitution in these kinds of cases, legislation is 

still needed to improve our ability to help these victims. Current 

data tells us that there are over 8,500 children who have been 

identified in images of child pornography. Yet as of yesterday, 

when we found out about one additional victim who is asking for 

restitution, there are only 16 victims seeking restitution in child 

pornography distribution, receipt, and possession cases in Federal 

court. 

The department believes that the reason so few seek restitution 

is because the process of litigating claims in hundreds of cases 

around the country over many years is simply too burdensome, and 

we can do better. 

The department urges Congress to create an alternative system 

that allows victims of the distribution and collection of child pornography to obtain some measure of restitution without enduring 

litigation. 

Under this system, child pornography defendants would be required to pay a special assessment, in addition to any restitution 

that they might owe. The special assessment would go into a fund. 

Victims of these types of child pornography cases could then choose 

whether to present their full restitution claim in court, as they do 

now, or to avail themselves of a onetime source of administrative 

compensation. 

This two-track process is meant to ameliorate the structural impediments that we believe deters victims from coming forward now 

while preserving the option of obtaining full restitution for those 

who wish to do so. 
8 

Thank you for your continued consideration of this issue. The department looks forward to working with Congress to find the best 

means to advance an important cause of putting restitution in the 

hands of these victims. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Steinberg follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair hears bells in the distance, 

which means that we have to go to vote. Before recessing the hearing, the Chair asks unanimous consent to include in the record a 

statement by Linda Krieg, the acting CEO of the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children, on this subject. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to the previous order, the Subcommittee stands in recess. Members are advised to come back as 

soon as the last vote in this series is taken. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will be in order. 

Professor Cassell? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL G. CASSELL, RONALD 

N. BOYCE PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL LAW, 

S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 

UTAH 

Mr. CASSELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to 

testify in support of legislation to expand restitution for child pornography victims. 

As the Subcommittee is aware, last April, the Supreme Court 

handed down its decision in Paroline v. United States. The case involved a young victim of Federal child pornography crimes, Amy. 

She had a documented restitution claim for significant psychological counseling costs, costs that were attributable to the crimes 

of literally thousands of criminals scattered across the country. 

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision interpreted a restitution 

statute enacted by Congress and held that an order of restitution 

is only appropriate to the extent that it reflects the defendant’s relative role in the causal process underlying the victim’s financial 

losses. 

Exactly what this holding means is not completely clear, and 

lower courts are currently struggling to implement the Court’s 

holding. But even the Supreme Court itself seemed to recognize 

that Congress would need to amend the restitution statute. Chief 

Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, noted that 

the majority opinion would result in tiny restitution awards to 

Amy, and that Congress should have the chance to ‘‘fix it.’’ 

Justice Sotomayor, too, called for a congressional response, explaining that, in the end, it is Congress that will have the final say. 

She specifically suggested that Congress might amend the statute, 

for example, to include the term ‘‘aggregate causation’’ or to set 

minimum restitution amounts. 

Following up on the specific suggestions in the dissenting opinions, the proposed Amy and Vicky act would specifically mandate 

the use of an aggregate causation standard in making restitution 

determinations. The Amy and Vicky act would also simplify apportionment issues by establishing fixed minimum restitution 

amounts, $25,000 for possession crimes, $150,000 for distribution 

crimes, and $250,000 for production crimes. 

It is important to note that none of these amounts exceeds the 

current maximum fine amount, $250,000, and it is hard to understand how ordering restitution that goes to victims in amounts 

equal to or less than what can already go to the government could 

be found objectionable by anyone. 

The view that Congress should step in and amend the child pornography restitution statute appears to be widely shared. On today’s panel, all four of us have provided testimony calling for 

changes to the statute. Mr. Weeks and I both support the Amy and 
25 

Vicky act. The Justice Department, too, has advocated setting minimum restitution amounts, calling such a change to be helpful. And 

Professor Turley supports amendments to provide for minimum 

restitution awards for those who produce or distribute child pornography. 

This broad support for changes to the statute is also reflected in 

the resounding 98-to-nothing vote that the Senate gave in passing 

the act, as well as 43 endorsements from attorneys general. 

In my written testimony, I explained at length how the act is 

consistent with well-settled principles of tort law, which hold that 

intentional wrongdoers, like the criminals involved here, must 

shoulder the burden of paying for harms to which their wrongful 

actions contribute. 

But rather than end with a law professor’s explication of tort theory, I want to conclude my remarks with the words of a courageous 

young woman whom I have had the great privilege to represent in 

courts across the country, including the United States Supreme 

Court. 

My client Amy is seated in the hearing room today, along with 

two other victims of child pornography crimes, whom I will refer 

to has Alice and Aurora. They are available to meet with the Committee or the Committee staff after today’s hearing. 

But each of them have asked me to convey to the Subcommittee 

the endless trauma that they endure. As Amy explained to me, 

‘‘Imagine that you were abused, raped, and hurt, and this is something that other people want. They enjoy it, and it is you. It is your 

life and it is your pain that they are enjoying. And it never stops, 

and you are helpless to do anything ever to stop it. That is horror.’’ 

This Subcommittee can never go back and erase the horrors that 

Amy and others like her have already suffered. But moving forward, it can put in place a workable statute that would provide restitution from convicted criminals who have contributed to their 

pain. 

The House should hear Amy’s plea and join the Senate in passing the Amy and Vicky act. Victims of child pornography crimes deserve nothing less than full and speedy restitution. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cassell follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

Professor Turley? 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF 

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking 

Member Jackson Lee, Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great 

honor to appear before you to discuss this important issue of restitution for child exploitation in the aftermath of the Paroline decision. 

Even though I have taught tort law for decades, and practiced in 

the area of criminal defense, I have to say, this is the most challenging question I have faced when called before a Committee of 

Congress. 

In my view, the Supreme Court was correct when it struck down 

the prior system, which contained a well-intentioned but ill-conceived model for relief for these victims. The problem, as I explain 

in my written testimony, is not with the core culprits of these 

crimes. For them, the restitution is fairly clear and conventional. 

The problem is with that group of culprits that are accused of viewing or possession of these images. 

As the Supreme Court itself said on page 24 of the opinion, the 

prior system pushed traditional concepts of tort and criminal law 

to ‘‘the breaking point.’’ And I certainly agree with that. 

There are no advocates of child pornography here today. There 

are no such advocates in this debate. We all agree that these are 

horrendous crimes. More importantly, we agree that these victims 

need restitution and relief, and that too few of them are receiving 

that. So no one was doing a victory lap when the Supreme Court 

struck down the prior system. 

I thought it was a sad moment, because I believed before the 

opinion that it was unnecessary litigation, that the system was 

flawed and that it could have been avoided, and that, more importantly, these victims could have gotten the relief that they deserve. 

It is important to remember that even though the decision was 

5-4, there were eight Justices that felt that restitution could not be 

awarded under the prior system. And of the circuits, there was not 

much of a split. There was just one circuit that said restitution of 

this kind could be granted. Ten said that it could not because of 

these core principles of proximate causation, joint and several liability, and other controversies. 

So we are not here to vent about the opinion but to try to learn 

from it. I think there are things that could be learned from it, and 

I believe that the Committee could make this a better system to 

better assist these victims. 

While I agree with the Supreme Court decision, I thought the 

most unfortunate aspect, and Paul has indicated this as well, is 

that the guidelines given to lower courts are not very helpful. They 

are pretty opaque, in fact, as to what lower courts are supposed to 

do to find a figure of restitution. You end up with sort of a 

Goldilocks figure. They want it to be not too big, not too small, but 

just right. That is not going to help out these courts. These judges 

will be left with this sort of Sisyphean task of trying to find a way 

to fit this round peg into a square hole. I think that is the problem. 
81 

That is the reason I suggest in my testimony that the Committee 

consider the creation of a compensation fund. I call it tentatively 

‘‘RAISE.’’ That RAISE fund would follow previous funds created, 

including the International Terrorism Victim Expense Reimbursement Fund. But also it would track this approach in tort cases, 

mass tort cases, as well as settlement cases in areas like the BP 

oil spill, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. 

I go through the benefits of this fund. I think that the current 

system is insane, to have each of these victims have to go through 

this process, hire attorneys, have judges try to reinvent the wheel 

in every single case in finding a figure. 

So I recommend the fund for various reasons. One is that it is 

fair. It would guarantee fair and equitable distribution to victims. 

Second, it would reduce legal fees, because you would have a 

fund that would be able to administer this process. It would reduce 

court costs so that judges would not be faced with what is clearly 

a very difficult task. 

It would also end the race to the courthouse. You wouldn’t have 

the problem of people getting first into a case, possibly tapping out 

a defendant to the possible disadvantage of other victims. 

It would also reduce information and transactional costs, and 

guarantee a more consistent and perhaps increased number of orders for victims. As was previously said, we have 8,500 victims 

here, but if you take a look at how many of the victims have received compensation, it is ridiculously small. 

So the question for the Committee is, are you going to have a retort to the Supreme Court or reform? I think the Senate bill is 

more of a retort. It does not really take from the opinion what it 

could. 

I will end simply by noting Archimedes once said very famously 

that if you give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum to place it 

on, I can move the world. The question here is the lever. I think 

Congress made the wrong decision, and this would give you a new 

lever and would give victims a better life. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turley follows:] 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Professor. 

Mr. Weeks? 

TESTIMONY OF GRIER WEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN 

Mr. WEEKS. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am a Grier Weeks with Protect. We are a pro-child, anticrime membership association. We 

have been working on this issue, in particular, with Congress and 

in the States since 2006. 

Child pornography is a massive black market in the United 

States. The market demand can only be supplied in one way, and 

that is through the additional rape and torture of children. Many 

of those children, if not most, are toddlers or elementary school 

age, and they have no idea that their nightmare is not over when 

the assaults stop. 

There are somewhere on the order of 5 million known video and 

images of children being abused today. There has been over 8,000 

victims identified. 

I think it is important for you to understand, as policymakers, 

that the vast majority of those victims have not been identified 

through any concerted national effort. They have been identified in 

the normal course of law enforcement investigations. And this is a 

serious shame, I think. 

If you ask law enforcement their best estimates for how many 

victims there are out there, it will always tend to be in the tens 

of thousands. We think that about 50,000 is a very safe estimate 

for how many victims are out there. 

But I want to point out there is a much larger iceberg there. We 

know that there are over 1 million people in this country sexually 

preying on children. That means that there are millions of child 

victims, and every one of those kids is in danger of having a camera or smart phone pointed at them and becoming a victim of child 

pornography. 

The Amy and Vicky act, if drafted properly, and I am not here 

as a legal expert, would be a fix to part of the problem. I want to 

say that victims, survivors, transcenders, really, of abuse, like Amy 

and Vicky, who have really gone to great lengths in their lives to 

go fight to make the predators accountable, are national heroes. 

And they need a solution. 

I want to also say that there has been some suggestion that if 

there were a victim restitution compensation fund, that the victims 

have to choose that or go to court. I think the spirit of the crime 

victims’ rights act is that you have the right to confront the person 

who abused you or committed the crime against you, to be heard, 

and to exact some measure of justice. I do not think we can say 

to people, well, you forfeited that right because you availed yourself 

of help from a government fund. 

In 2014, our organization compiled a report on the state of affairs 

in all 50 States with crime victim compensation funds. The author 

Susan Nelson found that 44 States and the District of Columbia either do not allow or make it very difficult for victims to recover 

damages from these funds. 
101 

In New York, for example, if you are a victim of a frivolous lawsuit, you are eligible for compensation. But if you are a victim of 

child sexual exploitation, you are not. 

The problem cannot be solved piecemeal, state-by-state. The fact 

is that the vast majority of victims are never going to hire an attorney, never going to put themselves through the ordeal of recounting what happened to them, in the courtroom. We need a Federal 

solution. We need a Federal fund. 

Unlike virtually any other crime on the books, a victim in Ohio 

may have simultaneous perpetrators in 49 other States. We support a dedicated Federal crime victim compensation fund that 

should be at the Department of Justice. The Office for Victims of 

Crime is the natural home for this fund, as they already oversee 

the Crime Victims Fund. 

It should utilize money from a special assessment on child sexual 

exploitation crimes. We should make the perpetrators pay for this. 

And they should be graduated based on seriousness of offense. 

It will need to be reconciled, if the justice for victims of trafficking act were to make it out of the Senate. It needs to be reconciled with that. 

The fund should be seeded up front, I believe, with funds from 

the Crime Victims Fund, which now has a staggering balance of 

about $9 billion. That will be more than recouped over the years. 

It really should be user-friendly. It is just inhumane to ask victims to come forward with a shoebox full of receipts for everything 

that has happened to them since they were 8 years old. 

Finally, I want to say that we can’t just worry about yesterday’s 

victims. We have to think about today’s victims. There are only so 

many special assessments and fines that can be piled on. If a special assessment is created, a portion should go to law enforcement, 

I would say as much as 50 percent. That will grow the fund for all 

victims concerned, but it also is the only way of ensuring that we 

are not just helping those brave survivors who have gotten strong 

and stepped forward to fight for their rights. We are also protecting 

the 5 year olds, the 8 year olds today who desperately need to be 

rescued, and that is law enforcement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weeks follows:] 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weeks. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. It will be kind of more of 

a list of concerns than a question, although I may have one or two 

at the end. 

Everybody here wants to make those who perpetrate and distribute child pornography pay and pay dearly. We all know that 

there is a lot of money in it, and this is criminal money. We ought 

to make those who attempt to make a lot of money and get caught 

really have the book thrown at them, and it is not just jail time. 

The second issue is how we compensate people who have been 

the victims of child pornography. The Paroline decision talks a lot 

about that and comes to the conclusion that the current statute is 

defective. 

The third point is, how do we compensate the victims, how much, 

what they have to show to be compensated, and whether it is proper to call this restitution when it might go beyond the restitution 

that is necessary to actually deal with the psychological damage 

that is done to people who are victims of child pornography. 

This is kind of something that is all mixed up. The Paroline case, 

in my opinion, shows very clearly that Congress got it wrong when 

it passed the trafficking statute Section 2259 of the Criminal Code. 

This time we have to do it right, because there will be a further 

Paroline-type case that makes it all the way up to the Supreme 

Court. And if we don’t do it right, in a few years, we will be back 

right from the start. 

It appears from the testimony that Amy and Vicky’s law is a 

good start, but it doesn’t do it right completely. With all these concerns that have been raised by the witnesses today, let me ask you, 

Professor Cassell, how you think Amy and Vicky’s law can be 

strengthened in a way that we don’t have to respond to a Supreme 

Court decision years down the road. 

Mr. CASSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you make a 

very good point. The Amy and Vicky act is a good start and should 

be the first step in the process. But there are obviously additional 

steps that can be taken, and I list some of those in my testimony. 

One of the key things is the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which I 

know you were instrumental in helping to pass about 10 years ago. 

One of the problems there is that there was initially appropriation 

made for crime victims’ legal representation that has since disappeared. So I think that would be the number one thing Congress 

could do, to reestablish the funding that was part of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. That would provide legal representation for victims on restitution issues and every other issue that they have. 

There were also some other things that could be done to 

strengthen the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, such as ensuring proper 

appellate review of crime victims’ claims. 

I think it is certainly worth discussing the idea of a fund, but 

what has been interesting for me is the Justice Department, who 

we had to litigate against in the Supreme Court on these issues, 

threw out the idea of a fund 5 years ago. Well, here they are today 

still talking about it, but when is the department actually going to 

put something forward that is specific? 

The Amy and Vicky act is something specific. It is legislation 

that has passed the Senate, and it would make a real-world dif-
112 

ference for Amy, Vicky, and many other victims around the country. I think that is the thing that has to happen. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With all due respect to our colleagues on 

the other side of the Capitol, there are a lot of bills that pass the 

Senate that we have to fix up. This is a case where we have to do 

it right the first time, because if we don’t do it right the first time 

and try to take a bow and say, ‘‘Guess what, folks? We have solved 

this problem,’’ when we really know we didn’t, I think we are just 

deceiving the American public, knowing that further litigation is 

going to result in an inconclusive decision by the Supreme Court, 

which will make a lot of the victims of this type of crime very frustrated and very unhappy. 

I think that Amy has indicated that on the record after this all 

went up to the Supreme Court, where eight of the nine Justices 

said that under the current statute, no restitution was possible. 

I guess what I would like to say is that I am concerned that if 

the shoebox full of receipts, using Professor Turley’s testimony, 

ends up resulting in a pittance and a slap on the wrist, and having 

a minimum amount of restitution damages, I am concerned that 

that would raise some Eighth Amendment problems that we really 

don’t need to be adding to the whole business of things that have 

to be solved. 

So I am going to say I am very, very eager and willing to work 

with everybody who has an oar in the water. But remember, the 

goal is to do it right, not to do something where people can take 

a bow on the Sunday morning talk shows and then being embarrassed that their law has been struck down because it is wrong or 

because it is not specific enough. 

With that, I will call on the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the witnesses. 

Let me ask Professor Turley, does the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines apply to restitution statutes in criminal cases? 

Mr. TURLEY. Thank you. It is wonderful to appear again before 

you, sir. 

The Supreme Court actually touched on this and said that restitution, even though it is traditionally not a punitive measure, can 

trigger the Eighth Amendment because it is part of the criminal 

process. They touched on it lightly on the opinion that this can conflict as an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. 

I think that most of the opinion is directed at the origins of these 

doctrines of proximate causation in torts, where the court is saying, 

look, this just doesn’t fit. What you are trying to do here with possessors, and I think that is the key here, that if you want to fix 

this thing, I think that you need to separate who are the targets. 

When it comes to those core individuals, the ones that do the 

filming and distribution, I don’t see a serious problem, even with 

Senate bill. But the Senate bill replicates many of the problems 

that the Supreme Court identified. In some respects, it is a cosmetic change. I think that is how it will be viewed by some of the 

Justices. 
113 

Where I think we have our issue, what makes this difficult, are 

with possessors and fitting it into a restitution scheme. The Chairman was addressing that as well. 

So the answer, sir, is yes, excessive fines can run afoul of the 

Eighth Amendment. In fact, it was raised by the Supreme Court. 

But you can actually get on to terra firma, if you just take a different approach to this issue. I think that, frankly, this was just 

the wrong path to take with that group of individuals. You can get 

to the same place. You can actually get to the same relief, but you 

can do it in a way that will avoid all of this litigation. 

It is sort of like when a patient goes to the doctor and says, ‘‘Doc, 

when I do this, it hurts.’’ And the doctor says, ‘‘Stop doing that.’’ 

I think that is the problem here, that you are using the wrong 

means for that class of defendants. 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Steinberg and Professor Cassell and Mr. 

Weeks, are you in general agreement with the response that has 

been made so far? 

Mr. CASSELL. I am not. I think the Eighth Amendment does not 

apply at all to restitution awards. Restitution awards do not punish 

criminals. They provide compensation to victims. 

I litigated that issue in the 10th Circuit in the Oklahoma City 

bombing case on behalf of 169 families and many others who were 

trying to get a very large restitution award entered against Terry 

Nichols so he couldn’t go sell a book or do something like that and 

profit from his horrible crime. 

The issue went to the 10th Circuit, and the 10th Circuit said restitution does not punish criminals. It is compensation. So some of 

the other constitutional restraints that may apply in other settings, 

when Congress sets mandatory minimums or things like that, simply do not apply. 

The other key thing to remember about the Amy and Vicky act, 

today, a possessor of child pornography can be ordered to pay 

$250,000 to the government. The Amy of Vicky act says to a possessor, well, let’s not send money to the government. Let’s send 

$25,000 to a victim. 

If you can send $250,000 to the government, it is hard for me to 

imagine how any court in the land would say, well, $25,000 to a 

victim is cruel and unusual punishment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Any other comments on this? 

Mr. WEEKS. Congressman, I would like to respond. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Weeks? 

Mr. WEEKS. My opinion on the constitutional question wouldn’t 

be expert enough to be valuable to you, but I do want to emphasize 

that possessors, the so-called simple possessors, must be held accountable. They are commissioning the rape of children. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, finally, I have been pursuing an attempt to 

get nondeterrent minimums struck from the Criminal Code for a 

considerable period of time. I think I am gaining steam. Couldn’t 

we drop that and let’s leave it in the court’s discretion, rather than 

us trying to write in whatever feelings we happen to have on the 

day this legislation comes up? 

Who would like to try that? 

Mr. TURLEY. I will take a stab at it. I actually, in my testimony, 

encourage the Committee, in whatever it does, to allow some ele-
114 

ment of discretion for trial courts to make qualitative decisions in 

cases. There are no de minimis possession of child pornography 

cases, in my view. That is, they are all serious. But there are great 

variations. 

And these trial courts are in an excellent position—they are the 

boots on the ground—to make decisions. None of these courts are 

going to be sympathetic to these defendants. 

But I think that what the Committee itself has to accept is if you 

look at the record of Paroline, it is riddled with broken courts, fractured courts trying to use the system, the approach, that I think 

is replicated by the Senate with regard to possessors. It is really 

only with possessors that courts fractured on trying to use the system. 

So I think it would be a good idea to have a discretionary component, but also to use an alternative approach to avoid another 

round of litigation. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you all. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this very important hearing. 

I want to thank all our witnesses here today for devoting much 

of their time and their lives to an issue which is absolutely critical, 

the exploitation of children, particularly over the Internet. It is incredible how prevalent it is, how many children have been injured. 

I have been on the Judiciary Committee, this is my 19th year 

now. Henry Hyde had introduced the victims of crime constitutional amendment some years before I got here. And after a while, 

he was so busy with so many issues, being Chair of the full Committee, that he turned to me to handle it. And for years, I was the 

principal sponsor of the victims constitutional amendment. 

Unfortunately, we never got it passed. It is very hard to pass a 

constitutional amendment, as Professor Turley knows. We did pass 

some legislation, and oftentimes it was a victims bill that was attached to some other larger bill that in a CR went through. So it 

was hard to focus. 

It wasn’t a CR this time, but in any event—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, I stuck it on something the Senate 

wanted. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. 

But, procedurally, oftentimes, you never know what you actually 

accomplish, because it is in a 2,000-page bill somewhere. But the 

bottom line is, a lot of us have been involved in this for a long time. 

There is a debate around here. Oftentimes, you hear about we 

prefer, conservatives, in particular, prefer to have the States doing 

what they can and us not to get involved in it, if we don’t really 

need to. 

So I guess my question would be for you, Mr. Weeks, mainly, but 

anyone can comment on it, if they want. You mentioned the States. 

Some of them have victims’ compensation funds and most don’t 

apply to, I guess, minors exploited on the Internet. But this is a 

case where it may happen in one State and then because these people apparently deal with each other all over the place, it can be in 

all 50 States. 
115 

So make your best argument, if you would, for the record, as to 

why this is an area, really, we should have Federal involvement 

and a Federal victims’ compensation fund of some sort. 

Mr. WEEKS. Sure. Congressman, we work in probably a dozen 

States so far. We have worked on the legislative level. And one of 

the things we want most to see is States taking responsibility, taking the lead on this issue. 

However, virtually every single case of online-facilitated child 

pornography trafficking is a Federal crime because of the commerce 

clause. So you have that. You also have a very large percentage of 

all prosecutions are federally done, so you have that as well. There 

is also a very large international component. 

I think that here in the States, law enforcement is completely 

overwhelmed. In every single State, law enforcement is unable to 

even pursue any more than 2 percent of known leads, of known 

leads. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask you another question. I also practiced law for 18 

years and did criminal cases, represented victims, et cetera. In 

going through the victims’ compensation funds, as you all know, to 

fund them, they will slap on court costs on criminal cases. Unfortunately, oftentimes, the people in our criminal courts all over the 

country are basically indigent, and they are supposed to pay but 

oftentimes don’t. How can we make sure that the actual perpetrators here—and I think a lot of these perpetrators are people who 

have some financial ability to pay. I am sure there are exceptions, 

but how do we make sure that actually the people who are committing these horrific crimes are the ones who foot the bill and not 

taxpayers, or in some way the public is paying for it. 

We want the victims to get something, but it really ought to be 

the bad guys and not all of us, the taxpayers, paying. 

Professor Turley, would you want to take that? 

Mr. TURLEY. Well, under my written testimony, I refer to the 

fund as actually collecting money from these cases, a central fund 

where these district courts can refer to an office that has the expertise and can also distribute this with a centralized idea of who is 

receiving what money and has the ability to do this in an efficient 

way. 

It would also allow courts to send fines into the fund, which 

could help support it even further. 

One of the things that I think has great promise is that these 

people, if they are out of prison, should have garnishment. They 

should have money removed from every paycheck to remind them 

of what they helped facilitate, if they are possessors, or what they 

did, as core original violators. That can be done. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you to all the witnesses here today. I appreciate your 

testimony and would echo the comments from my colleagues regarding all that you do and the importance of what you do. Thank 

you very much. 
116 

I practiced law for 22 years, too, and I had a chance to be on both 

sides of the law. I have seen victims firsthand, and I know that 

this is an ongoing process that all of us are working on and trying 

to do the best that we can do. 

Many of you can answer these questions. I have several of them. 

I am sure, as time goes on, I will have a chance to ask them in 

the future. 

I think, Judge Cassell, you helped write this. Is there a reason 

it didn’t include a compensation fund to address the droves of victims that haven’t sought traditional restitution? 

Mr. CASSELL. Thank you, Congressman. 

The reason we wrote the bill—when I say ‘‘we,’’ a large number 

of people, the victims community, members of the staffs on both 

sides of the Hill have looked at this. The idea was to keep it narrow, so that it wouldn’t attract the controversy that seems to attend broader bills. 

The Supreme Court in the Paroline decision says someone is 

going to need stop in, at least the four dissenting Justices all indicated that. So we responded to that call and simply addressed the 

narrow problems that needed to be fixed in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. 

Obviously, Congress could do a number of broader things. Congressman Chabot has talked about a constitutional amendment, 

and I believe I will be here in April when the House will be holding 

hearings on that. There are some much broader steps that can be 

taken to protect victims’ rights. But we tried to do a narrow approach to a narrow problem. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for that. 

One of the dissenting opinions, Justice Roberts, in that particular 

case, provided that the victims should get nothing under the restitution statute as written, and that Congress should fix the statute. But after that, he gives very little guidance as to what he 

meant by that. 

Perhaps you all can give me some idea as to what you think he 

meant by that. 

Mr. CASSELL. I think he meant that victims like Amy should receive ample compensation, and the bill that has been passed by the 

Senate, the Amy and Vicky act, does exactly that. 

One of the things it does, Congressman Chabot talked about the 

taxpayers here. Frankly, the only people who love the current regime are wealthy child pornography criminals, because now they 

can manage to get off the hook and pay just $1,000 or $2,000, 

which is the collection rate of victims in the system. If the Amy 

and Vicky act passes, then a substantial amount of money can be 

taken from those defendants and given to victims. And if those defendants are unhappy about having to shoulder the burden for paying a large amount, they can then go track down other criminals 

around the country. 

What happens under the current regime is that crime victims 

like Amy have to go to literally dozens and dozens and dozens of 

different cases, different courts, different judges, to try to collect 

restitution. I think that is the kind of thing that Chief Justice Roberts was thinking needed to be changed. 
117 

Mr. TURLEY. I will disagree to some extent to what my friend 

Judge Cassell has said, in terms of the dissent by Chief Judge Roberts, although we all, obviously, could read this differently. 

One thing that comes out of eight of nine Justices is a view that 

the system designed by the Congress was unworkable. That was 

not a close question. 

I mean, one of the things I tried to convey in my written testimony is you have 10 out of 11 circuits saying that what Congress 

did was impossible to carry out. You have eight out of nine Justices, who agree on less and less each year, who agreed on that position. 

My problem with the Senate bill is it does try to make marginal 

changes, and what you see in these opinions is that there are substantial changes that have to be made, but not in what we want 

to achieve. We can achieve it. But this is an example of what I talk 

about in my written testimony of what economists call path dependence. This idea of fitting these fines as a form of restitution 

and part of joint and several liability was a flawed concept. And 

this is a good time to simply take another path. 

One of the nice things about the compensation fund is that it will 

get you out of that morass. These Justices said clearly, look, this 

just doesn’t fit. It is very hard to make this into proximate causation in terms of restitution. They weren’t saying that the victims 

couldn’t get the relief, but this was not the vehicle. That is why a 

compensation fund would move you out of that problem. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair will ask unanimous consent that all Members of the 

Subcommittee have the opportunity to submit written questions of 

the witnesses within 5 days. 

Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(119) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations 

The crime of child exploitation, including the trading and viewing of images of 

sexual abuse against children, is one of the most horrific crimes one can imagine. 

It is also, sadly, one of the fastest growing. The National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, which works in partnership with law enforcement, reviewed 

over 3 million child sexual abuse images and videos last month alone. And, there 

was an 18 percent increase in the files they reviewed between 2013 and 2014. 

The harm that the victims of child exploitation trafficking suffer is extensive. Not 

only must these young victims overcome the trauma of being raped—most often by 

a so-called loved one or an adult in a position of trust—but they are also faced with 

the knowledge that everyday many thousands of pedophiles could be viewing the 

evidence of their rape for their own pleasure. Horrifically, many pedophiles also use 

these exploitative images to groom other victims for abuse. 

There are some who think that the possession, or ‘‘mere possession’’ as they call 

it, of child pornography is a victimless crime. I want to state unequivocally that it 

is not. Amy, the extraordinarily brave victim whose restitution claim formed the 

basis of the Supreme Court case we will examine today, has said this in a victim 

impact statement: 

‘‘Every day of my life I live in constant fear that someone will see my pictures 

and recognize me and that I will be humiliated all over again.’’ 

* * * 

‘‘The truth is, I am being exploited and used every day and every night somewhere in the world by someone. How can I ever get over this when the crime 

that is happening to me will never end? How can I get over this when the 

shameful abuse I suffered is out there forever and being enjoyed by sick people?’’ 

* * * 

While the equities of online child exploitation cases, including those involving defendants who traffic in images, seem pretty clear to me, the federal courts have long 

struggled with these cases. It is very disappointing to me that federal judges sentence child exploitation defendants below the applicable guideline range with increasing frequency. In 2011, only 32 percent of these defendants were sentenced 

within the guideline range. It is a travesty that our federal judges are not treating 

this crime with appropriate seriousness. Congress, and this Committee, must address this issue. 

Determining the appropriate amount of restitution for the victims of child exploitation has also proven difficult for the courts. Under current law, federal courts are 

required to award any child depicted in sexually explicit material restitution in ‘‘the 

full amount of the victim’s losses’’ as determined by the court. These losses can include medical services, therapy, and attorneys’ fees, among other things. Unlike 

child pornography production cases, where there is a limited universe of defendants 

who are generally joined in the same prosecution, the harm to the victims in enduser child pornography trafficking cases is often caused by hundreds or thousands 
120 

of unrelated individuals who are prosecuted across time and in different jurisdictions, which makes apportionment difficult. 

In recent years, there has been disagreement among the federal circuit courts 

over how to calculate the restitution owed by a defendant who received, distributed, 

or possessed child pornography. In response to the circuit split, the Supreme Court 

ruled in United States v. Paroline [Pear-a-line] that an individual child pornography 

trafficking defendant may be made liable only for the harm caused by their own 

conduct, and not for the conduct of others. 

I am glad that the Paroline decision gave the lower courts better guidance on how 

to determine the appropriate restitution under the existing statute, but there is still 

work to be done. To date, only fifteen of the more than 8,600 known victims of child 

exploitation have ever sought restitution. Congress must craft a scheme that helps 

to address this travesty. 

It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that any changes to the existing restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2259, are done deliberately and with a close eye to the 

Supreme Court’s constitutional admonishments in Paroline. It serves no one if Congress were to make changes that create unneeded litigation and circuit splits over 

legislation that is intended to make victims whole. 

We have a very distinguished panel of legal and subject-matter experts here today 

to help us examine the Paroline decision and the state of restitution in child exploitation trafficking cases. I thank all of you for being here today. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

The harms that result from the sexual abuse of children are horrible, and too 

lengthy to list. These harms last long after the abuse ends. Importantly for our 

hearing today, they can also be incredibly expensive. The cost of finding a new 

home, on-going therapy, and other care quickly adds up for the victims of child exploitation. Over the victim’s lifetime, this sum can range into the millions of dollars. 

Our laws rightly allow victims to seek financial restitution from their abusers, but 

this is not the end of the story. 

Having endured horrific abuse, these children are often confronted with the fact 

that photos and videos of that abuse are being traded and collected by hundreds 

of thousands of pedophiles on the Internet. Even children victimized before digital 

cameras became widespread are now faced with the knowledge that in the Internet 

Age, a detailed visual record of the darkest moments of their lives exists, is in wide 

distribution online, and is hungrily sought by pedophiles around the world. 

To better compensate victims of child exploitation, Congress expanded restitution 

liability to those who produce and traffic in the pornographic images stemming from 

that exploitation. Unfortunately, to date, these efforts have done little to get sex offenders’ money into the hands of their victims. 

In the nearly twenty years since the child exploitation restitution statute, 18 

U.S.C. Section 2259, was enacted, only fifteen victims of child exploitation trafficking, out of more than 8,600 known victims, have actually sought restitution from 

those defendants trading their images. 

The Supreme Court case we are here to consider today, Paroline [Pear-a-line] v. United States, arose only because of the few brave victims who have sought the restitution they are due. In that case, a young woman, who goes by the name ‘‘Amy,’’ 

was raped by her uncle when she was a very young child. Like so many other victims, she was horrified to discover, years later, that pictures of her most painful 

memories were favorites of sick online communities. 

It is estimated that because of her initial abuse and constant revictimization 

through the trafficking in her images, the cost of Amy’s lost wages and other damages will be more than three million dollars over the course of her lifetime. Using 

18 U.S.C. Section 2259, Amy has sought restitution from hundreds of sex offenders 

caught with her images on their computers. 

In Paroline, the Supreme Court decided that one defendant with only two of 

Amy’s images could not be held liable for the full restitution from the actions of 

thousands of offenders. They also rejected the notion that, at least under the existing statute, the first sued offender could simply sue subsequent offenders for contribution. 

We are here today to discuss what comes next. Clearly, even before the Paroline 

ruling, the system of child pornography restitution needed to be reworked. As I 

mentioned earlier, only 15 victims, out of the thousands we know of whose images 
121 

are on the Internet, have sought restitution. That is proof that something is broken. 

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that those who harm children in this vile 

way are held accountable for the suffering of their victims. 

A well-functioning system must encourage and enable more victims of child exploitation to come forward. It must ensure that they can secure adequate restitution 

from those who continue their victimization by trading in their images. And, finally, 

any solution must be appropriately crafted within our Constitutional boundaries. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel and hope we can use what we learn 

today to address the Paroline decision in a thoughtful, responsible manner. As a father and soon-to-be grandfather, I am committed to doing all we can to protect our 

children and ensuring child victims receive the care they deserve. 

I thank our distinguished witnesses, and yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations 

Mr. Chairman: We have no greater cause than to promote the health and wellbeing of our children. Today, we hear testimony to assist in crafting legislation to 

help the most vulnerable and injured of our children due to exploitation and sexual 

abuse. 

It is my hope that we can more effectively provide restitution to child victims in 

light of the Supreme Court’s recent child pornography restitution decision. In 

Paroline v. United States, the Court addressed ambiguities in the current restitution 

provision of 18 U.S.C. Section 2259. 

The Supreme Court acknowledged in Paroline that, ‘‘the demand for child pornography harms children in part because it drives production, which involves child 

abuse.’’ Unlike most crimes, the existence of child pornography creates a continuing, 

permanent record of the abuse which exacerbates the harm each time it is shared 

on the internet. It is for this reason that we strive to find a unique legislative solution, for a unique and continuing harm to children, to provide necessary restitution 

for their injuries. 

The extent of this harm cannot be underestimated. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) reported in 2014 alone, they received 

1,080,371 reports relating to child pornography images on the internet. NCMEC also 

reports that the number of images being collected and traded worldwide continues 

to expand exponentially. Of the millions of images, the Department of Justice notes 

that to date over 8500 children have been identified in these images. 

Sadly, of the total number of identified children with documented sexual abuse 

due to child pornography, only 15 have sought restitution through the federal courts 

to date. As I have said before, perpetrators of crime know that they are more likely 

to evade detection and punishment when their victims refuse to assist or cooperate 

with law enforcement. We need to find better ways to encourage child victims to 

come forward to address their injuries and pursue restitution. 

Despite evidence of a clear link between child pornography and ongoing harms to 

child victims, the Court in Paroline denied restitution to one such child victim 

known as ‘‘Amy’’. We are here today for Amy, and all child victims, both identified 

and yet to be identified. 

Understanding why the Court denied restitution is essential if we are to provide 

future relief to child victims. The ruling in Paroline establishes an unequivocal causation standard requiring a sentencing court to find ‘proximate cause’ between a defendant’s acts and a victim’s harms before imposing restitution. The Court refrained 

from adopting a ‘joint and severable liability’ standard to require a single defendant 

to pay ‘Amy’ restitution for her total aggregated harms. The Court’s stated reason 

for not adopting this standard is the lack of guidance in the restitution statute from 

Congress. Moreover, the Court relied on a bedrock standard of proximate cause between the defendant’s acts and the victim’s harm before it would order a restitution 

assessment. In this case, the Court found insufficient facts to establishment proximate cause liability to assess restitution. 

The ruling goes on to direct that, ‘‘a court should order restitution in an amount 

that comports with the defendant’s relative role in the causal process underlying the 

victim’s general losses.’’ To do otherwise could raise questions of workability under 

the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. How best to provide a workable guide for sentencing courts to determine a defendant’s relative role is one of 

the tasks before us. 
122 

We should direct our attention to heeding the admonition in Paroline, that the 

punishment fits the crime, and in this context, that restitution reflects the relative 

harm committed by each defendant. The Court notes factors, such as whether a 

criminal defendant took part in production of the child pornography or possessed the 

images, how many images may have been possessed, and reliable estimates of the 

number of individuals who possessed the images, as possible guideposts in sentencing. I look forward to considering the testimony of today’s witnesses in determining what statutory guidance Congress should provide. 

The necessary urgency to provide statutory relief for these child victims is without 

question. The United States Sentencing Commission, in its latest report to Congress, cites numerous studies documenting the long-term impact of child sexual 

abuse. Those impacts include low self-esteem, psycho-pathology, PTSD symptoms, 

distorted sexual development, as well as a higher risk of have multiple sex partners, 

becoming pregnant as teenagers, and experiencing sexual assault as adults. The 

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry documents 

studies linking child sexual abuse with higher rates of major depression, anxiety 

disorder, conduct disorder, substance use disorder, and suicidal behavior. The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress documents long-term effects of child 

sexual abuse to include problems in relationships and intimacy, self-esteem, mental 

health disorders, and alcohol abuse. The need for restitution is clear. 

Clinical sources note that child sexual abuse victims, who are involved in lengthy 

unresolved criminal cases, appear to stay symptomatic for longer periods. Providing 

resolution and restitution brings relief to these child victims. That is why we need 

to act to provide clarity in the restitution statute and to provide more certain relief 

to those harmed by child pornography. 

Congress could provide additional statutory guidance by providing a right of contribution for restitution payments among multiple convicted defendants, or by directing sentencing courts to assess liability for a lifetime of the full amount of a victim’s losses for each defendant. However, the Court in Paroline cautioned the possible Constitutional concerns in these approaches. I look forward to considering the 

opinions of today’s witnesses to determine the best, workable statutory solution to 

providing restitution. 

The witnesses today in their written statements have each addressed the possibility of creating a separate fund to more readily assist victims. We should consider 

these and other remedies to more effectively provide resources to child victims. 

Child pornography offenses, which involve the internet, a number of wrong-doers, 

and individual victims pose unique restitution issues. There will be continuing difficulties getting restitution for victims with the requirements enunciated in 

Paroline, unless there is further statutory guidance from Congress. I look forward 

to working with my Judiciary Committee colleagues to develop legislation to provide 

this guidance. 

It is my hope that the hearing today will help refine the issues, provide a voice 

to child crime victims, and ultimately deliver restitution to those who most need it. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary 

Today’s hearing concerns finding the best means to provide restitution to victims 

of child pornography in cases where the measure of liability is in question. 

In doing so, we need to remember that it is for children who have been harmed 

by exploitation that we are here today. These children represent a potential lifetime 

of repeated injury from the continued recirculation of these images. One of those 

documented child victims, known as ‘Amy’ was the subject of the Supreme Court 

case, Paroline v. United States. Due to the ambiguity of the current restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. 2259, the Court was unable to award Amy full restitution. We need 

to address the importance of the ruling by the Supreme Court in Paroline. 

However, as we seek to redress the harm we have identified, we should avoid a 

legislative reaction of overcriminalization. I’m concerned that placing mandatory 

minimum punishments into any legislation may produce unforeseen and unwanted 

results. The Court in its decision articulated familiar themes: measured judicial discretion, restitution based on unique facts, articulated statutorily imposed sentencing 

factors. We would be well advised to heed these signposts. 

By engaging with a broad range of stakeholders through various means, such as 

the bipartisan Task Force on Overcriminalization and Overfederalization, we have 

been considering a range of issues, one of which is mandatory minimum sentencing 
123 

reform. As a general matter, I am concerned about expanding mandatory minimums 

and reducing judicial discretion, even in the context of financial penalties, as opposed to prison terms. 

Finally, as we address the best way to legislatively facilitate payment of restitution, we should be both true to fairness and the rights of victims to be made whole. 

To that end, we need to look very closely at the advisability of holding defendants 

liable for harms caused by other individual’s conduct, as the Court cautioned, in 

this, a criminal case context. If and when legislation moves in this Committee, I 

plan to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure the necessary modifications are 

made to any legislation. 

I look forward to the discussion before us, and to considering remedies for these 

child victims. 

f 
124 

Prepared Statement of Victims of Child Pornography 
125 
126 

Æ