SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN 

OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, 

KIDS AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW 

ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 4, APRIL 6, AND MAY 3, 2006 

Serial No. 109-126 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

30-793PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearings held: 

April 4, 2006........................................................................................................................ 1 

April 6, 2006........................................................................................................................ 238 

May 3, 2006......................................................................................................................... 423 

Testimony of: 

Cooper, Sharon W., Developmental and Forensic Pediatrics, PA, Department of 

Pediatrics, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.................................................... 17 

Berry, Justin......................................................................................................................... 75 

Eichenwald, Kurt, Reporter, The New York Times ........................................................... 85 

Allen, Ernie, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children ......................................................................................................... 126 

Aftab, Parry, Executive Director, WiredSafety .................................................................. 144 

Schroeder, Teri L., President/Program Director, i-SAFE America.................................... 187 

Sullivan, Shannon, Teen Angel, WiredSafety .................................................................... 201 

Mercer, William W., United States Attorney for the District of Montana; Principal 

Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice .................. 256 

Swecker, Chris, Acting Assistant Executive Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

United States Department of Justice .............................................................................. 268 

Kardasz, Dr. Frank, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department; Project Director, Arizona 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, United States Department of Justice... 275 

Waters, Flint, Lead Special Agent, Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Technology Center, United States 

Department of Justice..................................................................................................... 285 

Clark, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security................................... 290 

Kezer, William E., Deputy Chief Inspector, United States Postal Inspection Service ...... 295 

Weeks, Grier, Executive Director, National Association to Protect Children ................... 347 

Allen, Masha ....................................................................................................................... 444 

Grace, Nancy, CNN Nancy Grace ...................................................................................... 449 

Fisher, Hon. Alice S., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States 

Department of Justice..................................................................................................... 470 

Roldan, Raul, Section Chief, Cyber Crime Section, Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, United States Department of Justice....................................................... 487 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Kezer, William E., Deputy Chief Inspector, United States Postal Inspection Service, 

response for the record ................................................................................................... 409 

Waters, Flint, Lead Special Agent, Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Technology Center, United States 

Department of Justice, response for the record.............................................................. 411 

Swecker, Chris, Acting Assistant Executive Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

United States Department of Justice, response for the record....................................... 412 

Kardasz, Dr. Frank, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department; Project Director, Arizona 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, United States Department of Justice, 

response for the record ................................................................................................... 417 

Plitt, James, Director, Cyber Crimes Center, Office of Investigations, United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland 

Security, response for the record.................................................................................... 421 

Weeks, Grier, Executive Director, National Association to Protect Children, response 

for the record .................................................................................................................. 422 

Fisher, Hon. Alice S., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, United States 

Department of Justice, response for the record.............................................................. 582 

Marsh, James R., Esq., response for the record .................................................................. 585 

Allen, Faith, response for the record................................................................................... 616 

Roldan, Raul, Section Chief, Cyber Crime Section, Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, United States Department of Justice, response for the record................ 618 

(III) 

(1) 

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN 

OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, 

KIDS AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW 

ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 2123 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (Chairman) 

presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Walden, Ferguson, Burgess, 

Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Whitfield, and Stupak. 

 Staff present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian, Counsel; 

Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel; 

and David Nelson, Minority Investigator/Economist. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order. Today’s 

subject of our hearing is “Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the 

Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child 

Predators.” 

 Today, we are going to have five panels of witnesses on this very 

important subject matter. The first panel which we will introduce a little 

bit later, will be Sharon Cooper who is with the Developmental and 

Forensic Pediatrics for the Department of Pediatrics at the University of 

North Carolina Chapel Hill. 

 I welcome all of you here today and this will be the first of several 

hearings on issues relating to the sexual exploitation of children over the 

Internet. Today’s hearing aims to protect our children’s--if you will 

excuse me one minute. May I have a glass of water? Today’s hearing 

aims to protect our Nation’s children by putting a spotlight on how 

parents and children can better educate themselves on the dangers of 

child predators on the Internet. 

 In the early 1990s, before the advent of the Internet, it seemed in the 

United States that commercial child pornography was on the decline. 

This was due to several factors, especially several U.S. Supreme Court 
2

decisions that removed any first amendment protection for the possession 

or distribution of child pornography. These decisions were coupled with 

aggressive law enforcement efforts primarily targeting the U.S. mail 

system, which was the means of transporting these images. 

Unfortunately, the Internet reversed this trend. 

 With the growing use of the Internet, the number of child predators 

who seek to make, distribute, and view images of children being sexually 

abused continues to skyrocket. This is due to the anonymity, 

accessibility, and ease with which child predators can operate on the 

Internet. The extent of the problem is staggering. Some examples of 

statistics that our witnesses today at the hearing will discuss more fully 

include: one in five children report being sexually solicited over the 

Internet and only 25 percent of those children that are sexually solicited 

online tell their parents; 3.5 million images of child sexual exploitation 

over the Internet have been identified in the United States alone. The 

commercial enterprise of online child pornography is estimated in 2005 

to be approximately $20 billion, and it is an industry on the rise. The 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives 

approximately 1,500 tips a week on its cyber tip line about suspected 

online child pornography. Child predators that are found in possession 

of child pornography typically have thousands of images of sexual abuse 

of children on their computers. 

 In my own State of Kentucky, a man was arrested last month and, 

according to a press release, agents from the immigration and customs 

enforcement reportedly discovered over 400,000 images of child 

pornography on his computers. Thinking about the number of children 

that were abused in order to create all of those images is sickening and 

intolerable. We must do everything possible to stop it. 

 I want to particularly thank all of our witnesses today for appearing 

before the subcommittee. We appreciate your taking the time to speak to 

us about an important issue concerning our most vulnerable citizens, and 

that is our children. You will hear today from a young man named Justin 

Berry and he will tell a story about his experience in this horrible world 

of online child exploitation. He will also talk to us about how he 

received a free webcam and was preyed upon and exploited by child 

predators. I believe Mr. Berry is brave to come forward and speak 

publicly to this subcommittee about matters that are very personal to him 

and painful for him to even talk about. Justin, we appreciate your 

willingness to share your experiences with us, as well as, with parents 

and children around the country who may learn some valuable lessons 

from your story. 

 We will also hear from Mr. Kurt Eichenwald, who as a New York 

Times reporter exposed this world that captures children like Justin. Mr. 
3

Eichenwald feels so strongly about the dangers he has uncovered that he 

has taken the extraordinary step to come to testify about how readily 

available this material is over the Internet. He will provide a firsthand 

account of how predators lure and manipulate children over the Internet. 

 In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Sharon Cooper who as I said, is 

on the first panel. She altered her travel plans for a trip to Germany in 

order to be here and testify today. I believe your testimony will be 

invaluable in helping us understand what happens to children like Justin 

who fall victim to these predators and what the modus operandi of these 

predators are so parents and children can keep a watchful eye. We 

appreciate you making a special effort to be here. 

 Today we will also here testimony from Mr. Ernie Allen from the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Mr. Allen and his 

staff at the center have done a phenomenal job of working to keep 

children safe. We look forward to hearing about the Center’s role as a 

clearinghouse for tips regarding child pornography over the Internet by 

way of their cyber tip line, as well as future plans they have to help stem 

the tide of child sexual exploitation over the Internet. I believe the one 

valuable lesson that can come out of this hearing is that parents, children, 

and of course Members of Congress become well versed in what the 

cyber tip line is and how and when to use it. 

 On our last panel, I am very happy to say, we have representatives 

from WiredSafety and i-SAFE America to tell us more about how they 

promote safety over the Internet for children. We are also interested in 

hearing first hand from your teenage witness, who is a Teen Angel from 

WiredSafety and an I Mentor for i-SAFE America, on how they 

communicate Internet safety to their peers. 

 I must note that we also have today a witness who was subpoenaed 

by the full committee to appear to testify. His name is Ken Gourlay from 

Michigan. We will hear more about why Mr. Gourlay is here through 

Justin’s testimony. I have been advised that Mr. Gourlay intends to 

invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and will 

decline to answer the subcommittee’s questions, but we are hopeful 

maybe he will decide to speak, because it is critical that we confront his 

explanation for his actions. 

 At Thursday’s hearing, we are going to be focusing on the U.S. law 

enforcement’s efforts devoted to eradicating the sexual exploitation of 

children over the Internet and learn more about the challenges facing law 

enforcement in this area. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:] 
4

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

GOOD MORNING. 

 TODAY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

HOLDS THE FIRST OF SEVERAL HEARINGS ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE 

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. TODAY’S 

HEARING AIMS TO PROTECT OUR NATION’S CHILDREN BY PUTTING A 

SPOTLIGHT ON HOW PARENTS AND CHILDREN CAN BETTER EDUCATE 

THEMSELVES ABOUT THE DANGERS OF CHILD PREDATORS ON THE 

INTERNET. 

IN SO DOING, WE WILL HEAR THE STORY ABOUT ONE CHILD’S 

EXPERIENCE IN THIS HORRIBLE WORLD OF ON-LINE CHILD EXPLOITATION. 

AND, WE WILL LEARN HOW THE INTERNET HAS FUELED THE HIGHLY 

LUCRATIVE BUSINESS OF SELLING SEXUALLY ABUSIVE IMAGES OF 

CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD. 

IN THE EARLY 1990’S, BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET, IT 

SEEMED IN THE UNITED STATES, COMMERCIAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY 

WAS ON THE DECLINE. THIS WAS DUE TO SEVERAL FACTORS—

ESPECIALLY SEVERAL U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT REMOVED 

ANY FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR THE POSSESSION OR 

DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. THESE DECISIONS WERE 

COUPLED WITH AGGRESSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS PRIMARILY 

TARGETING THE U.S. MAIL SYSTEM, WHICH WAS THE MEANS OF 

TRANSPORTING THESE IMAGES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE INTERNET 

REVERSED THIS TREND. 

WITH THE GROWING USE OF THE INTERNET, THE NUMBER OF CHILD 

PREDATORS WHO SEEK TO MAKE, DISTRIBUTE AND VIEW IMAGES OF 

CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED CONTINUES TO SKYROCKET. THIS IS 

PRIMARILY DUE TO THE ANONYMITY, ACCESSIBILITY AND EASE WITH 

WHICH THESE CHILD PREDATORS CAN OPERATE ON THE INTERNET. 

 THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS STAGGERING. HERE ARE SOME 

EXAMPLES OF STATISTICS THAT OUR WITNESSES AT THE HEARING WILL 

DISCUSS MORE FULLY: 

• 1 IN 5 CHILDREN REPORT BEING SEXUALLY SOLICITED OVER THE 

INTERNET. AND ONLY 25% OF THOSE CHILDREN THAT ARE 

SEXUALLY SOLICITED ON-LINE TELL THEIR PARENTS. 

• 3.5 MILLION IMAGES OF CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OVER THE 

INTERNET HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED—IN THE UNITED STATES 

ALONE. 

• THE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OF ON-LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY 

IS ESTIMATED, IN 2005, TO BE APPROXIMATLEY $20 BILLION U.S. 

DOLLARS. IT IS AN INDUSTRY ON THE RISE. 

• THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

GETS APPROXIMATELY 1,500 TIPS A WEEK ON ITS CYBERTIPLINE 

ABOUT SUSPECTED ON-LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. 

• CHILD PREDATORS THAT ARE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF CHILD 

PORNOGRAPHY TYPICALLY HAVE THOUSANDS OF IMAGES OF 

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN ON THEIR COMPUTERS. 

• IN MY HOME STATE OF KENTUCKY, A MAN WAS ARRESTED LAST 

MONTH AND, ACCORDING TO A PRESS RELEASE, AGENTS FROM 

THE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT REPORTEDLY 
5

DISCOVERED OVER 400 THOUSAND IMAGES OF CHILD 

PORNOGRAPHY IN HIS COMPUTERS. 

THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT WERE ABUSED IN 

ORDER TO CREATE ALL OF THOSE IMAGES IS SICKENING AND 

INTOLERABLE. 

THIS MUST BE STOPPED. 

 TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM SEVERAL PANELS OF WITNESSES WHO 

WILL HELP US CONFRONT THESE UNSETTLING FACTS AND PROVIDE 

INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. I WANT TO THANK 

ALL OF THE WITNESSES APPEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY. 

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT SUCH 

AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONCERNING OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS—

OUR CHILDREN. 

WE WILL HEAR TODAY FROM MR. JUSTIN BERRY. MR. BERRY WILL 

TELL US HIS ALARMING STORY ABOUT HOW A 13 YEAR OLD GETS A FREE 

WEBCAM AND IS PREYED UPON AND EXPLOITED BY CHILD PREDATORS. I 

BELIEVE MR. BERRY IS EXTREMELY BRAVE TO COME FORWARD AND 

SPEAK PUBLICLY TO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT MATTERS THAT ARE 

VERY PERSONAL TO HIM AND PAINFUL FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT. 

WE APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS, JUSTIN, TO SHARE YOUR 

EXPERIENCE WITH US—AS WELL AS WITH PARENTS AND KIDS AROUND 

THE COUNTRY WHO MAY LEARN SOME LESSONS FROM YOUR STORY. 

WE WILL ALSO HEAR FROM MR. KURT EICHENWALD, WHO, AS A NEW 

YORK TIMES REPORTER, EXPOSED THIS WORLD THAT CAPTURES 

CHILDREN LIKE JUSTIN. MR. EICHENWALD FEELS SO STRONGLY ABOUT 

THE DANGERS HE HAS UNCOVERED THAT HE HAS TAKEN THE 

EXTRAORDINARY STEP TO COME TO TESTIFY ABOUT HOW READILY 

AVAILABLE THIS DISGUSTING MATERIAL IS OVER THE INTERNET. HE 

WILL PROVIDE A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT OF HOW THESE PREDATORS LURE 

AND MANIPULATE CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. 

IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR. SHARON COOPER, WHO 

WILL APPEAR ON THE FIRST PANEL, FOR ALTERING HER TRAVEL PLANS 

TO GERMANY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TODAY. I BELIEVE YOUR 

TESTIMONY WILL BE INVALUABLE IN HELPING US UNDERSTAND WHAT 

HAPPENS TO CHILDREN LIKE JUSTIN WHO FALL VICTIM TO THESE 

PREDATORS AND WHAT THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THESE PREDATORS 

ARE—SO PARENTS AND KIDS CAN KEEP A WATCHFUL EYE. 

TODAY WE WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR. ERNIE ALLEN, 

FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN. 

MR. ALLEN AND HIS STAFF AT THE CENTER HAVE DONE A PHENOMENAL 

JOB WORKING TO KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE. THE CENTER HAS BEEN 

ENORMOUSLY HELPFUL TO COMMITTEE STAFF ON MANY ISSUES 

RELATED TO THIS INVESTIGATION AND WE CAN’T THANK THEM ENOUGH. 

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THE CENTER’S ROLE AS A 

CLEARINGHOUSE FOR TIPS REGARDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OVER THE 

INTERNET VIA THEIR CYBERTIPLINE -- AS WELL AS FUTURE PLANS THEY 

HAVE TO HELP STEM THE TIDE OF CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OVER 

THE INTERNET. 

I BELIEVE ONE VALUABLE LESSON THAT CAN COME OUT OF THIS 

HEARING IS THAT PARENTS, KIDS AND OF COURSE MEMBERS OF 

CONGRESS BECOME WELL VERSED IN WHAT THE CYBERTIPLINE IS –AND 

HOW AND WHEN TO USE IT. 
6

ON OUR LAST PANEL, I AM VERY GLAD TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES 

FROM WIRED SAFETY AND I SAFE AMERICA TO TELL US MORE ABOUT 

HOW THEY PROMOTE SAFETY OVER THE INTERNET FOR CHILDREN. WE 

ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN HEARING FIRST HAND FROM YOUR TEENAGE 

WITNESSES—A TEEN ANGEL FROM WIRED SAFETY AND AN I-MENTOR 

FROM I SAFE AMERICA—ON HOW THEY COMMUNICATE INTERNET SAFETY 

TO THEIR PEERS. 

I MUST NOTE THAT WE ALSO HAVE TODAY A WITNESS WHO WAS 

SUBPOENED BY THE FULL COMMITTEE TO APPEAR TO TESTIFY. HIS NAME 

IS KEN GOURLAY FROM MICHIGAN. WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT WHY 

MR. GOURLAY IS HERE THROUGH JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. I HAVE BEEN 

ADVISED THAT MR. GOURLAY INTENDS TO INVOKE HIS FIFTH 

AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND WILL 

DECLINE TO ANSWER THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S QUESTIONS. YET I AM 

HOPEFUL HE WILL DECIDE TO SPEAK, BECAUSE IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE 

CONFRONT HIS EXPLANATION FOR HIS ACTIONS. 

WE HAVE A LOT OF GROUND TO COVER. LET ME KNOTE THAT, AT 

THURSDAY’S HEARING, WE WILL FOCUS ON THE U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT 

EFFORTS DEVOTED TO ERADICATING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF 

CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE 

CHALLENGES FACING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORT IN THIS AREA. 

I NOW TURN TO THE RANKING MEMBER, MR. STUPAK FOR HIS 

OPENING STATEMENT. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I now turn to the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee, Mr. Stupak of Michigan, for his opening statement. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

 This investigation is certainly among the most important conducted 

by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I feel most 

Americans have no idea of the dimension of the problem. Because of the 

anonymity provided by the Internet and because of the marketing 

potential of the Internet, children that are being exploited, manipulated, 

and violated and whose lives and images of the predatory practice are 

digitized, displayed, and transmitted instantly around the world in 

astonishing numbers. 

 The statistics as you said, Mr. Chairman, are shocking. One in five 

children report receiving a sexual solicitation over the Internet. Today 

there are over 3.5 pornographic images of American children in 

circulation on the Internet. The sale of these images over the Internet 

brought in $20 billion to traffickers in 2004. To compare, music sales 

over the same period were just $3 billion. This $20 billion was spent to 

view photographs and videos of children being raped and tortured. Since 

2004, the child exploitation industry has only grown. The images have 

become more graphic as video capabilities have expanded and the 

content of those videos have become more heinous. 

 Who are these children that are solicited and abused? It is the little 

children who make up the vast majority of the victims of child 
7

pornography. Over 90 percent of arrested children pornographers 

possess images of children under age 12. Forty percent have pictures or 

videos of children under the age of six, and almost 20 percent possess 

images of children less than three years of age. A couple of weeks ago, 

the Attorney General announced a Customs bust that involved among 

other crimes the portrayal of a rape of an 18 month old girl. 

 Who produced this most sickening material? The National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children will tell us that 80 percent of all 

child pornography is produced by parents, other relatives, or family 

members. Every American parent should know what we will hear today. 

Parents need to learn and teach their children tools to protect themselves 

against these predators. Hopefully, today’s hearing will reduce the 

unmonitored use of web cameras, picture phones, and other equipment 

that enable these people to prey on and abuse our children. 

 Today we will also hear the tragic story of Justin Berry. It is a story 

of the seduction and sexual abuse of a 13-year-old boy who was led on a 

pornographic exploitation, multiple molestations, and drug use, all of 

which were a constant reality in his life for 5 years. We will learn how 

adults, as well as Justin himself made money from Justin’s online 

performances. One of the accused molesters is under subpoena to appear 

before us today and he will I understand he will evoke his Fifth 

Amendment right not to testify. Justin Berry could have a very different 

life had there been no Internet connection in his room. The chat rooms 

which are a magnet where these twisted minds can congregate and 

exploit our children. Unfortunately, just as the Internet has changed just 

about every aspect of our lives, it has also virtually eliminated the 

barriers that once discouraged child pornography. 

 The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and similar 

crime operations at the International Customs Enforcement and the FBI 

do wonderful work with a handful of agents and tech specialists. We 

will hear about their efforts at a hearing we have scheduled for Thursday. 

Still our law enforcement can do better. Justin believes that there has 

been an ineffective response by the Justice Department to prosecute the 

persons who paid to watch his websites. Questions have been raised 

about the low number of prosecutions in the United States. For example, 

in one of the larger busts involving effective work for law enforcement in 

the U.S., Australia, and other countries, there is confirmed information 

that 21,000 Americans had paid to subscribe to websites that saved 

images of the sexual exploitation of children. Nine hundred Australians 

were similarly identified. As of the end of this past year, some 338 

convictions have been obtained in the U.S. while some 500 arrests or 

convictions or expected convictions have been made in Australia, a 

country with a legal system as protective of individual rights as ours. I 
8

want to know why we conduct less than 2 percent of these voyeurs of 

child sexual violence while the Australian authorities can put away 55 

percent. What I do know is that the lack of prosecution threatens all of 

our children to have over 20,000 of these criminals walking free amongst 

us with the knowledge that even when police identify them they are 

unlikely to be prosecuted only encourages further actions of exploitation. 

 I also know that as we reorganize our telecom industry which 

transmits images and messages so efficiently over the Internet, we should 

also hold those that make billions of dollars from the data of image 

transmission accountable to eliminate those images of sexually violated 

children; take the profit and communications away and the problem will 

shrink proportionately. 

 The bottom line is that the darkest side of the Internet can invade any 

American home. Given the shortage of resources for law enforcement to 

adequately protect our children and the lack of will by Internet providers 

to police themselves, parents and children must be vigilant. 

 With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. 

 At this time, I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Barton of Texas, for his opening statement. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding 

this hearing. 

 I have three grown children, two teenage stepchildren, three 

grandchildren, and an infant son who is seven months old. Of all the 

hearings that we have done in all the years that I have been on this 

committee and this subcommittee, which is over 20 years, I have never 

been more revolted in preparing for a hearing than in reading the 

materials I have had to read for this one. My mind simply cannot 

conceive of a parent exploiting their own children for profit for sexual 

purposes and I cannot conceive of anyone in this universe wanting to 

perform, or watch performed, sexual acts on an infant. I simply cannot 

comprehend that. Yet that is what we are here today to investigate. 

 Child pornography is apparently a multi-billion--my staff analysis 

says $20 billion a year business. In spite of all the rhetoric, I will not say 

we are doing nothing, as that is not fair to our law enforcement agencies 

and all the groups here that are trying to help, but we are doing very little 

to counteract it and everyone agrees that it is a growing problem. What 

kind of society do we have if we cannot protect infants from sexual 

exploitation? One of the agency’s material shows that almost half of the 

incidents of sexual exploitation of children are by family members. 

What kind of family is that? I just cannot understand it. 

 So, I believe this is one that you can expect the subcommittee and 

the full committee, if we need to, to do everything possible, and I mean 
9

everything. Not just hold hearings, but if we need legislation, if we need 

to go to our Federal law enforcement agencies that have tended to not 

treat this as seriously as they should; whatever we need to do on a 

bipartisan basis, we are going to do. I think I am a tolerant person and I 

am appalled, I mean absolutely appalled at what is happening on the 

Internet with regards to sexual exploitation of the children of the United 

States, and the children of the world. 

 So I am very appreciative of the staff’s work on both sides of the 

aisle, and very appreciative of Mr. Stupak and Mr. Whitfield’s personal 

involvement. I am very, very supportive of doing whatever we can to 

really turn the tide on this. 

 And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my formal statement be 

considered in the record and I yield back. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield for holding this hearing on the sexual exploitation 

of children over the Internet. As Justice Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is said to be the best 

disinfectant.” If there was ever a case for sunlight and disinfecting, it is the toxic world 

of online child pornography. 

Child porn is a $20 billion a year business, and it is growing daily on the Internet. 

The more you know about it, the more revolted you become. 

There are accounts of children — some as young as eighteen months old— being 

raped on camera for profit. Less than a month ago, based on an investigation by agents 

from United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement and international law 

enforcement, 27 people in the United States and abroad were charged with trafficking in 

pornography. Among their alleged crimes were the production of live, pay-per-view 

molestations of children which were carried over the Internet by streaming video. 

These are actions so repugnant that they are difficult for the mind to even 

acknowledge, much less grasp and consider. 

With the ability to post and trade images anonymously over the Internet, current 

estimates indicate that there are three million images of child pornography on the Internet 

today. While law enforcement is working to tackle this epidemic of abuse, their 

resources are taxed as an endless supply of child pornography is pumped into the Internet 

by individuals around the globe. 

No one wants to believe that predator’s abuse and torture children and sell or swap 

the pictures of that abuse. We do not like to think that even though our children have 

been warned by about strangers, children are still logging onto the Internet and meeting 

strangers child predators and pedophiles. But according to one estimate, one in five 

children report that they have received a sexual solicitation over the Internet. 

It is because this problem is so horrific that we need to know more about it. Our 

nation’s parents, children, and educators need to know exactly what dangers are lurking 

on the Internet. They need to appreciate how serious this problem is so that they can 

prepare their children for what — or who — is waiting for them online. 

One of our witnesses today, Justin Berry, will speak personally to the horrors of 

child sexual exploitation on the Internet and its impact on its victims. Justin’s life is a 

terrible lesson to every parent and child in America. It began when Justin went online to 

meet and communicate with other children his age. Instead, he was greeted almost 
10

immediately by child predators who, by pretending to be his friends, convinced him to 

engage in sexual acts. First it was through a webcam, and then it was in person. Again, 

at the encouragement of these predators, Justin turned these performances into an online 

pornography business. Justin, I want to thank you for appearing here today to tell your 

story. I know it must be painful to talk about your involvement in the pornography 

industry and the abuse you suffered. I hope that your story might prevent others from 

following your path or convince a victim to seek help. 

With Justin today is New York Times Reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who, when 

researching an story on cyber fraud, found Justin’s websites and eventually persuaded 

Justin to seek help. Justin credits Mr. Eichenwald as being the person who rescued him 

from the world of child pornography. 

Today’s testimony will shine a bright light on a business that has flourished in the 

dark corners of the Internet. I hope that what the public learns today will help children to 

recognize a child predator if they meet one online. Finally, by speaking frankly about the 

impact of child pornography on its victims, this hearing will make plain that parents, 

educators, law enforcement, and lawmakers must make every effort to protect our 

children and put an end to an industry that profits from the abuse and degradation of 

children. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We 

appreciate your being here and the leadership you continue to provide on 

this issue and all of the opening statements will be a part of the record 

without objection. 

 At this time, I would recognize Dr. Burgess for his opening 

statement. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too will thank you and 

Chairman Barton for having this hearing. I will submit my formal 

remarks for the record. 

 I do not know that I have much to add to what has already been 

spoken, but a newspaper, not from my district but from a county just 

west of my district, Wise County, the Wise County Messenger, has in its 

March 26 edition a story about yet another case, a brother and sister 

linked in a child porn case and apparently the data is in the process of 

being collected by the Forth Worth Branch that investigates this type of 

crime. It just underscores how it is pervasive in every community. This 

is a very rural area that is being described here in this newspaper article 

and it is as Chairman Barton points out just absolutely unconscionable 

that this activity is taking place literally right within our own 

communities. 

 And I also want to thank Mr. Chairman for bringing to light some of 

the tools that are available for parents who do want to be proactive and 

protect their children and I think that is an invaluable part of the hearing 

and this service that we provide today. 

 So with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. 

 At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden for his opening statement. 
11

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 I concur with the comments of my colleagues about how disturbing 

this information is and about what is going on the Internet. As a father of 

a 15-year-old, soon to be 16, I think I share the concern that most parents 

across America indeed the world probably have about how awful this is. 

And I appreciate, Justin, your being here today and coming forward not 

only before this committee but also for your diligence in trying to work 

with the Department of Justice and all the frustration that you expressed 

in your testimony in that process. And I think for me as a member of this 

committee, how important it is to get this information on our record. I 

want to know what is going on at the Child Exploitation and Obscenity 

Section. And why they conducted themselves the way they did as 

certainly it has been alleged in your testimony and that of others. 

 I was just reading some remarks that Mr. Eichenwald gave at 

Marquette University just a few days ago and his detailed description 

about COS handled this case is extraordinarily disturbing. And for me as 

a member of this oversight committee, as Vice Chairman, I am going to 

be asking some tough questions later in the week when we have the 

Justice Department here. It strikes me as absolutely perverse in the 

justice system that in effect the victim who comes forward to not only 

identify a problem but help round up those who are perpetrating this 

disgusting and terrible crime against humanity that somehow the victim 

is treated as the perpetrator and the fact that there are lots of other kids 

out there you are trying to save from this problem on the Internet. They 

seem to be lost in time. And for me COS has a lot of explaining to do 

and our Department of Justice has a lot of explaining to do. 

 And I again, appreciate your courage in coming forward along with 

the others and Dr. Cooper, thank you for rearranging your schedule to be 

here, we are really looking forward to your comments. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Walden, I am delighted that you focused your 

opening statement on that point because all of us are a little bit puzzled 

by what is going on over at the Child Exploitive and Obscenity Section 

of the Justice Department. That is something that we hope to get into 

today and certainly on Thursday as well. 

 At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for her opening statement. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I also want to join my colleagues in thanking you for holding the 

hearing today. I want to thank our witnesses also for making the effort to 

be here. And I also want to thank our staffs and the committee staff for 

their diligence and their work on this issue. This is not an easy issue and 
12

it is a very unpleasant issue digging through, reading the material, and 

we thank you all for your cooperation in submitting that. 

 Online child pornography is something that is increasingly used as 

an avenue by those that are child predators and that seek to do our 

children harm and exploit innocent, precious, precious children. Just the 

fact that there are millions of images that are transmitted daily, videos 

that are transmitted daily, on these acts that are being done to these 

children and transmitted over the Internet. And as our Chairman said, 

the fee for that is a $20 billion a year industry. That is sickening to my 

soul, absolutely sickening. And parents and children do need to be aware 

of the dangers that exist on the Internet and they do need to be aware of 

the mechanisms that they can use to report these instances where adults 

may be trying to seduce children and to move these precious vulnerable 

children into dangerous situations. 

 And I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are able to correct some of the 

problems and look at some of the avenues of getting information to 

parents. Law enforcement also has got to be diligent and they have got 

to be prepared to shut down this despicable industry because there is no 

justifiable reason for this repulsive action of child pornography. It is 

horrible. It is a detestable mark on our society. And it is with sadness 

that we have to admit there are such sick and revolting people that walk 

on the face of this earth that they would want to watch, to copy, and to 

sell this type information to others. 

 I am looking forward to what we are going to hear today. Again, I 

thank you all for taking your time to be here and to work with us and 

work with families to be certain that law enforcement and us, each of us 

that we are doing what we need to do to address the issue. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. 

 At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Ferguson. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I want to echo your comments and that of Mr. Stupak and our other 

colleagues up here. I particularly want to echo the comments of 

Chairman Barton in his expressions just of being mystified and revolted 

in our preparation for this hearing. 

 The questions that many of us ask and all of us probably ask of 

ourselves is what does it say about those who have been involved in this-

-as we are hearing this morning--industry? What does it say about those 

who would exploit children, young kids for these purposes? And I have, 

my wife and I are blessed to have four little ones in our house. But I 

think that an important question would be to ask ourselves this morning 

is what does it say about us in this Congress if we do not act, if we do not 
13

conduct these hearings, if we do not take our responsibility seriously to 

ensure that these types of exploitations and problems and challenges do 

not happen again? It is our responsibility, certainly part of our 

responsibility to act. 

 I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Justin, in 

particular, I appreciate you being here today. I applaud the courage of 

those who are coming forth to educate members of this subcommittee 

about this topic. It is not an easy topic to deal with, it is graphic and it is 

gruesome, and more often than not it is hard to hear about, but it is a 

topic that cannot be ignored. Last year in New Jersey, in my home State, 

police arrested 39 people across the State in connection with a child 

Internet pornography ring that in one of the more horrifying videos 

depicted the rape of a 5-year-old girl. 

 Today’s technology holds tremendous potential to enhance our lives; 

however, this advancement of technology is opening the door to a whole 

new generation of criminals, the child predator who takes advantage of 

children in the worst way by using this technology to prey upon children 

in the safety and the confines of their own home. There is no question in 

anybody’s mind that we must pay serious attention to this horrific 

industry and take steps to stop it. We must let the children and the 

parents of this country know that we will not allow this practice to 

continue. We will not allow them to be exploited or harmed or taken 

advantage of. People who are engaging in this type of activity must face 

serious consequences and it is our responsibility, as I said earlier, to let 

our children know that we will protect them at all costs. And I think of 

our formative ones in our house and am well aware of the dangers facing 

them and all of our children in the world today. It is the responsibility of 

parents to stop at nothing to protect our children from those who prey 

upon their innocence by taking advantage of them in ways that frankly 

many of us thought was simply unimaginable. 

 Luckily, this industry is beginning to be brought into the limelight. 

There are now groups and law enforcement organizations that have made 

finding and punishing these criminals a priority, but they cannot do it 

alone. We must give them the tools to find these predators and bring 

them to justice and we must let our children know that they are not alone. 

Organizations like i-SAFE have made it their mission to educate children 

about how to use the Internet safely and what warning signs to look out 

for. This group has educated over 43,000 students on Internet safety and 

implemented 20 parent education organizations in New Jersey alone. I 

commend them for their programs and I sincerely hope that they and 

others continue this type of activity in the future. 

 I hope that this hearing serves to draw further attention to this 

terrible industry and I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 
14

Stupak, for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses both today and later in this week. 

 I yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. 

 I guess that concludes the opening statements. 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if I may? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the statement of 

the Honorable John Dingell, the Ranking Member of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, his opening statement for the record, please. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for opening this important investigation and convening the 

first hearing today. This hearing will examine one of the most disturbing topics affecting 

the safety and health of our youngest citizenry. Those who have found the Internet a most 

expedient venue for peddling the worse kind of smut, not only profit from some of the 

most heinous crimes imaginable, but also encourage its creation around the world. 

Let us be clear about this. This is not about pornographic images of adults. What we 

are investigating today is the purveyance of live and videotaped broadcasts, as well as 

photographs, of sexual and other physical assaults on children -- many prepubescent but 

some as young as toddlers and infants -- for the purpose of producing images for sale or 

trade over the Internet. The Internet has regrettably provided the medium for the 

exponential growth in these deplorable crimes. 

The uses of the Internet by tech-savvy pedophiles are many. Among their most 

common uses are pay-to-view Web sites and peer-to-peer chat rooms. Some of these chat 

rooms provide opportunity to trade images. Unfortunately, the price of admission is often 

new material; hence, the ease of contact via the Internet has contributed to the incentives 

and growth of the horrendous abuse endured by these young victims, usually within their 

own home. 

Other chat rooms contain the candid thoughts of millions of adolescent and even 

preteen subscribers. Molesters, often initially posing as an adolescent themselves, use 

these chat rooms to seduce unsuspecting children into meetings for their heinous pleasure 

and/or profit. 

I suspect we will learn more about the ways and means of the Internet perverts today 

and at future hearings. What is certain is that this global problem has deep and dirty 

tentacles right here in the United States. 

Taking away the profit and anonymity from these criminals may not put an end to 

these crimes. Reducing the convenience and incentives for the depraved individuals who 

use the Internet for such activities, however, will be an important start. As this 

Committee works on increasing broadband competition and Internet use across the 

country, we must also work toward eliminating the scourge of child pornography from 

the Internet. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 
15

 At this time, we will call our fist witness, Dr. Sharon Cooper. And 

as I had mentioned in my opening statement, Dr. Cooper was scheduled 

to be in Germany today and postponed that trip, so we generally 

appreciate that, Dr. Cooper, and if you would come forward and sit here 

in the center would be great. Now, Dr. Cooper is not only a physician, 

but she is involved in forensic pediatrics. As I said, she is the head of the 

Development and Forensic Pediatrics, I guess within the Department of 

Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We 

welcome you today and we look forward to your testimony. As you may 

understand, this is a hearing of the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee and we generally take testimony under oath. I would ask 

you; do you have any objection to testifying under oath today? 

 DR. COOPER. No, I do not. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The rules of the House and rules of the committee, 

you are entitled to be advised by counsel about your constitutional rights. 

Do you desire to be advised by legal counsel today? 

 DR. COOPER. No, I do not. 

 [Witness sworn] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Cooper, you are now sworn in and 

you will be recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF SHARON W. COOPER, M.D., FAAP, 

DEVELOPMENTAL AND FORENSIC PEDIATRICS, PA, 

DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH 

CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

 My name is Sharon Cooper and I am an Adjunct Professor of 

Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I have 

worked as a pediatrician for 30 years and in the area of forensic 

pediatrics since 1980. As a doctor who works with maltreated children, a 

forensic pediatrician has advanced understanding of the nexus of 

medicine and the law and focuses on assuring that children will have the 

correct diagnosis if they are victims of child maltreatment. 

 Serving as a multidisciplinary child abuse team member for 27 years, 

I have examined thousands of children who have been the victims of 

child sexual abuse, as well as other forms of child maltreatment. I have 

lectured throughout the United States and internationally providing more 

than 200 trainings in the areas of child sexual exploitation, physical 

abuse, child neglect, and child homicide. I spent 21 years as an active 

duty Army officer providing general pediatric developmental and 

behavioral pediatric, and forensic pediatric care for members of the 

armed services. I continue as an instructor for the Department of the 
16

Army Medical Education Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, 

Texas, which provides the multidisciplinary training to family advocacy 

program members in branches of the services. 

 Since my retirement from the Army, with the rank of colonel 9 years 

ago, I focused my area of expertise on child sexual exploitation, child 

and youth development, behavior, and all aspects of child maltreatment. 

I have been an instructor for the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia for nearly 6 years and have 

been provided training on victim impact on children depicted in child 

sexual abuse images and exploited through prostitution. In addition, I 

teach prosecutors, law enforcement officers, judges, and healthcare 

providers on how to medically analyze these pornography images and 

facilitate the evaluations of such images with the children’s agents. I 

have worked with the Child Victim Identification Program and the 

National Center. I have taught at the International Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children and the Microsoft Corporation providing similar 

training to law enforcement officers in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, 

Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. 

 As a forensic pediatrician, I have also provided medical care directly 

to children who have been sexually abused and pornographically 

photographed or videotaped. These clinical evaluations have included 

family and investigator interviews, review of the pornographic images, 

victim medical interviews, full medical examination, and case 

conferences. I have also evaluated children who have been exploited 

through prostitution both from within their families, as well as by 

acquaintances and intimate partners. 

 In addition to having to evaluate children and youth victimized in 

this manner, I have also analyzed thousands of images of child 

pornography. These images were stored as computer files, videotapes, 

DVDs, Polaroid’s, and other images. 

 Child sexual exploitation is the most underreported form of child 

abuse. Child pornography on the Internet, in particular, has untold 

impact upon victims. The possession and distribution of these images 

which are in fact digital crime scenes, promote the need for more and 

more plentiful and more graphic images. The two most commonly cited 

reasons that individuals collect these images are for sexual gratification 

through masturbation and as a plan for action. Many criminology studies 

have been done to show the motivation of individuals who would collect 

these images and this research has revealed that there is a one and three 

chance to as high as three out of four chances that an individual with 

such images has already sexually abused a child. 

 Child pornography constitutes insult to injury to a victim. The injury 

is child sexual abuse. The insult is the memorialization of that child 
17

sexual abuse from time untold. It is very important for us to recognize 

that child pornography is a phenomenon which we must pay close 

attention to and seek to eradicate. 

 I am very pleased to be here before the committee today and look 

forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

 [The prepared statement of Sharon W. Cooper, M.D., follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHARON W. COOPER, M.D., FAAP, DEVELOPMENTAL AND 

FORENSIC PEDIATRICS, PA, DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH 

CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL

SUMMARY 

Child sexual exploitation is the most underreported form of child abuse today. 

Boosted by the Internet, these sexual abuse images constitute a digital crime scene, and a 

significant percent of such images online are of children less than 5 years of age. Driven 

by a offender pool which has anywhere from a one in three chance to a three out of four 

chance of having already sexually abused a minor, the supply and demand for this 

multibillion dollar industry continues to grow. Initially, the National Center and Missing 

and Exploited Children® monitored a database of 100,000 images. Today, this number 

of images has ballooned to more than 3 million. Children are often sexually abused and 

pornographically photographed by family members and familiar acquaintances. 

The presence of extremely graphic sadistic images of very young toddlers reinforces 

the skill of offenders who choose the most vulnerable of victims who are not only often 

preverbal, but who are also most likely to have trouble qualifying as a competent witness 

at a criminal trial. 

The link of pornography to the other four types of sexual exploitation: prostitution 

of children and youths, cyber-enticement, child sex tourism and human trafficking is well 

described. Professionals in the child abuse multidisciplinary teams must work ardently to 

become educated regarding this form of abuse. Recognizing the impact of child sexual 

abuse images on the Internet and predator dynamics is essential to reversing this 

exploding and extremely dangerous crime in America today. 

I. My name is Sharon Cooper and I am an adjunct professor of Pediatrics at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine. I have 

worked as a Pediatrician for 30 years and in the area of Forensic Pediatrics 

since 1980. As a doctor who works with maltreated children, a Forensic 

Pediatrician has an advanced understanding of the nexus of medicine and the 

law, and focuses on assuring that children will be correctly diagnosed as 

victims of child maltreatment when that diagnosis is considered. Serving as a 

multidisciplinary child abuse team member for 27 years, I have examined 

thousands of children who have been the victims of child sexual abuse as well 

as other forms of child maltreatment. I have lectured throughout the United 

States and internationally, providing more than 200 trainings in the areas of 

child sexual exploitation, child sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and child 

homicide. I spent 21 years as an active duty Army officer providing general 

Pediatric, Developmental and Behavioral Pediatric and Forensic Pediatric care 

for children of members of all branches of the armed forces. I continue as an 

instructor for the Army Medical Education Department Center and School at 

Fort Sam Houston, Texas which provides multidisciplinary team training to 

Family Advocacy Program members in all branches of the services. Since my 

retirement with the rank of colonel from the United States Army 9 years ago, I 
18

have focused my areas of expertise on child sexual exploitation, child and youth 

development and behavior, and all aspects of child maltreatment. I have been 

an instructor at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 

Alexandria, Virginia for nearly six years, and have provided training on the 

victim impact on children depicted in child sexual abuse images and exploited 

through prostitution. In addition, I teach prosecutors, law enforcement officers, 

judges and health care providers how to medically analyze child pornography 

images. I have provided even more in depth training regarding the 

determination of probable victim ages to the analysts of the Child Victim 

Identification Program of the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children as well as similar professionals of the Canadian Cybertipline. 

Working with the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children and 

the Microsoft Corporation, I have provided similar training to law enforcement 

officers in the US, Canada, Europe, Russia, Southeast Asia and the Middle 

East. 

II. As a Forensic Pediatrician I have provided direct patient care to several children 

who have been sexually abused and pornographically photographed or 

videotaped. These clinical evaluations have included family and investigator 

interviews, review of the pornographic images, victim medical interviews, 

behavioral analyses, and full medical examinations as well as case conferences 

after the medical assessment. I have also evaluated children who have been 

exploited through prostitution both from within their families as well as by 

acquaintances and intimate partners. In addition to having evaluated children 

and youths victimized in this manner, I have also analyzed thousands of images 

of child pornography. These images were stored as computer files, videotapes, 

DVDs, Polaroid pictures, and published images in trade magazines. The 

overwhelming majority of this contraband was computer stored images and 

videotapes, confiscated during investigations by Internet Crimes against 

Children (ICAC) teams and almost all federal criminal investigative agencies. I 

have published in this area to include an article with Attorney Damon King of 

the Child Sexual Exploitation and Obscenity Section. of the Department of 

Justice. I have served as an expert witness in family court and criminal 

prosecutions involving child pornography in state, federal and court martial 

proceedings. 

III. I have recently completed a textbook on the subject of child sexual exploitation 

in 2005 which has been endorsed by the National District Attorney’s 

Association. The text, entitled Medical, Legal, and Social Science Aspects of 

Child Sexual Exploitation: A Comprehensive Review of Pornography, 

Prostitution, and Internet Crimes has four other co-authors: Richard Estes, 

DSW, ACSW, Angelo P. Giardino, MD, PhD, FAAP, Nancy D. Kellogg, MD, 

and Victor I. Vieth, JD. This compendium of nearly 60 contributors from 8 

different countries provides a thorough background of the five types of child 

sexual exploitation: child pornography, prostitution of children and youths, 

cyber-enticement, child sex tourism, and the human trafficking of children and 

youths, both domestically and internationally. The text has a supplemental CDROM which includes further information in this area with case reports, training 

modules, selected readings and in particular an emphasis on the medical care of 

victims of these forms of child abuse. 

IV. Child sexual exploitation is cited to be the most underreported form of child 

abuse. Child pornography on the Internet in particular has as yet untold impact 
19

upon victims. The possession and distribution of these images, which are in 

fact, digital crime scenes, promotes a need for newer, more plentiful and more 

graphic images. The two most commonly cited reasons that individuals collect 

these images are for sexual gratification through masturbation and as a plan for 

action. Criminology studies to date from the US Postal Inspection Service, the 

Toronto Child Sexual Exploitation Unit and the Federal Bureau of Prisons here 

in the US reveal that those who possess these images have a 1 in 3 chance to as 

high as 3 out of 4 chance of having already sexually abused a child. Further 

research from the National Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study 

(Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2003) has revealed that from 2000-2001, 

offenders primarily collected child pornography of children between the ages of 

6 and 12 years. It is important to know, though those offenders are often 

diverse in the content of their child pornography collections and during that 

same period, nearly 50% of collected images were of children less than 5 years 

old. Such young victims are prime targets for sex offenders because of their 

preverbal nature and the fact that they often unable to be made competent on a 

witness stand in criminal proceedings. 

V. Child pornography constitutes insult to injury for a victim: the injury is child 

sexual abuse in all of its methods of victimization. The insult is the 

memorialization of that exploitation for an untold amount of time. Many of the 

images which I see on a regular basis show severe vaginal and anal assault 

against toddlers, bondage of these children with gags in their mouths, ligatures 

around their necks, and on occasion, physical beatings in conjunction with 

video clips of brutal oral, vaginal and anal penetration. In addition, recent 

research has shown that 88% of girls who have been sexually abused do not 

make a disclosure during childhood (Hansen, 1999). Numerous case examples 

of victims of child sexual abuse and pornography production, denial of the 

existence of photos or videotapes etc. is also very common, even though 

children do acknowledge the sexual abuse. Training for interviewing and 

treating such children and youths as well as those who have been groomed into 

compliant victimization is both essential and an immediate priority. Programs 

such as Finding Words and other forensic interviewing curricula must include 

the evaluation of these types of victims. 

VI. It is very important to understand that child pornography is a common thread in 

all forms of child sexual exploitation: prostituted children and youths, cyberenticement, child sex tourism and human trafficking of children. The bottom 

line is that children have become a commodity for a practice that seeks to 

normalize sexual harm. Preferential sex offenders who produce these images 

have been reported to be responding to special requests from like minded online 

offenders, or strictly as a means of financial gain. Infant and toddler sexual 

abuse is a frightening and sobering reality particularly in light of the National 

Institute of Justice report in 1994 which cited that victims of child sexual abuse 

were twenty-eight times more likely to be arrested in their lives for prostitution, 

than children who had never been sexually abused. Recent high profile 

multiple victim and multiple offender sex rings have alerted those of us who 

work in this area to the fact that immense technology exists in support of these 

types of heinous crimes against our most important national treasure, our 

country’s future, our children. I urge you to read the attached document, “Unto 

the Third Generation” written by one of our co-authors, Attorney Victor Vieth, 

Director of the American Prosecutor’s Research Institute’s National Child 

Protection Training Center. I look forward to providing whatever information 
20

that I can to the members of this committee and express my appreciation for the 

opportunity to answer any of your questions. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Dr. Cooper, thank you. Thanks so much for your 

testimony. 

 Did you read the December 19, 2005 story in the New York Times 

about Justin Berry? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, I did. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, could you explain how an online predator is 

able to actually convince a child to do some of the things that Justin did, 

like perform sexual acts on a webcam for money? How can they actually 

do that? 

 DR. COOPER. I think that the important phenomenon for us to 

understand is that online predators befriend adolescents. They become 

closer to them than many times their family members are. They are 

frequently in touch with them several times a day. In addition to giving 

them numerous awards and rewards for their discussion online, they 

become their closest friends. And because of that, and because of the 

adolescent’s mind which is very much in the sexually explorative phase 

in child development, it is not unusual for sexual exploration to be part of 

that relationship. So we find that many adolescents who become 

exhibitionistic on the Internet are doing so partly because of sexual 

exploration and sexual development, and also because of a normalization 

of sexual harm that is very prevalent in our society today. Sexualized 

images are everywhere to be found on the television, in their music, in 

music videos, in magazines, it is very, very common and so consequently 

it is easy for me to understand how an adolescent who is reaching out for 

some type of companionship online could fall prey and become a 

compliant victim. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So these so-called predators, they actually form a 

close friendship with the child by way of the Internet initially and then 

maybe start talking to them on the phone or meet them somewhere. 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct, sir. I have taken care of several 

adolescent victims who have had their first relationships via an online 

partnership. And first of all, it is odd that we would think this is hard for 

teenagers because adults do the same thing. We have lots of online 

dating today. Lots of Internet chat rooms between adults and kids are 

very much the same way. I think what is more important is that 

predators recognize the vulnerability of children and they frequently will 

be there at all times of the night, frequently contacting the children after 

their parents have gone to bed, giving them cell phones so that they can 

have direct contact and the parents will not know. And this secrecy, as 

well as attention that is provided to teenagers is very, very convincing to 

young children. 
21

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, we all know what the word predator means, 

but looking at that term as it relates to sexual exploitation of children on 

the Internet, how would you actually define the term predator? 

 DR. COOPER. I would say that a person who is a predator on the 

Internet is a person who commodifies children. They do not see children 

as beings, but as a commodity and what purpose and function do they 

serve for that person’s sexual gratification or monetary benefits. So they 

are a predator from the standpoint of certainly presenting themselves as 

harmful to a child, but the most important thing is that they will look 

upon this child as a checkmark if you will among the whole group of 

children that they are seeking to exploit in this manner. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And so it starts out as a friendship that eventually 

ends up with the predator providing gifts and/or money or some other 

inducement. Is that correct? 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, could you explain from your professional 

experience how say Justin’s experiences, what kind of impact does that 

have on a child over time? 

 DR. COOPER. If I were to use an example such as the case of Mr. 

Berry, I would have to say that this is a life changing event. Child sexual 

abuse in and of itself is the beginning of this process for him. And much 

of the research tells us that 86 percent of children who are sexually 

abused, whether that occurs in early childhood or in adolescent years, 

will have long-term consequences. Typically the most common 

problems that we will see are going to be depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. But we also think that kids who are exploited 

online have an additional phenomenon and that is the paranoia that other 

people will be able to know what has happened to them and the fact that 

other people may discover those images at any time in the future. This 

causes a degree of computer absorption, a paranoia regarding peer 

groups that children who have been sexually abused and others do not 

know or may be able to hide better. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now I have read Justin’s testimony and I have also 

read stories about other young people who have been solicited over the 

Internet. One of the things that is kind of puzzling about this is once they 

actually meet the predator and they are sexually exploited or molested, 

there seems to be a tendency to continue to meet with the predator even 

after that. How does that happen and why does that happen? 

 DR. COOPER. What frequently occurs is that that initial meeting on 

the part of the child and the predator is one of explanation. Initially the 

child sees themselves as an equal to that predator. What they do not 

recognize and as time goes on, they are not in control of that relationship. 

They would like to be in control of that relationship, but this other person 
22

continues to, I would say, digitally stalk them, to being in touch with 

them all the time, to encourage them to continue to meet, that they 

cannot live without them. This type of attention and inducement is very 

difficult for anybody, including an adolescent to resist. It causes them to 

feel better about themselves initially, until they discover that they are 

being exploited and it is not their choice to continue in those 

relationships. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, in your testimony, you described child 

pornography as a digital crime scene. 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. When you said those three words, would you 

elaborate on that just for a few minutes? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, I would be happy to. For a long time, healthcare 

professionals and others in the field of child abuse had a hard time 

acknowledging that child pornography was real. They thought perhaps 

these images were morphed and thought that these were not truly 

children, they were adults made to look like children. It took a lot for 

individuals to finally come to recognize that these are actually children. 

What we are seeing is very similar to a video camera in a convenience 

store. You are seeing the actual real time sexual abuse of a child. When 

we see online images or if we see videotapes that have been made of 

children, by sex tourists who have gone outside the country and made 

their own videotapes, we are looking at a crime scene. The fact that it is 

online makes it a digital crime scene. And it is very important for us to 

recognize that in the United States, we call this child pornography, but in 

Europe, in many of the other countries outside of this country, these are 

referred to as child sexual abuse images. So that the public will not be 

confused if this is a voluntary modeling, it is not voluntary modeling, it 

is in fact a crime. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, in your professional capacity have you had 

the opportunity to interview or study or meet with the so-called predators 

at all? 

 DR. COOPER. I have had the opportunity to testify in court cases in 

fact of individuals who have exploited children through either 

pornography and many times pornography and prostitution together 

because that is a very common connection. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And that motivates a predator? 

 DR. COOPER. I would say that there are three common reasons, 

although the researchers, the best researchers for this have been in 

Ireland who have gone into the prison system and interviewed collectors 

of child pornography. The three most common reasons that are cited are, 

number one for sexual gratification. These individuals will look at 

images in order to fantasize about their own relationship with that child. 
23

A second reason that they will collect images or seek to make images is 

because it is a plan for action. That is the most important one that I think 

we will need to be aware of. When an individual is looking at child 

pornography online, many of these individuals are planning how they are 

going to commit a contact offense with another child. They are using 

what they are seeing online, both to normalize and justify their 

behaviors. Particularly if they see hundreds and hundreds of images 

online, they come to the belief that this is common, everyone is doing it, 

and so, therefore, I am going to do it too. They will use what they see as 

a plan for action. The third reason is because it allows them to be a 

collector, in fact and with their likeminded friends, they can speak of the 

fact that they have numerous images within their collection. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, would you say that, and I know it is difficult 

to generalize, but predators who are engaged in this activity, I am 

assuming most of them have full-time jobs. They may be a professional, 

they may come from any walk of life. Is that correct? 

 DR. COOPER. There is a very interesting phenomenon about child 

pornography, that is correct, that they do come from all walks of life. 

There may very well be small town individuals who have very minimal 

resources, who still are downloading child pornography. In one 

particular case that I am familiar with in my State, an individual was 

marketing his seven-year-old daughter by sending pictures of her on the 

Internet and he did not even have his own computer, he was using the 

county library computer to do this. So you can have individuals who are 

not wealthy well-to-do individuals, are still very much involved in this 

practice. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. It would not be unusual for them to send over the 

Internet, a webcam of them actually molesting the child on, I mean, 

televised while they are doing it, right? 

 DR. COOPER. They would have live webcam situations. You have 

almost all of those, a receiver of that information so you usually have at 

least two individuals who are intentionally communicating with images. 

As you are aware, the most recent and high profile case that occurred two 

weeks ago is associated with 27 individuals who were live web casting to 

each other and talking so that they could ask for certain sexual acts to be 

performed on a given child so that they would have the opportunity to 

watch this. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well thanks, Dr. Cooper, my time is expired and I 

recognize Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well thank you. 

 Thank you, Dr. Cooper, for rearranging your travel schedule to be 

with us here today on this important issue. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you. 
24

 MR. STUPAK. You mentioned a small town and actually my staff 

being well prepared went to the Michigan site for a public sex offender 

registry and this was just from my small town, I come from a very small 

town but it is seven pages, there are 39 people there. And I will quite tell 

you as I just thumbed through it here quickly I was quite surprised. 

These public sex offender registries we hear a lot about, are they any 

kind of a deterrent? It seems they catch a lot of attention but is it some 

kind of deterrent to a kind of sexual abuse we are seeing on the Internet? 

 DR. COOPER. Sir, I would say that the presence of being a registered 

sex offender may deter a person from having a contact offense with a 

child in their neighborhood; however, I believe that it does contribute to 

individuals going online more, because unless their sex offense results in 

a parole or a probation, or that they cannot access or use a computer, 

individuals are more likely to go online to access images of children for 

the purpose of sexual gratification through masturbation because they are 

fearful to actually have contact offenses. What we also know is that sex 

offender registries have a higher association of spawning child sex 

tourists. Americans are the most common child sex tourists and one of 

the main reasons they leave the United States to travel to third tier 

countries in order to have sex with children is because they are registered 

sex offenders. And so it sort of switches or transitions the victims from 

American children to foreign national children. 

 MR. STUPAK. I see. In this and I just read that, I was just looking at 

again just very quickly. Are you surprised that the number of people 

registered here who are only 20, 21, 22. Is there any kind of, in your 

research or studies, is there any kind of profile of the person who is 

trying to obtain this information over the Internet? I mean, I got all ages 

on this list and I do not know what the offenses are for but is there any 

kind of profile that has developed through your work? 

 DR. COOPER. We know that the majority of individuals who are 

seeking either to contact children or who are collecting images are male, 

almost 99 percent are male. They tend to be non-Hispanic white males. 

We also know that they have the highest incidents of committing this 

crime between the ages of 26 and 35. That is your most common age, 

however, we are beginning to see younger and younger offenders if you 

will, to include youth offenders because of the availability of child 

pornography on the Internet. I believe that we are in a bit of a quandary 

to decide what to do about teenagers, for example, who are downloading 

images because we are not sure if the images titled 13-year-old daughter, 

for example, and a 15-year-old is accessing that image, we would be a 

little confused as to whether or not that actually would constitute child 

abuse or sexual exploration. So you can see that while we have the 

young offenders, they are breaking a low but we are not positive about 
25

the positive there. On the other hand, we have definitely older people 

who are clearly accessing images of very young children. There is no 

doubt that they are doing that with informed consent so to speak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this in your research and I see you 

have a couple of your books there. One part was, in your research is 

about the law but just the public sex offender registry, each State has 

them, would those convictions for a sexual possession of pornography, 

children, would that necessarily be on these offenders if the list teaches 

things a little different as to what offenses make up to find yourself on a 

public sex offender registry? It is my understanding some States even if 

you are convicted of the crimes we are talking about today you do not 

appear on the sexual offender list. 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct, sir. It really depends upon the State 

and the judge, how that final sentencing is going to be. Our goal is to 

educate prosecutors, juries, and judges that if you are going to not have 

any type of incarceration as the sentence for this kind of crime, the least 

that should happen is that a person should become a registered sex 

offender. 

 MR. STUPAK. So that would be one area where Congress probably 

would have an opportunity to act on since the Internet is interstate 

commerce and no doubt about that. 

 Do you think child pornography is becoming more acceptable in our 

society? You mentioned that if I am convicted here in the United States, 

then I will just go elsewhere to get around the limitations that may be 

placed upon me here in the United States. 

 DR. COOPER. I believe that child pornography in our society, no, I 

do not think it is becoming more acceptable, although it is becoming 

more common. What I do believe is that people who are sexually 

abusing their children are changing. They are becoming more 

exhibitionistic with respect to how they sexually abuse their children. 

Ten years ago, before we had public access to the Internet so readily, 

parents were sexually abusing their children but they were not taking 

videotapes and making pictures and putting them on the Internet. Now 

that is what we are beginning to see, which means that they see their 

children not only as their victims but as a commodity for money to the 

public and those who are likeminded and would like to have access to 

their children in that sense. So I see the commodification of children as a 

bigger problem in our society and the fact that we fail to see them as 

individuals who will be highly harmed by knowing that their images are 

on the Internet. 

 MR. STUPAK. You indicated in your answer that while it is not more 

acceptable, it is more common in children in the ways they become more 

of a commodity, a commercial enterprise. 
26

 DR. COOPER. This is correct. 

 MR. STUPAK. Because of the growing use of the Internet, are 

consumers then often required not only to purchase images but also to 

provide their own unique picture, I do not want to say unique but provide 

something which will not only be it for purchase for the personal 

satisfaction but also then are they required then to provide pictures or to 

put the pressure upon them to access? 

 DR. COOPER. Yeah, absolutely, correct. There are several episodes 

of discussions on the Internet between individuals who want new images. 

They may want, for example, the reset of a known series that they have. 

A series may have 30 or 40 images, and they only have 15 so they want 

the rest. The key thing though, is that they will usually be required to 

provide their own images in order to, as a trading in order to do that. 

There are certain situations where they are asked to provide new images 

that have never been on the Internet before, and this is what encourages 

individuals to sexually abuse their own children in order to make those 

images available. Those have a higher desirability because more people 

already have many of the hundreds of thousands of images that are 

already on the Internet. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this. And I do not mean this in any 

way a reflection upon baseball. What I am going to say is are they 

trading them--like when I was growing up we traded baseball card and 

certain things, certain cards you wanted, certain stars. Is it like that on 

the Internet? 

 DR. COOPER. Very much it is that way, particularly when you have 

collectors who want to complete their series, or if you have individuals 

who have a certain fetish. For example, one case that I worked in, the 

individual had a child smoking fetish and he wanted pornographic 

images of children, all of whom were smoking. So they work very hard 

to find other people who have those kind of images and frequently those 

are homemade images. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask this question because I mentioned in my 

opening and in my research and someone mentioned, our staffs have 

really done a good job in helping us prepare for this but in our research 

in everything we have done here, it appears that about 60 percent of these 

victims are under the age of 12. So did you and you mentioned it earlier, 

could you explain what you mean by grooming children into compliant 

victimization? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, I will. And if I could make a comment-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 DR. COOPER. --of the 60 percent who are under 12, the reason that 

60 percent are under 12, is because it is easier to charge when children 

are pre-pubescent appearing. You will have plenty of adolescent victims 
27

whose images are also on the Internet. But because they are adolescents, 

it is more difficult to tell that they are less than 18, which is the standard 

of the law. You will have adolescent victims and they would be 

marketed under gold banners, and others with still underage minors, but 

it is much easier to charge and successfully prosecute children who do 

not appear to have any sexual maturation which classically is children 

under 12. Now in answer to your question regarding complaint 

victimization, when children see or are shown images of other children 

who are being sexually abused and this is a common behavior of cyber 

enticers who will send pornographic images to children in order to help 

them understand that everybody does this, it is okay. When that 

happens, children will come to believe that this is something that lots of 

other kids do so maybe it is not that bad and they become a compliant 

victim in that situation and can actually recruit other victims. 

 MR. STUPAK. Now then what happens to the very young victim after 

they are rescued from their abusers after years of grooming and being 

used in child pornography images? What kind of a child is left us? 

 DR. COOPER. A very damaged child. The National Institute of 

Justice tells us that they are 28 times more likely to be arrested for 

prostitution in their lives than other children. 

 MR. STUPAK. It looks like my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman and thank you again for your testimony and being here today. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

 At this time, I will recognize the Chairman for his 10 minutes of 

questions. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been in my 

office watching the hearing on television. 

 Dr. Cooper, let us set aside the tragedy of this for a moment; what is 

the societal poison or wrong that happens as a result of child 

pornography? What happens to us as a society because of this? 

 DR. COOPER. Sir, I would say that our society responds as it did to 

violence on television. We become tolerant to the presence of really 

significant violence and we fail to recognize after a while that it is indeed 

violence. The same is true with child pornography. If we do not respond 

with an absolute zero tolerance type of response, we will begin to accept 

the form of child abuse. I think the other important point is that because 

this is a technology driven type of crime, many people fail to recognize 

that we are talking about child sexual abuse. In fact, I sit on several 

committees, national committees, that have had a hard time grasping that 

we are really talking about child sexual abuse with the digital 

moralization. So we have had a tough time getting our child protection 

services workers to the table for example because it has been hard for 
28

them to understand that this is not a victimless crime. Five years ago, 

that was the most common statement, this is a victimless crime. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well do the children that are molested, as 

adults, do they manifest any social behavioral problems, law 

enforcement run-ins on a higher level of incidents than children that are 

not exploited as children sexually? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, they do, sir. When they have been exploited 

especially visually, you are much more likely to accept yourself that 

way. To become a marketer or to be easily marketed by others is the 

next that follow to this type of exploitation so many that prostitution has 

a much higher occurrence in individuals who are exploited in this 

manner. And in fact, Dr. Richard Estes research from the University of 

Pennsylvania, revealed when he went to codify the cities he went out of 

State to juvenile detention centers talking to kids who had been arrested 

for prostitution. There was an overwhelmingly large number of these 

children who had been already prostituted and pornographically 

photographed from within their families before they ran away and 

ultimately were being prostituted on the streets. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And when you talk about, excuse me, digital 

molestation what is the minimum standard that would be considered to 

be sexually exploitive? 

 DR. COOPER. In the United States, images revealed new lascivious, 

if you will, visualization of the genitals of a child. The child may be 

dressed but their clothes, their position, the way that the individual 

closeness from inside of camera is focusing typically on the genital area. 

That is the beginning of an exploitive image for the U.S. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Now is that under current law, is that illegal? 

 DR. COOPER. That is illegal under the Protect Acts; however, many 

images of nude children who are then shown in various sexually explicit 

poses without any evidence of actual sexual assault are considered 

erotica in the United States, although they are considered pornography in 

Canada just across the border. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So if a parent were to take his or her child and 

pose them without their clothes on and send that over the Internet that 

would be illegal today? 

 DR. COOPER. It would depend upon how they are posed. And let me 

give you an example. One of my patient’s in my child abuse clinic 

stepfather posed her, 11-year-old, posed her at a table with her breasts 

lying on grass and put little bunny ears above her breasts and took 

pictures of this. This is not considered to be pornographic because it was 

not genital. The effect on the child as you can imagine was significant. 

The Walgreen Department Store that made these pictures out of the film 

called law enforcement right away because they thought this was child 
29

pornography but it did not meet the letter of the law under that 

circumstance because it was not genital exposure. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Is there any indication that because of the 

Internet, parents that exploit their children is growing as a percent of the 

population? 

 DR. COOPER. I think so because I have been seeing child sexual 

abuse cases since 1980 and I cannot recall seeing as many parents who 

have taken pictures of their children like they are now and beginning to 

put them on the Internet, to exchange them with each other. This is very 

much a concerning trend. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Now under current law, a parent that does that, 

if caught and convicted, does the parent lose custody of the child? 

 DR. COOPER. Almost always that would be the case, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. What about the amounts of money? We were 

briefed that in one of the cases they were taking in several million dollars 

a month. 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct. The Avalanche case is a good 

example. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Under current law, does that, can that money 

be forfeited like in a drug case or does it stay in the account of the 

exploiter and they do their time and it is their money? 

 DR. COOPER. Recently, sir, in Kentucky, I testified in a deposition 

for that purpose so that money that was obtained by in this particular 

case from an individual who was making child pornography, and as a 

Federal employee had his own money from his retirement. That 

particular U.S. Attorney made the appropriate motions to have his 

retirement pay closed in a fund for the child victims for their mental 

health services for several years to come. So that degree of restorative 

justice is definitely available and it is something that I have only seen 

once, but would really like to see happen more. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, is that something that we need to look 

at, at the Federal level, a special statute of enforcement and penalties for 

parental molestation and asset forfeiture is that something that would be 

helpful? 

 DR. COOPER. Definitely, sir. This was a stepfather to this child. 

There were several victims, but the primary victim was this child. I think 

that would be a very good idea. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Is most of the money that changes hands done 

by credit card? 

 DR. COOPER. And PayPal accounts, yes, usually through credit 

accounts and PayPal. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Is that something that we need to look at? Are 

there any under current law, penalties towards a credit card company that 
30

knowingly and willfully accepts funds, transfers funds of a child 

pornographic nature? 

 DR. COOPER. I definitely believe that is something that the Congress 

should consider, sir, because we are doing the best we can do from the 

victim level, but when we have this much money driving the train, it is 

very hard to interrupt that kind of process without some type of very high 

level regulation or mandatory perusal. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is enough 

questions for this witness. 

 Thank you for your work in this effort area and thank you for 

testifying today. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I might mention that on Thursday we are going to have another 

hearing on this issue relating to law enforcement and we are going to get 

into more detail about the methods of payment. 

 And at this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for his 10 minutes. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Thank you, Dr. Cooper for being here and being so generous with 

your time this morning. 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

 MR. BURGESS. You probably already answered this but let me ask it 

again just so I am sure that I understand it. I get the impression that of 

course child exploitation and child sexual abuse has been with us for a 

long, long time unfortunately. 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct. 

 MR. BURGESS. But get the impression that the Internet has caused a 

change in this. Is that a correct assumption? 

 DR. COOPER. That is true. I would agree. The Internet has made it 

all different. There are five different types of child sexual exploitation, 

but the Internet facilitates every single one of those types of child sexual 

exploitation. 

 MR. BURGESS. And you alluded a minute ago to somebody who 

took their pictures to Walgreen’s to be developed and the developers 

obviously alerted someone if there was a problem or there may be a 

problem here, but the Internet and digital photography is where they cut 

out the middleman in many respects so that now the availability of 

creating images is can be done within the privacy of one’s own home 

without involving a third party such as Walgreen’s. Do you think that 

has had an effect? 

 DR. COOPER. Very much so, sir. I think the ability for collectors to 

be anonymous and for producers to be anonymous has made this a much 

more difficult crime for all of us to be able to attack. The greatest 
31

individuals who suffer are the victims, because we see the images but we 

do not know who these children are. It is very challenging to try to track 

down where these images may have come from and who these children 

might be. It has been very challenging to do that. 

 MR. BURGESS. You used a word that I guess didn’t even know was a 

verb but the word commodification of children and I guess just coming 

from a perspective where we have to be protective with the most 

vulnerable members of society, the fact that we are turning them into a 

commodity is a disturbing, a very disturbing concept for most of us up 

here. But, and the Chairman has asked this, but are there ways, other 

specific steps that you think we could take or that could be taken by 

legislative bodies to make it more difficult to commodify our children 

and to provide more protection to the most vulnerable members? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, sir, I think that there are some steps that can be 

taken. One of the most important is to try to go back to our media the 

value of children, and to not allow children to be depicted in the media as 

a commodity, as we are beginning to see very, very commonly. This is 

one of the things that really contributes. In my discussions with outreach 

programs in various parts of the United States, this is one of the 

phenomena that is contributing to the compliant victim. When children 

see other kids on TV, especially teenagers on TV who are being treated 

in very sexually exploitive ways either through music videos, on 

videogames, et cetera, it causes children to believe themselves to be 

available in that manner. And that is the entertainment media and it is 

very challenging. I think we all have to pay attention to the huge 

messages that are being promoted every day, with respect to the whole 

commodification of children in the media. There is one thing, this is not 

obscenity per say, but it certainly is a message that all parents need to be 

more aware of when they see music videos with young teenagers who are 

being presented as if they were being prostituted, or as if they were being 

exploited and this is 24 hours a day on cable TV. It is really easy to see 

how kids will think this is okay for them. 

 MR. BURGESS. Or in fact during the presentation of the Oscars but 

let us-- 

 DR. COOPER. Exactly right. 

 MR. BURGESS. Let us stay on this for a minute because this too 

predates the Internet. And I guess the question I would have is is the 

Internet a causer and effect here or is it merely a facilitator and now 

changes this behavior to one that can be accomplished at warp speed if 

you will? 

 DR. COOPER. It really does, sir. In fact, you can usually see some 

imagery on television and the next day it will be on the Internet and it 

will be the same imagery which will be on the Internet for the next 6 
32

weeks. It may not be on TV anymore, but it will be on the Internet for 

the next six weeks and children can finally download that information or 

they can just look at it on their computers in their home and then as they 

get their cell phones with cameras and start to take pictures and transmit 

to each other. You can really understand how this would not be seen as 

terribly abnormal because they see it on the Internet every day in their 

bedrooms. 

 MR. BURGESS. So to some degree the Internet may be an accelerant 

for this fire and not in fact the cause of this? 

 DR. COOPER. That is correct. 

 MR. BURGESS. That is what this Chairman has done but that is what 

is going to make it so difficult for us legislatively to deal with this and 

we feel it is important work that we do need to take on. But for people 

who are parents who are concerned about their children, is there a 

particular type of profile that the parents ought to be aware of or 

particular types of behavior that they have to be aware of in their 

children that should cause some alarm bells to go off? 

 DR. COOPER. Well the first thing that I think is important for parents 

to understand, there used to be like the i-SAFEty Program is one but 

there are several programs. The National Center has one called Net 

Smarts as well. Parents really need to be educated from the preschool 

time period about the risks for child pornography and child sexual abuse 

because, remember that we have very young children who have been 

sexually abused these days and it is important for parents to understand 

how that can happen, and how to protect their children. I think the 

hardest part is for us to help parents recognize that these children are 

being abused within their own homes. There is almost always a nonabsenting parent in that home, so we need to empower parents. 

Healthcare providers need to be talking to parents when children are 

infants about the importance of protecting their children, not just from 

the normal constant safety that we speak of, but the issues of sexual 

exploitation, sexual abuse which many parents would never think would 

be relevant information for an infant who is less than 12 months of age. 

However, the Internet is showing us that this is an important 

phenomenon that we need to be discussing with parents across the board. 

The majority of offenders are indeed men. So it is important for us to 

help parents understand that. 

 MR. BURGESS. What type of outreach program do you have for 

healthcare providers? Because that is, I have got to tell you as someone 

who just recently left the healthcare providing field, I do not know that 

this would have crossed my radar screen in dealing with a patient with a 

problem. 
33

 DR. COOPER. You are absolutely right. For those of us who work in 

child abuse, we are more tunnel-visioned with respect to child safety 

from abuse. General healthcare providers, family medicine, and 

pediatrics need to be much more aware of the fact that child pornography 

exists, that these are little children, they are not victimless and it is not a 

virtual crime, it is a real crime. We need to add to our ancillary 

guidance, in our well child checks, et cetera, sports physicals, questions 

to the children and also advice to parents about how to keep children safe 

but also how to make sure that they are not exposed every day to those 

mind changing media driven messages that can cause their pre-teens and 

teenagers to become compliant victims. 

 MR. BURGESS. That is an enormous task of education, re-education 

of healthcare professionals. Do you have some programs currently that 

are ongoing to do that, to accomplish that? 

 DR. COOPER. There are some online programs but I am a member of 

the American Academy of Pediatrics and it is my goal to try to bring this 

into our well child checks. 

 MR. BURGESS. Well, again, for parents who are watching this 

hearing today and I hope that some are, what are some of the things that 

they can themselves do to increase their involvement in their children’s 

lives to put another barrier between their child and the potential for 

abuse? 

 DR. COOPER. The most important thing that I think parents should 

do is first of all communicate with their children from the time they are 

very young. Do not wait until they are 13 and 14 to start talking to them. 

The second point is to be aware of social networking sites such sites as 

MySpace, the FaceBook, Zanga.com, where children are beginning to do 

online diaries and put their own pictures of themselves which is a risk. 

That is a bit of a risk in particular because many children when they are 

13 and 14 years of age will be a little exhibitionistic. That is just a part 

of being an adolescent but it is a little dangerous to be that way online as 

we have seen from the case of Justin Berry. He was only 13 and all he 

had to do was take his shirt off and all of a sudden men were responding 

to him in that situation. So I think talking to children from the very 

beginning, from the time they are very young, helping them to recognize 

and helping parents to recognize that the majority of offenders are not 

strangers. That is the other important point. Many parents speak to their 

children about being aware of strangers but the majority of sex offenders 

are acquaintances and/or relatives. The third point is to be careful not to 

let children have Internet access in their bedroom. They can have a 

computer in their bedroom, but not Internet access in their bedroom. 

That should be where parents can monitor their usage. 
34

 MR. BURGESS. Thanks again, Dr. Cooper. You have been very 

generous of your time and we really appreciate your rearranging your 

schedule to be with us today. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you. 

 MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. 

 And I recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I do not know that I have got that many additional questions. You 

have done a marvelous job and my colleagues have asked all the 

questions I was thinking of as well. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

 MR. WALDEN. As I listened to Dr. Burgess the things what can 

parents do, you certainly addressed those issues and enlightened us about 

how severe this problem is, so I appreciate your testimony today and the 

questions and unless you have anything else to add. 

 DR. COOPER. I remember that Mr. Barton had asked how could have 

individual have an interest in an 18-month-old and I wanted to respond to 

that question. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 DR. COOPER. What we do know about individuals who sexually 

abuse infants and toddlers is that their sexual abuse is not really sexually 

driven from the standpoint of sexual desire for such a young child as a 

sexual partner, but the more common driving force with that young of a 

victim is the power and control motivation. And in fact interviews with 

convicted predators who have sexually abused children as young as 18 

months have spoken of that fact. The cognitive distortion that we see in 

sex offenders is that their power and control is for the purpose of making 

that toddler a perfect sexual partner by the time they become an 

adolescent. So it is very important for us to recognize that cognitive 

distortions clearly already exist in sex offenders and the Internet can 

promote more of those cognitive distortions. 

 MR. WALDEN. Let me just ask one question as I have read through 

the testimony and heard about how the Federal agencies have responded 

in this case and we will hear more directly from them. What is your 

experience in terms of agency response--State, local, and Federal in these 

cases? 

 DR. COOPER. And that is a very good question. I will tell you that I 

began my work in child sexual exploitation with the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service who has been incredibly excellent with respect to 

their recognition of child pornography as it is ordered online and 

delivered through the mail. They are very, very proactive and very 

hardworking group of people. The Internet Crimes Against Children’s 
35

Task Forces which are present in almost every State now usually will 

have a local law enforcement officer representative. For example, in my 

county in North Carolina, we have one person in our sheriff’s department 

who sits on that team and then we have a State-level investigator who 

sits on that team, and then a fellow FBI-type investigator and then a 

customs individual. So I interact pretty regularly with each one of these 

individuals in a team standpoint whenever there is a new case. My role 

is to analyze the images and to make sure that they meet the definition of 

the law. I would say that they work very well together but they are not 

enough, clearly not enough individuals. Law enforcement training needs 

to be a continuously funded phenomenon. I speak in probably 10, at 

least 10 to 12 trainings a year in the United States that are all law 

enforcement trainings all about sexual exploitation online predators. So I 

think that funding for that continued education is going to be very 

important. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right, thank you very much. I would yield back. 

 We again appreciate your rescheduling and your testimony and the 

good work you do around the country. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

 And I will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for 10 minutes. 

Mr. Ferguson. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Dr. Cooper is there a link between being in possession of child 

pornography and actually assaulting a child? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes, sir, there is. That has been studied now in three 

different venues. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service first looked at that 

and found that in 35 percent of the cases that they had investigated there 

was also evidence of a contact offense having already occurred. The 

Toronto Child Sexual Exploitation Police Unit also looked at this 

question and nearly one out of two, 35 percent of their cases were also 

minimum contact offenses. Then of course the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons has looked at it from a different perspective. These are already 

incarcerated child pornographers who are in sexual treatment programs. 

In that particular situation where individuals are in therapy and will 

acknowledge under that umbrella whether or not they have or have not 

sexually abused children. Close to 76 percent of those individuals 

acknowledged that they had already sexually abused children at the time, 

by the time they were collecting child pornography. So we feel that there 

is definitely a link between collecting child pornography and offending 

against children. Sadly for me as a forensic pediatrician, now that I see 

younger children in my clinic, I am beginning to see children who are 

telling me about their victimization and I have seen what they are telling 
36

me on the Internet. So I know that the aspect of a plan of action, the 

Internet providing a plan of action for offenders is clearly becoming 

evident. 

 MR. FERGUSON. So the evidence suggests that there is a link. Do 

we have an idea of that causality? 

 DR. COOPER. Yes. That we believe and what the research out of 

Ireland showed when the applied psychologist went into the prison 

system and this would be Taylor and Quail who go in the prison system 

to talk to convicted pornographers. The most important causality is that 

seeing child pornography makes would be offenders believe that this is 

acceptable behavior, that it is normal and that normal people do it. So, 

therefore, the normalization of sexual harm is what encourages them to 

proceed. 

 MR. FERGUSON. So with all of the images that are available online, 

with all of the material that is out there, I mean, are we creating child 

predators with the availability and the ease with which one can access 

child pornography, these exploitative images, this material? Are we, 

because that is so easily available, are we creating people who exploit 

and abuse children? 

 DR. COOPER. That is a very good question and I will tell you that 

there are reports of individuals who have nearly sexually offended 

against a child, who after beginning to see many of these images on the 

Internet, develop that kind of distortion that this is a common practice, 

and who may have fantasized, but never acted on a child and now are 

beginning to because of what the have seen on the Internet. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you, Dr. 

Cooper, I yield back. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. 

 And Dr. Cooper, we generally appreciate your being here today and 

as we said a couple times before rearranging your schedule, your 

testimony is certainly very important and your professional insights will 

be quite helpful to us. 

 DR. COOPER. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And we hope that we can stay in touch with you as 

we move forward on this issue. 

 DR. COOPER. And sir, if I may, I would like to be sure to leave a 

copy of our textbook and our CD-ROM with you for your use if it can be 

of any benefit. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much and we appreciate your 

being here. 

 At this time, I would like to call the second panel of witnesses. First, 

we have Mr. Justin Berry who is with us today. He was the topic of a 
37

number of articles in the New York Times about how a 13-year-old 

young man becomes involved in this sordid online world. Justin, if you 

would have a seat. And then also we have Mr. Kurt Eichenwald who is a 

reporter with the New York Times. I am going to ask unanimous 

consent that we enter into the record five articles in the New York Times 

that Mr. Eichenwald wrote on this subject, as well as a speech that he 

gave at Marquette University. The title of the first article is “Through 

His Webcam a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World.” The second one was 

“Where the Credit Card Trail leads.” The third, “A Shadowy Trade 

Migrates Through the Web.” Fourth, “Documenting a Crime That 

Thrives on Anonymity.” Fifth, “Making a Connection with Justin,” and 

then the speech at Marquette University. 

 [The information follows:] 
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

MR. WHITFIELD. I might also add that in my opening statement, I 

talked about Mr. Eichenwald being so disturbed and interested in this 

issue that he came to testify, but I would like to set the record straight 

that we did subpoena Mr. Eichenwald because he is a reporter and so we 

appreciate him complying with our subpoena and being here in response 

to that. We also have Mr. Steve Ryan with us today who is an attorney 

with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, and it is my understanding, Mr. Berry, 

that he, Mr. Ryan, is representing you and acting as your legal counsel. 

Is that correct? 

 MR. BERRY. Yes, sir. 
68

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And as you all know, this is an Oversight 

and Investigations hearing and we do take testimony under oath. Do 

either of you have any difficulty or object to testifying under oath? Now, 

Mr. Eichenwald, do you have legal counsel with you today? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I do, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And would you identify him? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. He is David McCall, the gentleman behind me 

who is the counsel for the New York Times. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay, and Mr. David McCall who is the legal 

counsel with the New York Times, we appreciate your being here, Mr. 

McCall. Now, I understand you are not going to be testifying. Mr. Ryan 

may actually testify depending on how the questions go. 

[Witnesses sworn] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, all of you are sworn in now and I will 

recognize Mr. Justin Berry for his opening statement. And Justin, we do 

appreciate your being here today. We know it has been a difficult road 

for you and your being willing to testify can be a tremendous help to 

many young people throughout the country and also to the committee as 

we search for ways to deal with this issue so thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN BERRY, C/O STEPHEN M. RYAN, 

ESQ., MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP; AND KURT 

EICHENWALD, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES 

 MR. BERRY. Thank you. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Mr. 

Stupak, and other members of the committee, my name is Justin Berry 

and I am 19 years old. I am here to speak upon the danger facing this 

Nation’s children, one that threatens not only their emotional health, but 

their physical safety. This danger is Internet child pornography, 

particularly involving the use of inexpensive web cameras which are 

used by adult predators to exploit children. 

 I speak from experience. For 5 years, beginning when I was 13 years 

old, I operated a pornographic website featuring images of myself 

fluttered on the Internet by webcams. I was paid by more than 1,000 

men to strip naked, masturbate, and even have sex with female 

prostitutes while on camera. My business was assisted by adult 

criminals, including companies that process credit card payments. 

 I am not proud of the things I have done nor will I personally attempt 

to avoid responsibility for those decisions. While I did not comprehend 

the magnitude of what was happening when I was 13, as I grew older, I 

progressively became corrupted and acted in shameful ways. Still, I 

repeatedly attempted to pull away from this sick business, but each time I 
69

fell back into this criminal world that had first seduced me and 

eventually controlled me. 

 My experience is not as isolated as you may hope. This is not the 

story of a few bad kids whose parents paid no attention. There are 

hundreds of kids in the United States alone who are right now wrapped 

up in this horror. Within each of your congressional districts, I guarantee 

there are children who have used their webcams to appear naked online, 

and I guarantee you there are also children in your district on the Internet 

right now being contacted and seduced by online sexual predators. I was 

an honor student and I was class president. My mom had used all the 

latest child protective software. She checked what was happening in my 

room. She occasionally took away my computer keyboard but she was 

no match for the child predators who worked hard to make sure my child 

porn shows continued. 

 In my personal opinion, the law enforcement effort is no match for 

them either. Until recently, I never understood why these child predators 

always laughed about the Government. Now, I know that the child 

predators are at least partially right. They have little to fear from law 

enforcement. Based on my case, efforts to prosecute these people are 

riddled with mistakes and bureaucracy. Unless something changes, 

hundreds or even thousands of children will be lost forever. 

 I obtained a webcam at 13 after signing up for an account with 

earthlink.net. The company, as a promotion, sent me a free Logitech 

webcam. As a child drawn to computers, I was enthralled. I plugged the 

device into my computer and then followed the instructions on the 

software. Within minutes my webcam image was loaded onto a website 

called spotlife.com. 

 Like many young teenagers, I hoped my webcam would improve my 

social life. I did not have a lot of friends and I was very lonely. I hoped 

the webcam would help me meet other teenagers online and hopefully a 

few girls my age. That never happened. No teenager out of the webcam 

pornography business ever contacted me but I did hear from my child 

predators. Within minutes of appearing on spotlife, I received an instant 

message from an adult male. This man I now know was a child predator. 

I did not understand at that time. 

 More child predators followed. Looking back today, my thoughts 

seem foolish but at 13, I believed these people were my friends. They 

were kind. They complimented me. They wanted to know about my 

day, and they were endlessly patient in listening to me, and they were 

generous. In no time, one of these men told me he wanted to send me a 

gift. He showed me how to set up a wish list on Amazon.com which 

allowed everyone who knew my code name to send me a present without 

requiring me to disclose my address. Soon I was swamped with videos, 
70

CDs, and computer equipment including better webcams all free from 

my new friends. I always rushed back from school to scoop of the 

packages that were on my doorstep before my mother got home from 

work. 

 My new friends were kinder and more generous to me than anyone I 

had ever known. I trusted them, and that is when everything changed. 

One afternoon, a few weeks after setting up my webcam, one of these 

men approached me online with a proposal. He would pay me $50 if I 

took off my shirt for a few minutes while sitting in front of my webcam. 

He explained to me how to set up an account on Paypal.com, an instant 

online money payment system. I was excited about the $50, an amount 

that struck me at the time was a huge sum of money. Taking off my shirt 

seemed harmless, I did it at the pool. The money arrived and I took off 

my shirt. My viewers complimented me and it felt good. 

 The weeks that followed are a blur, but I now understand that by 

removing my shirt, I had signaled that I could be manipulated. More 

gifts and money arrived along with increasingly explicit requests. They 

wanted me to take off my pants, remove my underwear, and eventually 

masturbate on camera. The seduction was slow. Each request only went 

a bit further than the last and the horror of what was happening did not 

strike me at that time. 

 I wish I could say I hated what was happening. Perhaps that would 

absolve some of my sense of guilt. But the truth is I did not. As more 

clothes came off, more people contacted me. The compliments were 

endless, the gifts and payments terrific. I thought I had achieved online 

what eluded me in real life. I was popular. Everyone wanted to know 

my thoughts. Everyone wanted to give me things. I was the king of my 

own universe. All I had to do in exchange was strip and masturbate 

while alone in my room. 

 Men began to reach out to me. One man, Ken Gourlay approached 

me online to discuss my interest in computers. He operated his own web 

hosting company called Chain Communications. I was awed. Here was 

someone running a real Internet business, talking to me, a 13-year-old 

kid and treating me as an equal. In the months that followed, Ken raised 

the possibility of hiring me at Chain as an executive director of sales and 

marketing. It seemed like a dream come true. 

 As I was working for him, Ken recommended that I attend elite 

computer camp at the University of Michigan where I could obtain 

advance certifications. My mother agreed to send me there that summer 

while I was still 13. At that time, I thought it was just luck that Ken and 

Chain were both based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I now know that I had 

been set up. Ken picked me up at camp one day to show me Chain and 
71

he took me to his home where I was sexually molested by Ken for what 

proved to be first and many times by him and other adult men. 

 With the help of my family and my psychologist, I know understand 

that my molestation by Ken was the turning point that sent me on a path 

to self-destruction. Afterwards, Ken apologized, promising me it would 

never happen again, but it did. 

 By this time, I had formalized my webcam business. I had opened a 

site called justinscam.com, where child predators could come and watch, 

and offer me money and gifts to do what they wanted. After my first 

molestation, I began to act out sexually. I was reckless. Part of me 

wanted to die. And every day on camera, part of me did. 

 The next stage emerged with the help once again of Ken Gourlay. I 

decided I should sell monthly memberships for a new site jfwy.com. 

Ken offered to set up the membership section and host the business at 

Chain. People could now, using the site programmed by Ken, pay me a 

monthly membership fee through Paypal and watch all they wanted. 

 Another computer executive, Gilo Tunno, was one of my members. 

He had been an engineer at Intel and a principal designer of the Pentium 

4 processor. I was so impressed. So when Gilo Tunno told me he 

wanted to hang out with me in Bakersfield, California where I lived and 

bring me presents, I agreed. I met him and we went to his hotel. At 

some point, he gave me a $1,500 projector and other gifts. We talked 

about Intel and computers. And then he molested me. 

 I look back on those events with Gourlay and Tunno and feel 

ashamed. All of my explanations seem inadequate. How could I get 

myself into that situation? How could I not see it? But this is one of the 

issues I wish to stress. Webcams and instant messaging give predators 

power over children. The predators become part of that child’s life. 

Whatever warnings the child may have heard about meeting strangers, 

these people are no longer strangers. They have every advantage. It is 

the standard seduction of child predators multiplied on a geometric scale. 

 I no longer cared about anything other than getting as much money 

as possible. When another teenager in my town found the videos from 

my website and distributed them to my classmates, I felt compelled to 

leave. My father lived in Mexico. I wanted to establish a relationship 

with him. My mother said I could visit him for a week. 

 My week-long visit to Mexico was extended again and again. At one 

point, my father asked where all my money was coming from. I told him 

about my business and he offered in his words to help maximize the 

earning potential. I had already established a new site called 

mexicofriends.com which featured me engaging in sex with Mexican 

women. My father helped by hiring prostitutes for me to have sex with 
72

on camera. The number of members, of paid members skyrocketed. I 

was 16 years old. 

 I became even more self-destructive. I abused marijuana terribly and 

consumed so much cocaine that I am amazed I survived. My life was a 

swirl of drugs, money, and sex. When a paying member of my site, Greg 

Mitchel, offered to come to Mexico and pay me gifts, I accepted. He, 

too, sexually molested me. But I no longer cared, I just wanted his 

money. I had become exactly what my members viewed me to be, what 

their degrading conversations convinced me I was: a piece of meat for 

sale to the highest bidder. 

 Just after my 18th birthday I tried to leave the business. Money was 

still coming in from mexicofriends but I wanted nothing to do with it. I 

used it to purchase clothes and other items for homeless people in 

California. I rented a truck and delivered the materials myself. I was 

looking for my own redemption but I failed. I was still addicted to drugs 

and Greg Mitchel urged me to return to the business as his partner. 

Together, he said, we could set up a new website, justinsfriends.com. I 

resisted for months, but I could not find my way in the real world 

anymore. Depressed and high on drugs every day, I agreed to return to 

porn. The site was fully operational in June of 2005. 

 That same month, I met Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times 

reporter who was working on a story about webcam pornography. He 

urged me to quit drugs and get out of the business and I did. He asked 

for my help in exposing this world and I agreed. When I told him of the 

other children who were being exploited and molested by adult men, he 

convinced me it was important to tell law enforcement what I knew. I 

agreed even though I feared this meant that I could be sent to prison. I 

believed that the Government would protect the children being abused. I 

believed they would act quickly. I was wrong. 

 My lawyer, Stephen Ryan of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a former 

Federal prosecutor, contacted prosecutors of the Department of Justice 

and was put in touch with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

on July 14, 2005. He informed them that the adults I had worked with 

suspected I was seeking out law enforcement. He told them my life was 

potentially in danger and that evidence was being destroyed. He 

provided the DOJ with a written proffer of my testimony and described 

the physical evidence of IP addresses, credit card information, and other 

proof I could make available. Mr. Ryan insisted that DOJ provide me 

with immunity for the testimony to protect me. He was confident they 

would respond promptly. Mr. Ryan was wrong also. 

 Almost 2 weeks passed. Finally, we informed the Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section that I was flying to Washington, not at 

government expense, and would be available to meet with them for 2 
73

days, July 25 and July 26. At almost the last minute, CEOS scheduled 

the meeting. 

 In our meetings, I identified children who were currently being 

exploited and molested, as well as other men who were committing the 

crimes. I identified the adult child molesters such as Mr. Mitchel, Mr. 

Tunno, and others. I told of the Internet locations where evidence of 

these crimes could be found. I informed them that I had names, credit 

card numbers, IP addresses of approximately 1,500 people who paid to 

watch child pornography from my websites and identified the 

businessmen, the adult businessmen who facilitated the credit card 

payments necessary for these business. The FBI case agents I spoke with 

were very professional and of the highest integrity. I cannot say enough 

good things about them. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

did not make me confident. 

 Weeks passed seemingly without progress. I cannot describe the 

agony of that time. Each night I wondered were the children I knew 

being molested that night? Were they being filmed? Why was no one 

stopping this? I understood it would take time to decide whether I 

should have immunity or not, but why couldn’t they rescue the children 

in danger? 

 In late August, my lawyer informed CEOS in writing that if they did 

not act, he would take me elsewhere to get State law enforcement 

officials to begin the work on the matter. Mr. Ryan began discussions 

with the California Attorney General Lockyer, whose staff agreed to 

consider taking the case. Also at that time, I believe the New York 

Times was preparing a story about the Government’s failure to do 

anything about my case. I remember Kurt asking me what I would tell 

other cam kids who wanted to disclose their ring of predators to law 

enforcement. I told Kurt knowing my message would be heard by other 

kids that no one should ever step forward again. I got the distinct feeling 

that the CEOS prosecutors did not know what to do with me or my 

information. 

 Then, everything changed. It was so sudden that I have come to 

believe the CEOS feared the New York Times was going to report the 

delay. Whatever the cause, I was granted immunity. My lawyer turned 

over the physical evidence. The following week on September 12, 2005, 

Greg Mitchel was arrested. I expected this to be the first of many 

prosecutions. Again, I was wrong. 

 I wish I could say the prosecution story had a happy ending. It did 

not. At that time, I was concerned I would be killed by the adults who 

would be harmed by my testimony and were frantically searching for me. 

After the Mitchel arrest, a sensitive government document was 

deliberately unsealed from court records. It is my understanding that this 
74

was done by the U.S. Department of Justice. While the names were 

blacked out, the document clearly identified potential defendants under 

investigation, as well as the fact that I was a witness against them. 

Worse, it warned all the adult perpetrators across the country that I was 

cooperating with law enforcement. The local U.S. Attorney quoted in 

the newspapers based on the release of the document. All of it appeared 

on the Internet where the adult perpetrators looking for me could read it. 

 I feared for my life. CEOS then offered me government protection 

which I need in part because CEOS or the U.S. Attorney’s office had 

deliberately stopped the release of the affidavit. I declined the offer. I 

did not trust CEOS to protect me. I feared the actions of CEOS from that 

day forward although not nearly as much as I feared the anger of the 

predators. 

 Today, I have been off drugs for 9 months and just finished my first 

quarter at college. My grades are good and I have friends. 

 Had I not met Kurt Eichenwald, I would have never had this chance 

at a new life. I will never be able to repay what he has done for me. In a 

profession which is taught to get the story, he did that, but he treated me 

with the compassion of a Good Samaritan. I have my life back. 

 Every day, I have regrets, not just for the dreadful decisions I made 

in the past years but for failing to have the impact that I had hoped on 

this illegal trade. 

 I have never been asked by law enforcement about any of the 1,500 

names I provided them. Some of those who molested me, like Mr. 

Gourlay, and who made all of this possible, are continuing to live their 

lives, unaware or uncaring about any government inquiry. People like 

Mr. Brown who operate the credit card infrastructure of web cam child 

pornography have been permitted to continue their work, seemingly 

undisturbed by any law enforcement effort. I have watched as my 

former members go online to attack me, boldly proclaiming themselves 

as my former customers and having no fear that their self-disclosure 

could result in their arrest. Events have proved them right. 

 Since I left the child pornography business last summer, I have 

risked everything to tell these facts to persons who care, like this 

committee. It is my hope that Congress will do everything it can to see 

to it that children are protected and that our law enforcement effort is 

competent to combat this evil. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Justin Berry follows:] 
75

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BERRY, C/O STEPHEN M. RYAN, ESQ., MANATT, PHELPS 

& PHILLIPS LLP 

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Mr. Stupak, and other Members of the 

Committee. 

My name is Justin Berry and I am 19 years old. I am here to speak about a danger 

facing this nation’s children, one that threatens not only their emotional health, but their 

physical safety. This danger is internet child pornography, particularly involving the use 

of inexpensive web cameras which are used by adult predators to exploit children. 

I speak from experience. For five years, beginning when I was 13 years old, I 

operated a pornographic website, featuring images of myself loaded onto the internet by 

webcams. I was paid by more than 1,000 men to strip naked, masturbate and even have 

sex with female prostitutes while on camera. My business was assisted by adult 

criminals, including companies that process credit card payments. 

I am not proud of the things I have done. Nor will I personally attempt to avoid 

responsibility for those decisions. While I did not comprehend the magnitude of what 

was happening when I was 13, as I grew older, I progressively became corrupted and 

acted in shameful ways. Still, I repeatedly attempted to pull away from this sick 

business. But, each time, I fell back into this criminal world that had first seduced me, 

and eventually controlled me. 

My experience is not as isolated as you might hope. This is not the story of a few 

bad kids whose parents paid no attention. There are hundreds of kids in the United States 

alone who are right now wrapped up in this horror. Within each of your Congressional 

districts I guarantee there are children who have used their webcams to appear naked 

online, and I guarantee you there are also children in your district on the Internet right 

now being contacted and seduced online by sexual predators. I was an honor student, I 

was class president. My mom used all the latest child protective software. She checked 

what was happening in my room. She occasionally took away my computer keyboard. 

But she was no match for the child predators, who worked hard to make sure my child 

porn shows continued. 

In my personal opinion, the law enforcement effort is no match for them either. 

Until recently, I never understood why these child predators always laughed about the 

government. Now I know the child predators are at least partially right. They have little 

to fear from law enforcement. Based on my case, efforts to prosecute these people are 

riddled with mistakes and bureaucracy. Unless something changes, hundreds, or even 

thousands, of children will be lost forever. 

THE BEGINNING 

I obtained a webcam at 13 after signing up for an account with earthlink.net. The 

company, as a promotion, sent me a free Logitech webcam. As a child drawn to 

computers, I was enthralled. I plugged the device into my computer, and then followed 

the instructions in the software. Within minutes, my webcam image was loaded onto a 

website called spotlife.com. 

Like many young teenagers, I hoped my webcam would improve my social life. I 

didn’t have a lot of friends and I was very lonely. I hoped the webcam would help me 

meet other teenagers online, maybe even find a few girls my age. That never happened. 

No teenager outside of those in the webcam pornography business ever contacted me. 

But, I did hear from many child predators. Within minutes of appearing on spotlife, I 

received an instant message from an adult male. This man, I now know, was a child 

predator. I did not understand that at the time. 

More child predators followed. Looking back today, my thoughts seem foolish, but 

at 13, I believed these people were my friends. They were kind. They complimented me. 

They wanted to know about my day, and were endlessly patient in listening to me. 
76

And they were generous. In no time, one of these men told me he wanted to send a 

gift. He showed me how to set up a “wish-list” on Amazon.com, which allowed anyone 

who knew my codename to send me a present, without requiring me to disclose my 

address. Soon, I was swamped with videos, cd’s and computer equipment – including 

better webcams – all free from my new friends. I always rushed back from school to 

scoop up whatever package was on my doorstep, before my mother got home from work. 

My new friends were kinder and more generous to me than anyone I had ever 

known. I trusted them. And that was when everything changed. One afternoon, a few 

weeks after setting up my webcam, one of these men approached me online with a 

proposal. He would pay me $50 if I took off my shirt for a few minutes while sitting in 

front of my webcam. He explained how to set up an account on Paypal.com – an instant 

online money payment system. I was excited about the $50 – an amount that struck me at 

the time as a huge sum of money. Taking off my shirt seemed harmless; I did it at the 

pool. The money arrived, and I took off my shirt. My viewers complimented me, and it 

felt good. 

BECOMING A PLAYER IN THE WEBCAM PORN INDUSTRY

The weeks that followed are a blur, but I now understand that, by removing my shirt, 

I had signaled that I could be manipulated. More gifts and money arrived, along with 

increasingly explicit requests. They wanted me to take off my pants, remove my 

underwear, and eventually masturbate on camera. The seduction was slow; each new 

request went only a bit further than the last, and the horror of what was happening did not 

strike me at the time. 

I wish I could say that I hated what was happening. Perhaps that would absolve 

some of my sense of guilt. But the truth is, I did not. As more clothes came off, more 

people contacted me. The compliments were endless, the gifts and payments terrific. I 

thought I had achieved online what eluded me in real life: I was popular. Everyone 

wanted to know my thoughts. Everyone wanted to give me things. I was the king of my 

own universe. All I had to do in exchange was strip, and masturbate, while alone in my 

room. 

Men began to reach out to me. One man, Ken Gourlay, approached me online to 

discuss my interest in computers. He operated his own web hosting company, called 

Chain Communications, and I was awed. Here was someone, running a real Internet 

business, talking to me, a 13-year-old kid, and treating me as an equal. And, in the 

months that followed, Ken raised the possibility of hiring me at Chain, as executive 

director of sales and marketing. It seemed like a dream come true. 

As I was working for him, Ken recommended that I attend an elite computer camp at 

the University of Michigan, where I could obtain advanced certifications. My mother 

agreed to send me there that summer, while I was still 13. At the time, I thought it was 

just luck that Ken and Chain were based in Ann Arbor. I now know I had been set up. 

Ken picked me up at camp one day, to show me Chain. He took me to his home. There, 

I was sexually molested by Ken, for what would prove to be the first of many times by 

Ken, and other adult men. 

With the help of my family and my psychologist, I now understand that my 

molestation by Ken was a turning point that sent me on a path to self-destruction. 

Afterwards, Ken apologized, promising me it would never happen again. But it did. 

By this time, I had formalized my webcam business. I had opened up a site called 

justinscam.com, where child predators could come and watch, and offer me money and 

gifts to do what they wanted. After my first molestation, I began to act out sexually. I 

was reckless. Part of me wanted to die. And every day on camera, part of me did. 
77

MEMBERSHIP SITES 

The next stage emerged with the help, once again, of Ken Gourlay. I decided that I 

should sell monthly memberships for a new site, jfwy.com. Ken offered to set up the 

membership section and host the business at Chain. People could now, using the site 

programmed by Ken, pay me a monthly fee through Paypal, and watch all they wanted. 

Another computer executive, Gilo Tunno, was one of my members. He told me he 

had been an engineer at Intel and a principal designer of the Pentium 4 processor. I was 

so impressed. So when Gilo Tunno told me he wanted to hang out with me in 

Bakersfield, California — where I lived — and bring me presents, I agreed. I met him 

and we went to his hotel. At some point he gave me a $1,500 projector and other gifts. 

We talked about Intel and computers. And then he molested me. 

I look back on those events with Gourlay and Tunno and feel ashamed. All my 

explanations seem inadequate. How could I get myself into that situation? How could I 

not see it? But this is one issue I wish to stress. Webcams and instant messaging give 

predators power over children. The predators become part of the child’s life. Whatever 

warnings the child may have heard about meeting strangers, these people are no longer 

strangers. They have every advantage. It is the standard seduction of child predators, 

multiplied on a geometric scale. 

I no longer cared about anything other than getting as much money as possible. But 

when another teenager in my town found videos from my website and distributed them to 

my classmates, I felt compelled to leave. My father lived in Mexico. I wanted to 

establish a relationship with him. My mother said I could visit him for a week. 

MEXICO 

My week long visit to Mexico was extended and extended again. At one point, my 

father asked where my money came from. I told him about my business. And he offered, 

in his words, to help “maximize the earnings potential.” I had already established a new 

site, called mexicofriends.com, which featured me engaging in sex with Mexican women. 

My father helped by hiring prostitutes for me to have sex with on camera. The number of 

paid members skyrocketed. I was 16 years old. 

I became even more self-destructive. I abused marijuana terribly, and consumed so 

much cocaine that I am amazed I survived. My life was a swirl of drugs, money and sex. 

When a paying member of my site, Greg Mitchel, offered to come to Mexico and bring 

me gifts, I accepted. He, too, sexually molested me. But I no longer cared. I just wanted 

his money. I had become exactly what my members viewed me to be, what their 

degrading conversations convinced me I was: a piece of meat, for sale to the highest 

bidder. 

Just after my 18th birthday, I tried to leave the business. Money was still coming in 

from mexicofriends, but I wanted nothing to do with it. I used it to purchase clothes and 

other items for homeless people in California. I rented a truck and delivered the materials 

myself. I was looking for my own redemption. But I failed. I was still addicted to drugs, 

and Greg Mitchel urged me to return to the business as his partner. Together, he said, we 

could set up a new website, justinsfriends.com. I resisted for months, but could not find 

my way anymore in the real world. Depressed and high on drugs every day, I agreed to 

return to porn. The site was fully operational in June, 2005. 

GETTING OUT 

That same month, I met Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times reporter who was 

working on a story about webcam pornography. He urged me to quit drugs and get out of 

the business, and I did. He asked for my help in exposing this world, and I agreed. And 

when I told him of other children who were being exploited and molested by adult men, 

he convinced me it was important to tell law enforcement what I knew. I agreed, even 
78

though I feared this meant I could be sent to prison. I believed that the government 

would protect the children being abused. I believed they would act quickly. I was wrong. 

My lawyer, Stephen Ryan of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a former federal prosecutor, 

contacted prosecutors of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and was put in touch with the 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (known as “CEOS”) on July 14, 2005. He 

informed them that the adults I had worked with suspected I was seeking out law 

enforcement. He told them my life was potentially in danger, and that evidence was 

being destroyed. He provided DOJ with a written proffer of my testimony, and described 

the physical evidence of IP addresses, credit card information, and other proof I could 

make available. Mr. Ryan insisted that DOJ provide me with immunity for my testimony 

to protect me. He was confident they would respond promptly. Mr. Ryan was wrong 

also. 

Almost two weeks passed. Finally, we informed the Child Exploitation and 

Obscenity Section that I was flying to Washington, not at government expense, and 

would be available to meet with them for two days, July 25 and July 26. At almost the 

last minute, CEOS scheduled the meeting. 

In our meetings, I identified children who were currently being exploited and 

molested, as well as the men who were committing the crimes. I identified the adult child 

molesters such as Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Tunno, and others. I told of the Internet locations 

where evidence of these crimes could be found. I informed them I had the names, credit 

card number and computer IP addresses of approximately 1,500 people who paid to 

watch child pornography from my sites, and identified the adult businessmen who 

facilitated the credit card payments necessary for these businesses. The FBI case agents I 

spoke with were professional and of the highest integrity. I cannot say enough good 

things about them. But the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section did not make me 

confident. 

Weeks passed, seemingly without progress. I cannot describe the agony of that 

time. Each night I wondered, were the children I knew being molested that night? Were 

they being filmed? Why was no one stopping this? I understood it would take time to 

decide whether I should have immunity. But why couldn’t they rescue children still in 

danger? 

In late August, my lawyer informed CEOS, in writing, that if they did not act, he 

would take me elsewhere to get state law enforcement officials to begin work on the 

matter. Mr. Ryan began discussions with California Attorney General Lockyer, whose 

staff agreed to consider taking the case, Also, at that time, I believe the New York Times

was preparing a story about the government’s failure to do anything about my case. I 

remember Kurt asking me what I would tell other camkids who wanted to disclose their

ring of predators to law enforcement. I told Kurt, knowing my message would be heard 

by other kids, that no one should ever step forward again. I got the distinct feeling that 

the CEOS prosecutors did not know what to do with me or my information. 

Then, everything changed. It was so sudden that I have come to believe the CEOS 

feared that the New York Times was going to report the delay. But whatever the cause, I 

was granted immunity. My lawyer turned over the physical evidence. The following 

week, on September 12, 2005, Greg Mitchel was arrested. I expected this to be the first 

of many prosecutions. Again, I was wrong. 

I wish I could say the prosecution story had a happy ending. It did not. At that time, 

I was concerned I would be killed by the adults who would be harmed by my testimony 

and who were frantically searching for me. After the Mitchel arrest, a sensitive 

government document was deliberately unsealed from court records. It is my 

understanding this was done by the U.S. Department of Justice. While names were 

blacked out, the document clearly identified potential defendants under investigation, as 

well as the fact that I was the witness against them. Worse, it warned all the adult 

perpetrators across the country I was cooperating with law enforcement. The local U.S. 
79

Attorney was quoted in the newspapers, based on the release of the document. And all of 

it appeared on the Internet, where the adult perpetrators looking for me could read it. 

I feared for my life. CEOS then offered me government protection, which I needed, 

in part, because CEOS or the U.S. Attorney’s Office had deliberately sought the release 

of the Affidavit. I declined their offer. I do not trust CEOS to protect me. I feared the 

actions of CEOS from that day forward, although not nearly as much as I feared the anger 

of the predators. 

CONCLUSION 

Today, I’ve been off drugs for nine months, and just finished my first quarter at 

college. My grades are good, and I have friends. 

Had I not met Kurt Eichenwald, I would never have had this chance at a new life. I 

will never be able to repay what he has done for me. In a profession which is taught to 

“get the story,” he did that, but he treated me with the compassion of the Good 

Samaritan. I have my life back. 

But every day, I have regrets, not just for the dreadful decisions I made in past years, 

but for failing to have the impact I had hoped on this illegal trade. 

I have never been asked by law enforcement about any of the 1,500 names I 

provided them. Some of those who molested me, like Mr. Gourlay, and who made all of 

this possible, are continuing to live their lives, unaware or uncaring about any 

government inquiry. People like Mr. Brown, who operate the credit card infrastructure of 

webcam child pornography, have been permitted to continue their work, seemingly 

undisturbed by any law enforcement effort. I have watched as my former members go 

online to attack me, boldly proclaiming themselves as my former customers, and having 

no fear that their self-disclosure could result in their arrest. And events have proved them 

right. 

Since I left the child pornography business last summer, I have risked everything to 

get to tell these facts to persons who care, like this Committee. It is my hope that the 

Congress will do everything it can to see to it that children are protected and that our law 

enforcement effort is competent to combat this evil. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Justin, thank you very much for your 

testimony. It was quite revealing and we genuinely appreciate the 

information that you provided. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

MR. EICHENWALD. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, 

my name is Kurt Eichenwald and I am a senior writer with the New York 

Times. My appearance today is somewhat unusual. As a matter of 

policy, the Times instructs its reporters to decline requests to testify in 

judicial and legislative settings because it can serve to undermine our 

work if we are seen by the public as an extension of the Government. In 

this instance, the Times accepted a subpoena from the committee on my 

behalf after the committee agreed that I would be asked to provide only 

published or publicly disclosed information. To the extent that the 

committee seeks information about reporting processes, I will have to 

respectfully decline to answer. Nor do I believe it is my place to offer 

policy suggestions. Within that framework, I offer the following 

testimony which may assist the committee in its exploration of this 

important issue. 
80

 On December 19, the New York Times published a front page article 

that was the culmination of my 6 month investigation into the world of 

webcam child pornography. This was an extraordinary project not only 

for me, not only for the Times, or for journalism in general. This was an 

instance in which the very reporting could by its very nature result in a 

crime committed by the reporter. There was a great deal of consultation 

with the lawyers, a great deal of consultation with the FBI to ensure that 

at no point did I violate a law. Through that care, we were able to lay 

bare a nightmarish Internet world that grew without attracting significant 

attention from law enforcement or child advocates. As a citizen, I was 

dumbfounded by what I found. As a father, I was terrified. 

 Like most people, I gave little thought during my life to the scourge 

of child pornography, but I now know that we are fighting a losing battle. 

The predators are sophisticated in the use of computers and talented in 

their manipulation of children. They count on our willingness to avert 

our eyes from the unpleasant to succeed in their pursuit of illegal images 

of minors. And we have been far too willing to comply. That is part of 

why the child pornography business has exploded in the past decade. As 

many of you noted in your opening statements it is now a $20 billion a 

year industry. 

 Webcam pornography has emerged in just the last few years but it is 

already a significant part of this elicit industry. I have submitted copies 

of my articles which explain facets of this business, as well as the events 

that led to my discovery of Justin, who served as my guide into this 

world, showing me the mechanisms used to seduce children into 

degrading and harmful behavior. 

 Let me stress, this is not a problem involving just Justin Berry or a 

handful of bad kids. Hundreds of minors have been lost to the lure of 

performing in online pornography. I interviewed a number of them. 

They include children from every walk of life, wealthy and middle class, 

poor, honor students and those struggling with their grades, children of 

divorce and with intact families. The only shared characteristic I found 

was a loneliness that these minors feel is alleviated by meeting people 

online and in person through the webcam business. 

 Entire infrastructures have emerged to sustain this business, 

including both witting and unwitting corporate participants. You have 

already heard how predators have turned the ingenuity of some of our 

greatest online companies against our children. Wish lists with 

companies like Amazon.com and American Eagle Outfitters, a wonderful 

convenience for gift giving, have become mechanisms for seducing 

children. Online payment systems such as Paypal.com have been used to 

facilitate transfers of cash. Communications programs from companies 

like AOL and Yahoo! are used both for direct conversations between 
81

predators and children, and for the transmission of illegal video images. 

We have heard a lot today about chat rooms. They are no longer 

necessary. A predator can reach each child individually though these 

communication systems. Many of these programs and services can be 

obtained by children in minutes without requiring accurate identification, 

or proof of your age on parental consent. 

 In addition to the unsuspecting companies, there are businesses that 

know exactly what they are doing. In my reporting, I discovered credit 

card processors who provided support for webcam child pornography. I 

found web hosting companies that offered servers for the illegal 

businesses. I even found a company that provided streaming video to 

sites operated by minors on condition that the company president be 

allowed to watch the pornographic performances for free. 

 I also located scores of marketing sites known as portals which were 

used to direct potential customers to the webcam child pornography sites. 

These portals, many of which temporarily shut down since publication of 

my article, underscore the scope and magnitude of this business. I have 

provided the committee with the listing maintained by a single portal of 

the almost 600 teenage webcam sites that it marketed. Perhaps most 

disturbing was that major American and international companies 

advertised on these marketing portals for child pornography. The 

advertisements, copies of which have also been provided to the 

committee appeared immediately above images used by boys and girls to 

market their pornographic sites. Apparently, these companies were 

attempting to win business both from customers and the teenage 

pornographers themselves as it offered services to help efficiently run 

for-pay sites. The advertisers included Logitech and Creative Webcam, 

both webcam manufacturers, as well as Verotel, an international credit 

card processing company. I might note that the advertisements I found 

on archive.org for some of these portals which you know the addresses 

for are as we speak being changed. I do not know how it is possible but 

ads that were there when I began my reporting are now disappearing. 

Fortunately, I maintained copies. 

 But the for-pay sites of adolescents are only one level of this illicit 

business. I am told thousands of other children have become unknowing 

participants in the online pornography industry. These minors perform 

not for money or gifts, but because they have been tricked into stripping 

and masturbating online for what they believe is a single viewer. These 

performances are recorded and then posted on for-pay pornography sites 

without the knowledge or consent of the minors. In my reporting, I 

found websites dedicated to offering webcam videos of hundreds of girls 

and boys who had been duped into such performances. Surprisingly, a 

predator showed me a site he found so offensive involving hundreds and 
82

hundreds of boys who had been lured into, tricked into a single online 

performance. I note this because each one of those videos had an image 

of the child, a non-pornographic image that the potential customer could 

use to decide which video to watch. We talk about the safety of putting 

computers outside the children’s bedroom. I checked. Of the numbers I 

examined, about 40 to 50 to 60 percent of the single frame images 

advertising these pornographic videos were from computers in dining 

rooms, living rooms, offices, only the minority were in what appeared to 

be the child’s bedroom. That site boasted of being the largest such site in 

the world. It was shut down only after I called for a comment from its 

credit card processor, Verotel, the same company advertising its services 

on the portals. 

 There is a business infrastructure for this part of the industry as well. 

There are people who make their living trolling the Internet for children 

with webcams, luring them into sexual performances, and selling the 

resulting pornographic videos. To aid such people and others in 

disguising their true identities, there is software available that allows 

anyone to make a recorded video appear to be a live webcam 

transmission. The result is that a middle age man can portray himself as 

a teenage boy or girl, complete with the video needed to convince any 

doubters. In my reporting, I discovered a group of predators who took 

bets among themselves about how many online approaches it would 

require to convince a girl with a webcam to take off her clothes with the 

resulting recorded video shared among the bettors. By the time I found 

this group, they had played their game dozens of times. They appear to 

have never failed to convince their target to strip. 

 To aid in their hunt for adolescents, these adults again use legitimate 

businesses. Justin explained how predators used spotlife.com to find 

him. Numerous listings of children, including sites such as myspace.com 

and buddypick.com are now the favorite sites, the virtual Sears catalog 

for pedophiles. Using these sites in combination, predators can search 

for children by age, location, and sex. They can obtain enormous 

amounts of identifying data including whether a child operates a 

webcam. I have witnessed conversations among child predators online 

where they discussed the latest minor located from these sites. Often 

predators share information obtained from the minor, both from site 

posting and from direct conversations. Even social networking sites that 

boast of being safe engage in reckless behavior requiring personal data 

from minors before allowing access to their sites, reinforcing the 

children’s false view that providing such information is harmless. 

 When I explained how predators used these systems to the producers 

for Oprah Winfrey, they asked me for a demonstration. We limited my 

search to minors within 20 miles of my location. Meaning if I was a 
83

pedophile, I could personally meet those minors within the hour. The 

producers timed me. It took only a minute and 30 seconds before I was 

in direct contact with a 16-year-old girl. By that time, I knew her name, 

address, school, plans for the evening, and other identifying information, 

including the younger sisters’ names and ages. We repeated the test 

searching for a boy within the same distance, this time we wanted to 

make it harder, asked me to make sure the kid had a webcam. I was in 

contact with a 14-year-old in two and a half minutes. In both instances, I 

told these minors what I was doing and advised them not to speak with 

strangers online. Both replied contrary to the obvious that they never 

did. 

 From what I have witnessed, it is difficult to protect a child once he 

or she has accepted the predators as allies. They assist children with 

strategy and money in outwitting their parents so that the shows could go 

on. That is exactly what happened in Justin Berry’s case. These 

predators are insidious. They advise the minors to make sure that they 

claim to be over 18, suggesting that otherwise the children might get in 

trouble. Then when the predators are caught, they claim they were 

deceived by the child’s often laughable claim to having been an adult, 

even the children who had not yet reached puberty. 

 Of course, as you see in Justin’s story, there is the possibility and I 

would say the probability that a child performing online will be 

molested. After my story, a university professor emailed me and made 

postings about the Internet to complain that statistically few viewers of 

child pornography become molesters. As you have heard, his statistics 

are bogus, but his argument applied to this circumstance is ludicrous. 

These are not instances where pedophiles are obtaining images of 

children they cannot identify. Here, a single child is being set upon by 

hundreds of predators all in direct daily contact. The entreaties to meet 

begin quickly. Numerous minors told me of predators pleading for 

meetings, more than a few, I believe agreed to go. 

 I have found oftentimes that adults react to these facts with 

incredulity. They cannot comprehend how a child could be so easily 

lured into pornography or speak so readily to a stranger. I think our first 

panel today gave quite a number of answers to those questions. You also 

have to understand the environment where the minors find themselves. 

They are not being approached by some stranger in the park. Rather, 

they are in their own homes feeling safe. They feel comfortable on the 

Internet in ways we may not recognize. Internet communication has all 

the elements of true social interaction, but remains shallow. So it is both 

socially fulfilling and emotionally non-threatening. There is no one else 

there, just a small solid device nearby. There is a level of unreality about 

it and on the part of the minors a simple lack of comprehension. 
84

 There also appear to be few protections. You have heard that the 

predators often laugh at Federal law enforcement. They believe arrest is 

rare and prosecution followed by jail time even rarer. I was 

dumbfounded by the willingness of online pedophiles to identify 

themselves, to publicly discuss their crimes in non-protected publicly 

accessible sites and chat rooms. What became obvious as I disclosed in 

my article, is that our Federal law enforcement effort to combat this 

threat appears to be hobbled by fractured responsibilities, bureaucratic 

mindsets, and a simple inability to respond. 

 In interviews with law enforcement personnel around the country, I 

repeatedly heard of frustrations about the Child Exploitation and 

Obscenity Section, or CEOS, serving as an impediment in the aggressive 

pursuit of criminal cases. For example, one law enforcement official told 

me that CEOS often makes arguments against bringing cases in child 

pornography cases that would embarrass a defense lawyer. 

 I saw the reasons for this aggravation in Justin’s case. From the time 

that the Government was notified of Justin’s information to the point 

where the children in direct danger were saved, more than 50 days 

passed. As you heard, efforts by Justin’s lawyer to push the Government 

into action were met with silence. Requested subpoenas were not issued 

for weeks. Delays were imposed because bureaucratic approvals were 

sought from people on vacation. Important data offered to the 

Government by Justin has even at this late date not been collected. It has 

only been reviewed by me. As for the material the Government did 

collect, weeks passed before a forensic computer specialist could 

examine it, about average for the Justice Department. 

 Some people identified as perpetrators literally could not get 

themselves arrested if they tried. As I reported in the Times, one of these 

potential defendants, Justin’s father, who at the time lived in Mexico, 

attempted, through his lawyer, to turn himself in at the American 

consulate in Mexico City. I personally witnessed a conversation where 

Justin was informed that CEOS had held that this potential defendant 

could not be prosecuted because even though he was playing a role in 

broadcasting child pornography into the United States, he did so from 

across the border. When the problem of Mr. Berry attempting to 

surrender himself to the Government presented itself, there was a great 

deal of discussion as I understand it among law enforcement personnel. 

They discussed until Mr. Berry changed his mind. He has since fled 

Mexico. 

 These kind of problems spread throughout the Government; for 

example, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, an 

excellent organization from what I have seen, have been months 

investigating a child rapist who had separately been identified to CEOS 
85

by Justin as one of his molesters. This is Mr. Tunno who Justin spoke 

about a few minutes ago. Indeed, Justin possessed video evidence of the 

crime that had been emailed to him by Mr. Tunno. These ICE agents at 

the time were unknowingly searching for Justin who they knew solely as 

a boy from Bakersfield that they suspected had been abused by this serial 

molester. Those agents heard 4 months after Justin’s meetings with 

CEOS that the boy they were searching for was already a Federal 

witness. That information was not passed on to them by CEOS, instead, 

they learned it from me, a newspaper reporter in the course of an 

interview. 

 Justin Berry stepped forward at a time the Government did not know 

he existed. He is, to experts’ knowledge, the first such teenage witness 

to ever turn over this kind of vast evidence to the Government. Given 

the way his case was handled, including the meager results and the 

longstanding threat that it would be Justin who would be prosecuted, it is 

hard to imagine other teenagers wrapped up in this world will risk their 

freedom or safety to follow in his footsteps. 

 Each year, each week, each day, the predators are becoming more 

sophisticated with computers facilitating the growth and evolution of 

child pornography. It is why this business is exploding. My reporting 

has shown me that we are woefully behind. 

 Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Kurt Eichenwald follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KURT EICHENWALD, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES

My name is Kurt Eichenwald and I am a senior writer with the New York Times. 

My appearance today is somewhat unusual. As a matter of policy, the Times instructs its 

reporters to decline requests to testify in judicial and legislative settings, because it can 

serve to undermine our work if we are seen by the public as an extension of the 

government. In this instance, the Times accepted a subpoena from the committee on my 

behalf after the committee agreed that I would be asked to provide only published or 

publicly disclosed information. To the extent that the committee seeks information about 

reporting processes, I will have to respectfully decline to answer. Nor do I believe it is 

my place to offer policy suggestions. But, within that framework, I offer the following 

testimony, which may assist the committee in its exploration of this important issue. 

 On December 19, the Times published a front page article that was the culmination 

of my six month investigation into the world of webcam child pornography. The story 

laid bare a nightmarish Internet world that grew without attracting significant attention 

from law enforcement or child advocates. As a citizen, I was dumbfounded by what I 

found. As a father, I was terrified. 

 Like most people, I gave little thought during my life to the scourge of child 

pornography. But, I now know we are fighting a losing battle. The predators are 

sophisticated in the use of computers and talented in their manipulation of children. They 

count on our willingness to avert our eyes from the unpleasant to succeed in their pursuit 

of illegal images of minors. And we have been far too willing to comply. That is part of 

why the child pornography business has exploded in the past decade, making it a multibillion dollar industry. 
86

 Webcam pornography has emerged in just the last few years, but is already a 

significant part of this illicit industry. I have submitted copies of my articles which 

explain facets of this business, as well as the events that led to my discovery of Justin 

Berry, who served as my guide into this world, showing me the mechanisms used to 

seduce children into degrading and harmful behavior. 

 Let me stress: this is not a problem involving just Justin or a handful of bad kids. 

Hundreds of minors have been lost to the lure of performing in online pornography. I 

interviewed a number of them. They include children from every walk of life – wealthy 

and middle class, honor students and those struggling with their grades, children of 

divorce and with intact families. The only shared characteristic I found is a loneliness that 

these minors feel is alleviated by meeting people online – and in person – through their 

webcam business. 

 Entire infrastructures have emerged to sustain this business, including both witting 

and unwitting corporate participants. You have already heard how predators have turned 

the ingenuity of some online companies against our children. Wish lists with companies 

like Amazon.com and American Eagle Outfitters – a wonderful convenience for gift 

giving – have become mechanisms for seducing children. Online payment systems, such 

as paypal.com, have been used to facilitate transfers of cash. Communications programs 

from companies like AOL and Yahoo are used both for direct conversations between 

predators and children, and for the transmission of illegal video images. Many of these 

programs and services can be obtained by children in minutes, without requiring accurate 

identification or proof of either age or parental consent. 

But, in addition to the unsuspecting companies, there are businesses that know 

exactly what they are doing. In my reporting, I discovered credit card processors who 

provided support for webcam child pornography. I found web hosting companies that 

offered servers for the illegal businesses. I even found a company that provided streaming 

video to sites operated by minors, on condition that its president be allowed to watch the 

pornographic performances for free. 

I also located scores of marketing sites, known as portals, which were used to direct 

potential customers to the webcam child pornography sites. These portals – many of 

which have temporarily shut down since publication of my article – underscore the scope 

and magnitude of this business. I have included as an exhibit to my remarks the internal 

listing maintained by a single portal of the almost 600 teenage webcam sites that it 

marketed. Perhaps most disturbing was that major American and international companies 

advertised on these portals. The advertisements appeared immediately above images used 

by boys and girls to market their pornographic sites. Apparently, these companies were 

attempting to win business both from customers and teenagers themselves, as they 

offered services to help efficiently run for-pay sites. The advertisers included Logitech 

and Creative Webcam, both webcam manufacturers, as well as Verotel, an international 

credit card processing company. 

But the for-pay sites of adolescents are only one level of this illicit business. Untold 

thousands of other children have become unknowing participants in the online 

pornography industry. These minors perform, not for money or gifts, but because they 

have been tricked into stripping and masturbating online for what they believe is a single 

viewer. Those performances are recorded and then posted on for-pay pornography sites, 

without the knowledge or consent of the minors. In my reporting, I found websites 

dedicated to offering webcam videos of hundreds of girls and boys who had been duped 

into such performances. One that boasted of being among the largest such sites in the 

world was shut down only after I called for a comment from its credit card processor, 

Verotel – the same company advertising its services on the portals. 

 There is a business infrastructure for this part of the industry as well. There are 

people who make their living trolling the internet for children with webcams, luring them 

into sexual performances and selling the resulting pornographic videos. To aid such 
87

people in disguising their true identities, there is software available that allows anyone to 

make a recorded video appear to be a live webcam transmission. The result is that a 

middle aged man can portray himself as a teenage boy or girl, complete with the video 

needed to convince any doubters. In my reporting, I discovered a group of predators who 

took bets among themselves about how many online approaches it would require to 

convince a girl with a webcam to take off her clothes, with the resulting recorded video 

shared among the bettors. By the time I located this group, they had played their game 

dozens of times; they never failed to convince the target to strip. 

 To aid in their hunt for adolescents, these adults again use legitimate businesses. 

Justin explained how predators used spotlife.com to find him. Numerous listings of 

children – including sites such as myspace.com and buddypic.com – are now the favored 

sites, the virtual Sears catalogue for pedophiles. Using these sites in combination, 

predators can search for children by age, location and sex. They can obtain enormous 

amounts of identifying data, including whether a child operates a webcam. I have 

witnessed conversations among child predators online, where they discuss the latest 

minor located from these sites. Often, predators share information obtained from the 

minor – both from site postings and from direct conversations. Even social networking 

sites that boast of being “safe” engage in reckless behavior, requiring personal data from 

minors before allowing access to their sites – reinforcing the children’s false view that 

providing such information is harmless. 

 When I explained how predators used these systems to producers for Oprah 

Winfrey, they asked me for a demonstration. We limited my search to minors within 20 

miles of my location – meaning, if I was a pedophile, I could personally meet these 

minors within the hour. The producers timed me. It took only one minute and thirty 

seconds before I was in direct contact with a 16 year old girl. By that time, I knew her 

name, address, school, plans for the evening and other identifying information, including 

her younger sisters’ names and ages. We repeated the test, searching for a boy with a 

webcam within the same distance. I was in contact with a 14 year old in two and a half 

minutes. In both instances, I told these minors what I was doing, and advised them not to 

speak with strangers online. Both replied, contrary to the obvious, that they never did. 

 From what I have witnessed, it is difficult to protect a child once he or she has 

accepted the predators as allies. They assist children – with strategy and money – in 

outwitting their parents, so that the shows can go on. And these predators are insidious. 

They advise the minors to claim they are over 18, suggesting that otherwise, the children 

might get in trouble. Then, when the predators are caught, they claim they were deceived 

by the child’s often laughable claim to being an adult – even with children not yet in 

puberty. 

 Of course, as you see in Justin’s story, there is the possibility that a child performing 

online will be molested. After my story, a university professor emailed me to complain 

that statistically, few viewers of child pornography become molesters. His argument, 

applied to this circumstance, is ludicrous. These are not instances where pedophiles are 

obtaining images of children they cannot identify. Here, a single child is being set upon 

by hundreds of predators, all in direct, daily contact. The entreaties to meet begin quickly. 

Numerous minors told me of predators pleading for meetings; more than a few agreed to 

go. 

 I have found oftentimes that adults react to these facts with incredulity. They cannot 

comprehend how a child could be so easily lured into pornography, or speak so readily to 

a stranger. The answer comes from an understanding of the environment where the 

minors find themselves. They are not being approached by a predator in the park. Rather, 

they are in their own homes, feeling safe. They feel comfortable on the internet, in ways 

we may not recognize. Internet communication has all of the elements of true social 

interaction, but remains shallow. So it is both socially fulfilling, and emotionally non-
88

threatening. There is no one else there, just a small, silent device nearby. There is a level 

of unreality about it, a simple lack of comprehension. 

 There also appear to be few protections. You have heard that the predators often 

laugh at federal law enforcement. They believe arrest is rare, and prosecution followed by 

jail time even rarer. I was dumbfounded by the willingness of online pedophiles to 

identify themselves, to publicly discuss their crimes. But what became obvious, as I 

disclosed in my article, is that our federal law enforcement effort to combat this threat 

appears to be hobbled by fractured responsibilities, bureaucratic mindsets, and a simple 

inability to respond. 

In interviews with law enforcement personnel around the country, I repeatedly heard 

of frustrations about CEOS serving as an impediment to the aggressive pursuit of 

criminal cases. For example, one prominent law enforcement official told me that CEOS 

often makes arguments against bringing cases in child pornography cases that would 

embarrass a defense lawyer. 

I saw the reasons for this aggravation in Justin’s case. From the time that the 

government was notified of Justin’s information to the point where the children in direct 

danger were saved, more than 50 days passed. Efforts by Justin’s lawyer to push the 

government into action were met with silence. Requested subpoenas were not issued for 

weeks, delays were imposed because bureaucratic approvals were being sought from 

people on vacation. Important data offered to the government by Justin has, even at this 

late date, not been collected and has only been reviewed by me. As for the material that 

the government did collect, weeks past before a forensic computer specialist could 

examine it – about average for the Justice Department. Some people identified as 

perpetrators literally could not get themselves arrested if they tried: As I reported in the 

Times, one of these potential defendants, Justin’s father, who at the time lives in Mexico, 

attempted through his lawyer to turn himself in at American consulate in Mexico City. I 

personally witnessed a conversation where Justin was informed that CEOS had held that 

this potential defendant could not be prosecuted because, even though he was playing a 

role in broadcasting child pornography into the United States, he did so from across the 

border. 

The problems spread throughout the government. For example, agents with 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had for months been investigating a child 

rapist who had separately been identified to CEOS by Justin as one of his molesters; 

indeed, Justin possessed video evidence of the crime. These ICE agents at the time were 

unknowingly searching for Justin, whom they knew solely as a boy from Bakersfield who 

they suspected had been abused by this serial molester. Those agents heard four months 

after Justin’s meeting with CEOS that the boy they were searching for was already a 

federal witness. But that information was not passed to them by CEOS; instead, they 

learned it from me, a newspaper reporter, in the course of an interview. 

Justin Berry stepped forward at a time the government did not know he existed. He 

is, to experts’ knowledge, the first such teenage witness to ever turn over this kind of vast 

evidence to the government. Given the way his case was handled – including the meager 

results -- it is hard to imagine other teenagers wrapped up in this world will risk their 

freedom or safety to follow in his footsteps. 

Each year, each week, each day, predators are becoming more sophisticated with 

computers, facilitating the growth and evolution of online child pornography. My 

reporting has shown me, we are woefully behind. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Eichenwald, thank you for your testimony. I 

also want to thank you for the articles that you wrote in the New York 

Times which bring this matter to the attention of the entire country. We 

really appreciate your testimony. 
89

 At this time, I am going to recognize the full committee Chairman, 

Mr. Barton of Texas, because he has a meeting down at the White House 

and he is so interested in this issue and wanted to ask some questions. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you and Mr. Stupak for allowing me to go out of order. I appreciate that. 

I do have an engagement at the White House in 15 minutes so I am going 

to have to leave after these questions. 

 I have been listening in my office on the television to the testimony 

of both witnesses and I do want to thank each of you for appearing. It is 

a great credit to your courage, Mr. Berry, that you are here and it is a 

great credit to the journalism profession, Mr. Eichenwald, that you are 

here. I must remind my friend from the New York Times that when this 

committee does issue a subpoena it is outweighed. I mean, you seem to 

think you are doing us a favor by showing up and you are, but you would 

have showed up whether you wanted to or not if you had insisted not to 

be here. Having said that, we are very pleased that you are here, do not 

think this is any kind of an argumentative situation. 

 My first question is to you, Mr. Berry. I cannot fathom how you 

could conduct the activities that you conducted in your home with a 

mother who appears to have been as concerned as you indicated she was. 

How did you get around her efforts to prevent you from doing what you 

did? 

 MR. BERRY. To tell you the truth, that is probably the most asked 

question that I have recently encountered. My mother is great, she is 

wonderful, I love her a lot, and she cares for me more than I can imagine. 

Her efforts were no match for the pedophiles. They were no match for 

the predators. Whenever I needed to, whenever I felt that I needed some 

more space outside my home, one of the perpetrators came down to 

Bakersfield, California where I lived and rented me an apartment on the 

street. When I was-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So you did this outside your home? 

 MR. BERRY. It started in my home, went to the apartment which this 

individual that I had-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Where did your mother think you were when 

you were at this apartment? 

 MR. BERRY. I would tell her I was going to a friend’s house or 

something like that. Being as I was not 18, I could not rent the apartment 

myself so this individual signed the lease and after that, I had recently, I 

had graduated high school early at 16 and my mom told me I could not 

move out of the house until I graduated high school, so I took care of 

that. After a few months had passed, I had moved to Mexico with my 

father. 
90

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Your father encouraged this apparently. He 

thought he could profit by it. 

 MR. BERRY. Correct. I told my father about the business when he 

asked where all my money was coming from and he helped me. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well what did your mother think about where 

all this money, or did you hide your money from your mother? 

 MR. BERRY. Living two separate lives and having to come home 

and be the Justin that I was for the family, and then living a different life 

in Mexico was very difficult. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Now you indicated that you were an honor 

student and that you were president of your class. Is that right? 

 MR. BERRY. Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. But you also said you were very lonely. Can 

you reconcile that? I mean how can you be the president of the class and 

be lonely? 

 MR. BERRY. For me, I am not sure on why I felt certain ways or why 

I did certain things. All I know is these people, I thought they were my 

friends. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Did your friends at school, were they aware of 

what was going on or did you hide that from them, too? 

 MR. BERRY. I hid this from everyone for years. I did not tell anyone 

until recently. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So where you actually lived, your what we call 

traditional friends in school, in church, and the neighborhood thought 

you were just a normal teenager. 

 MR. BERRY. That liked to sit on the computer a lot, yeah. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Which is fairly normal for teenagers these 

days, that is what teenagers do. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, what should we do about these credit card 

companies that knowingly or maybe even unknowingly foster this kind 

of activity? Are there some remedies that are not in current law that you 

would recommend? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Mr. Barton, in truth, I do not know. The danger 

of a reporter is that we come in and we know what we have reported, we 

know what we have found, and it gives us the view of an expert. I do not 

know the laws governing credit card companies. I do not know what 

standards are in place now which is why I was saying I do not think it is 

my place to offer policy pronouncements. I think anything I would say 

would be hardly uninformed. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Do you care to, either one of you, foster an 

opinion about we are having a markup starting this evening and then 

beginning, and then continuing tomorrow on the new video services bill 

in which one of the big debating points right now is the concept of 
91

Internet neutrality and freedom of the Internet. Are their exceptions to 

total freedom of the Internet and if so is this one of them? Should there 

be some laws, explicitly Internet, concerning Internet behavior for child 

pornographic activities. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I have never understood why there was a 

difference between the Internet and the mails and walking down the 

street with a bag in your hand. Child pornography is illegal and those 

who facilitate child pornography are committing a crime. If a credit card 

company is involved in the business and it can be demonstrated that they 

are for example involved in multiple lines of child pornography, if I was 

a prosecutor, I would certainly like to have that case. The bottom line 

issue, I think sometimes we tend to think ourselves too much into a 

spiral. If someone is engaging in an act that is illegal, they should be 

prosecuted whether they are an individual, a company, or whatever other 

level of involvement there is here. I can tell you for however disturbing 

these issues have been and I deeply appreciate what I have heard from 

the members about how disturbing these things are, I can tell you that the 

reality of what I have witnessed over the last number of months is far 

worse than anything you can imagine. It is far worse than anything you 

would want to imagine. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Right. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. This working on the story resulted in many, 

many months of being unable to sleep. There were images I could not 

get out of my head when the lights went out. Ultimately, I have been, as 

a result of my reporting diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. 

Fortunately, the Times is making sure I am taking care of that. I say all 

that to underscore that if there are people involved in this business, 

whether they are on the Internet or not, this has nothing to do with 

freedom, this has to do with sexual abuse, and those people should be 

prosecuted. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Berry, do you have a comment on that? 

 MR. BERRY. No, sir, I do not. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Last question. You ask topical 

questions. We have had a testy relationship with the Justice Department. 

We, being the committee in this investigation, although the Attorney 

General has been very cooperative and we are getting cooperation, could 

they have done more in your case, Mr. Berry to go after the perpetrators 

and if so, what should they have done that they have not done? 

 MR. BERRY. When we came forth to the Department of Justice and 

told them, when I went and spoke with them and told them about the 

children who were being abused and molested and exploited by these 

adult perpetrators, sitting there and wondering every night, were these 

children that I knew being molested, why weren’t they safe, and having 
92

to wait there 50 plus days, almost 2 months knowing that these children 

are in the hands of these perpetrators, that ripped me apart. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Ryan, would you want to comment on 

that? 

 MR. RYAN. I would, Mr. Chairman. 

 Chairman Barton, let me give an example of a question that I think 

the Chairman might ask on Thursday of the Department. Given that we 

turned over approximately 1,500 IP addresses, matching credit card 

information, and other identification for people who are paying for child 

pornography, as a policy call, I am not sure you would want to prosecute 

all 1,500 of those cases. But I sure think that you would want law 

enforcement to get search warrants and go get the computers of those 

people and leave their wives and daughters and other people in their 

house asking that person why it was that the FBI or ICE or another, the 

Postal Service who do excellent work, had dropped by to seize it. I think 

the Department needs to explain whether its policy is to indict those 

people or to do something with them. I think-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well we want them to do their investigation 

and we have every indication from staff interviews that they are 

conducting an active investigation. I do not want to come across as 

being too negative. My question is, is it a fair policy question that even 

given limited resources and all the various issues that you had to deal 

with at the Federal level in determining to go ahead and prosecute, is it a 

fair statement that Mr. Berry, and you as his attorney, feel like they could 

have been more aggressive with the information that you provided them? 

 MR. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Eichenwald, do you have a comment on 

the generic ability to prosecute these types of cases? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I do. Also on the comment of an aggressive, 

they are aggressively investigating. I have written about law 

enforcement issues for almost 20 years. Normally, I am not in this field, 

I am dealing with corporate crime, the most complex area of criminal 

prosecution. There you are dealing with thousands of pieces of paper, 

sometimes millions of pieces of paper. You are dealing with multiple 

witnesses, many of whom have financial interests not to testify. I have 

never seen a case in my experience move slower than this one. There 

were identified again at the beginning, multiple levels of people. You 

had identified particular perpetrators who had access to specific children, 

children whose names we knew, children whose faces we could describe, 

we knew where they lived, who were being filmed and molested. I must 

admit, I, to this day, do not understand what was happening over those 

55 days. I do sit in horror worrying about the day I hear that on day 35, 
93

something happened to one of those children that was preventable. I 

cannot explain what happened there. 

 Then there is the next level. I mentioned in my opening comments, 

my opening remarks the credit card processor. Justin mentioned the 

credit card processor. I was there at the beginning when Mr. Ryan was 

speaking to CEOS on, I believe it was on July 26 and saying the 

centerpiece of this case is meova.net, the company that is processing the 

credit cards. Justin Berry is a spoke. Meova is processing credit cards 

for child pornography. They are the hub. Not only that, the individual 

who was the president of meova.net had previously been subject to a 

child pornography investigation which he had escaped by saying oh, he 

did not know there was child pornography involving what he was doing. 

Mr. Ryan strongly recommended that the way to maximize the impact of 

Mr. Berry’s information was to immediately go after meova.net and to 

immediately seize its information, arrest its president because you had 

direct evidence that he was processing credit cards for child 

pornography. Hopefully flip him or a member of his organization to 

make this case branch out in the many directions it seemed like it could 

go. To date, none of that has happened because meova.net is still 

around. The president of the company, we are now 9 months later, the 

president of the company is still wandering around. 

 In the Enron case, which I covered, it took 6 months until you had a 

senior executive indicted. A month later you had another senior all the 

way up to the chief financial officer. We are 9 months down the line and 

we have two low-level people who were molesting children or filming 

children, and they were arrested 55 days after the information was 

provided to the Government. You then have the areas of people who 

were involved in the infrastructure of this business who were identified 

by Justin where their information was contained in the documents and 

files turned over by Justin. These people are not secret. I wrote about 

them in the New York Times. I had always believed that I would be able 

to name people in the paper by the time the story ran. It never occurred 

to me that there would be no action by the Government. 

 I also want to recount a story that was probably the more horrific 

moment in terms of my interactions with Justin. Eventually, at a point 

when I really was wrestling with do we have to write a story about the 

Government’s failure to do anything here. Eventually, Justin was 

granted immunity. One individual who was endangering children was 

arrested, a few weeks later another individual who was endangering 

children was arrested. Justin kept coming back to me and saying what 

about the other men who molested me? What about what they did? 

Finally there was a day he said to me with tears in his eyes, why is it the 

Justice Department does not care about the men who molested me? To 
94

this date, none of those men have been prosecuted. None of those men 

have been arrested, except for Mr. Mitchel who had the distinction of 

being the sole person who was identified as endangering other children 

who also had molested Justin Berry. So, if you ask if this is an active 

investigation or what more could they have done, in truth, the better 

question is what less could they have done. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I have spoken directly with the Attorney 

General of the United States on this and am absolutely confident that he 

is personally committed to actively pursuing the specifics and the generic 

investigation. We will have the Justice Department here on Thursday. 

And again, they have an active criminal investigation underway so they 

are not going to be able to talk on the specifics, but the fact that you two 

here are testifying in an open hearing, and being as brave as each of you 

are, is going to help activate those investigations even more, I am very 

sure. But I appreciate your testimony and again, I want to thank Mr. 

Stupak and Mr. Whitfield for letting me go out of order. I appreciate 

that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

 At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. 

 And before the Chairman leaves, Mr. Chairman, I hope we could if 

Justice is coming in Thursday, we could pin Justice down because as you 

were asking Mr. Eichenwald his comments just sitting here, I already 

knew Justice would say well it is an active investigation, therefore we 

cannot answer half of our questions. So I hope we would take Justice in 

closed session or something because if we let them off the hook, this is 

just going to drag on and on. We have seen it so many times in this 

committee so I would hope that-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. We are not going to let anyone off the hook. 

 MR. STUPAK. All right, very good. 

 And since we are on the lines of law enforcement and having been 

there for a number of years myself, Mr. Ryan or Mr. Eichenwald if you 

care to comment on action by the Government. I see a number of things 

and tell me what I am missing or what else should be on this list. First, I 

am sure is their lack of financial resources. Next, the lack of cooperation 

I have heard between ICE and FBI and Justice, inadequate laws either 

updated or not caught up with the computer, or conflicting laws between 

State and Federal, and the credit card processing which I bring up again 

because we have seen it last year in this committee alone on the Internet 

pharmacy where people are buying drugs improperly, illegally to great 

harm. We also saw it in masking of drug testing and now we see it on 

child pornography. Credit card processing seems to be as you said the 

hub of the wheel if you will, and not just merely a spoke. And we have 
95

had MasterCard, Visa, and all the rest of them in here and they keep 

saying we will get back with you on how we can best crack down on this 

and yet to this day we have never heard that happen. When I look at the 

problems of law enforcement and the issues or excuses they use not to 

move forward on this, is there anything else missing? Financial 

resources, lack of coordination, inadequate laws, conflicting laws, or 

processing of credit cards, any other area we should explore if we are 

going to do true law enforcement, truly aggressive enforcement? 

 MR. RYAN. Congressman, I think there are very few impediments to 

prosecution in this area and frankly, there may be distractions in the post 

9/11 world that have taken some of the squads that may have worked this 

area before, and that would be quite legitimate that there may have been 

an emphasis on counterterrorism and other issues. If I could be bold 

enough, I would recommend to the committee that you privately convene 

the credit card industry at a roundtable here with staff, the members 

coming in the late part of that meeting and ask them what they would 

like to do here, because I think the kind of credit card companies we are 

talking about here are not Visa and MasterCard or the standard 

companies. These are companies we believe are heavily involved in an 

illegal business knowingly. So the question then is how can we identify 

those companies and I believe there are ways of doing that and I think 

industry knows them as well. And I do believe that cooperation between 

the business community and the law enforcement community in the area 

of child pornography can be increased without violating personally 

identifiable information of normal citizens and I think that is the 

challenge for the Congress with regard to that. The challenge for law 

enforcement here I would rather have a horse that I had to say whoa to 

rather than one I’ve got to hit all the time and say giddy up. I think the 

question for this committee in a sense with Justice is not so much if a law 

is inadequate, as is the level of energy enough and is the ambition of the 

26, 27-year-olds, which we all were at one point, prosecuting the 

Department of Justice being unleashed on these people. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, but the credit card processing if its MasterCard 

or Visa that are being embarrassed then what I am saying, wouldn’t they 

have a greater interest to try to see who is processing these credit cards 

and for what purpose. 

 MR. RYAN. I think the legitimate credit card industry could be 

uniquely helpful to the committee privately in helping the committee 

understand, and helping law enforcement understand, what it is that they 

may be able to do to help on this problem. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. You brought up 9/11 and I do not want to 

necessarily tie this in here, but it seems like on 9/11 we did not have 

coordination or Justice talking to this agency or that agency, and it seems 
96

now when we are 5 years post we are still not cooperating or talking with 

each other from a law enforcement point of view. And the victims here 

are children around this country. 

 MR. RYAN. Well let me say something. As a prosecutor for the 

Department of Justice, and I treasure the time that I spent there, I think it 

is the responsibility of the lead prosecutor in these cases to marshal the 

agents and their energy. The 1811s are not responsible for these cases; 

the prosecutors are responsible for coordinating with them so that the 

good work that the agents do will result in prosecutions to tell them what 

element is still missing that they want them to go get. And I think that 

we have to ask the Department of Justice about its leadership role in this 

case. 

 MR. STUPAK. Part of this, I do not know if it is inexperience or 

what, but why would you put Justin Berry, your witness here, disclose 

his identity as he testified to in the court case which actually threatened 

his life and had made him now a greater victim than what he may have 

been? 

 MR. RYAN. I have to say Mr. Berry is one of the bravest and frankly 

he is a very smart young man. He understands the danger that he 

undertook. He was at the height of danger last summer when these 

people were really looking for him and they are amateurs in a lot of 

ways, but amateurs can kill you just the same as professionals. 

 MR. STUPAK. And certainly I would echo those comments but at the 

same time who left them out there? Law enforcement, if you will, 

Justice left him hanging. He is still out there. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I would interject--there was a point after the 

Justice Department unsealed the affidavit that revealed Justin’s role in 

this case, there was a lot of backpedaling and apologizing. And Justin 

was offered, I know this because it happened while I was sitting there, 

Justin was offered whatever levels of protection could be brought 

forward. At this point, we are 70 days into it and Justin truly had 

absolutely no faith in the Justice Department and he said to me if I ask 

for something, they will know my address and if they know my address, 

how do I know they are not going to open the document and unseal it 

somewhere. And there was a point where he was told that the Justice 

Department would do anything he asked to make him feel safe. And his 

response was telling. His response was tell them to stop being so stupid. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, Justin, thank you again for being here and for 

helping parents and young people across this Nation. Let me ask you 

this question and if you can answer it. Is there any reason why a 13-

year-old needs a webcam? 

 MR. BERRY. That is a very simple answer, no. 
97

 MR. STUPAK. And they put this out as a promotion if you would 

sign up with their service? 

 MR. BERRY. Correct. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. And the spotlife.com was that pre-noted or 

anything or-- 

 MR. BERRY. Spotlife.com, I do not believe it exists at the current 

date. There are other sites that are similar and just like it. That company 

is owned by Logitech which is the manufacturer of the webcams. So 

spotlife.com was a way that Logitech, I guess they envisioned that these 

webcams they can communicate through the Internet, meet new people. 

It was a site like that. 

 MR. STUPAK. It just made it all so convenient. 

 MR. BERRY. It just did. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask this. You mentioned that your mother had 

child protection programs, took away your keyboard, but the folks you 

were dealing with where sophisticated enough to work around that. 

Explain that for me, how did you get around it? Because I am sure that 

parents buy things and say we have this protection out here. 

 MR. BERRY. You know, I am not a computer genius, I know a little 

bit, however, with the help of these people. Let us just say my mom 

takes away my keyboard. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 MR. BERRY. And the next day I hop on the Internet and I say, okay, 

I need another keyboard, what am I going to do here? Let us say I am 

discussing this with these people, I could have ten keyboards FedEx’d to 

my house by same day delivery if I needed it. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MR. BERRY. These pedophiles are no match for any parent out there. 

 MR. STUPAK. If you can answer this, maybe you cannot. What was 

the greater gift if you will that you received when you first started down 

this unfortunate road? Was it the physical presents that were left at your 

doorway or was it the compliments, the companionship, the popularity, 

or as you said the king of the universe. Was that the motivating force or 

was it the physical gifts? 

 MR. BERRY. I really could not tell you exactly what I was thinking 

or what drove this. All I know is these people are the most manipulative 

and the most relentless people that I have ever encountered in my life. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. If I could add, I have the unfortunate distinction 

of having read many of the conversations that Justin had with these 

predators. And when he says they are relentless, that is truly the correct 

word. They would act to remove any impediment to these shows. The 

moment depicted in the story was when Justin had a girlfriend and she 

found out what was going on and was basically begging him to stop. 
98

And this, every element of his life was repeated to these people and they 

begin telling Justin how terrible it is she is saying this, how terrible. She 

is willing to let you spend your money on her, but she does not want you 

to earn it. And the line that I quoted was from one person, “She may not 

love you, Justin, but your friends in this room do.” That is the entire 

mindset. They will remove anybody. They will take care of any 

impediment. They are 1,500 people acting to subvert the actions of a 

single parent and they win. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask one more thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, certainly. 

 MR. STUPAK. We talked earlier with Dr. Cooper about the benefits 

of your personal gratification or else the commercialization if you will of 

this pornography. But you brought in a third element, the advertising 

that are on these sites. I mean, have we become as a society so accepting 

of it that we advertise on these sites? I mean, I was shocked to hear that. 

Could you explain that a little bit more? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. The advertising is not taking place directly on 

the children’s sites. The minors or there have been sites that have been 

put up called portals which are basically--the advertising is not taking 

place directly on the children’s sites. If you are looking for webcam 

child pornography, it is hard to find. You have to know where to go. 

Well the portals solved that problem. The portals are a listing of webcam 

sites which a customer goes in and votes for their favorite site. The more 

outrageous the behavior of the child, the more votes the child gets. 

These votes become this self-reinforcement, this element of a kid feels 

good about herself or himself because they are getting more votes than 

other people and so they do things to get votes. I saw people who said I 

will let you watch me sleep. I saw, if you do this, I will do that. There 

were some very explicit offers of what would happen if people voted for 

them. Getting higher votes moves you higher up the list. Being higher 

up the list gets more customers. That little competition is going on right 

beneath an ad for Logitech or an ad for Verotel. 

 The companies, I do not know if they simply do not look at what is 

going on in the places they advertise but the committee has some 

samples of a particularly well-known portal and what was there. And 

you have, you know, I am a 14-year-old, you watch me in my bed, I 

mean, they are not being subtle. They are not making a secret. And also 

you get down to what is it people think is being paid for? These are 

children in front of a camera charging money. What in the world does 

anyone imagine is going on there? And so I think what we have is not 

that we are just, we have fallen so far is that we fall to the level of well I 

can deny it. You know, I do not explicitly know what this is. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 
99

 MR. EICHENWALD. But anybody who looked at it for 10 seconds 

would know exactly what it is. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

 Thank you, witnesses. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Justin, in your testimony, you talked about spotlife 

as and I believe that was the vehicle by which you were first introduced 

into this world. Is that correct? 

 MR. BERRY. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And would you elaborate on that just a little bit 

about exactly what spotlife was. I know there are other similar vehicles 

today but would you elaborate on that just a little bit? 

 MR. BERRY. What spotlife.com was was an Internet website similar 

in nature to what he, Kurt, spoke about, however this is a little bit 

different. What it does is it was a website which allowed viewers like 

yourself, the nice lady sitting next to you, whoever it might be to go on 

these websites, browse through a directory, and view the different web 

cameras that are hooked up through this software. Thereafter that the 

guests of the website if there was contact information on there, could 

contact that person with a camera and after that they would begin 

speaking. So it is basically an automobile to communicate with the 

webcam user themselves. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you had a webcam at that time. Correct? 

 MR. BERRY. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And then you, I think in your testimony you, 

someone contacted you and said that if you would take your shirt off, 

they might give you $50? 

 MR. BERRY. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And that was the first time that you had ever had 

an experience like that. Is that correct? 

 MR. BERRY. Correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And so it just kind of went on from there? 

 MR. BERRY. From there it escalated. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now I read a lot of this testimony and I 

read the newspaper articles that you wrote, Mr. Eichenwald, and of 

course talked to Mr. Ryan some. I have not talked to the Attorney 

General, although the Chairman has, but I must say without hearing from 

their side, it does appear to me that the child exploitation and obscenity 

section of the Justice Department has a lot of explaining to do because 

you did give them 1,500 names with addresses, with credit card numbers 

and everything else, and I find it just unbelievable the different stories 

that I have heard about this investigation and it appears that this center, 

this section in the Justice Department is failing miserably on this issue. 

So I am looking forward to Thursday when they do come and testify. 
100

Hopefully, we can get some answers from law enforcement and follow 

up on this as well. 

 But Mr. Eichenwald and Mr. Ryan, I know that when Greg Mitchel 

was, he was convicted I believe. Was he convicted? 

 MR. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, he was indicted, arrested, has plead 

guilty, and on April 12 he will be sentenced. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. But one of the reasons that he is going to be 

convicted and will be sentenced is because of the evidence that Justin 

provided. And what is the explanation for the Justice Department 

unsealing that information? 

 MR. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter recently to the 

Department and I would ask that you put that letter and the Department’s 

response to me in the record. We summarize it as follows. The 

understanding that I have is that the unsealing of the affidavit that 

identified Mr. Berry not by name but for those who are looking for him, 

identified that he was cooperating. I believe the Department’s position is 

that it was a mistake that it was done. In my experience when a 

prosecutor makes a mistake, and we do make mistakes as lawyers, you 

try and put the milk back in the bottle. That is you reseal the affidavit. I 

am not aware that any effort was ever made to reseal the affidavit but 

that affidavit once it was released would have given notice to everyone in 

the business who had done facilitation of the business like the credit card 

business to dump the server box for example, drop it off a bridge, put it 

in a dump, erase the random access memory, you know, do various 

things. But I do believe, I take at face value the Department’s 

representation that they really had not intended to do that and that it was 

a mistake which is in the letter that I received last night about 5:00 in 

preparation for this hearing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. So they basically said it was a mistake but 

that was a mistake some time ago and there has been no effort to reseal. 

Is that your understanding? 

 MR. RYAN. You know, traditionally, Mr. Chairman, these things do 

happen at a court. It could be the fault of the prosecutor, it could be the 

fault of a court official. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. RYAN. What you simply do is reseal the information-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. RYAN. --and try and pull it off the Internet which you can do. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. Ryan, at the time that you were negotiating 

with the Justice Department for immunity for Mr. Berry, there was valid 

reason for Justin to be concerned, right, about his life. I mean, did you 

feel at any time that his life was in danger? 
101

 MR. RYAN. Mr. Eichenwald and I both observed emails of people 

who were frantically looking for him at various points. One of those 

was--well there were these emails that reflected that. It was our 

judgment that it was best for him to be at a location that is not identified. 

We have never altered that practice. Mr. Eichenwald and I continue 

today to advise Justin to not describe for example here where he lives. 

And it is just best for him that way. And I have to say that law 

enforcement offered us their protection. But I took seriously the concern 

that some of these child molester perpetrators might hurt him if they 

knew where he was. I actually took it as a potential threat. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Mr. Chairman, I was a direct witness to the 

magnitude of the hunting that was going on. The most frightening day in 

all of this in an array of frightening days, Mr. Mitchel had somehow 

figured out that Justin had possession of his mother’s cell phone and was 

sending text messages to it. And Justin was very upset by this and 

basically gave me the cell phone which by the way is still in my 

possession. That cell phone, he would say, I have money for you. There 

was another child that Mr. Mitchel was filming. He would say, Justin 

this other child is very upset, he wants you to call him, please call, very 

manipulative acts. And then there was the day when the message arrived 

and I looked at it and it was my home telephone number and with no 

other explanation. And apparently, Mr. Mitchel in his efforts to find 

Justin had somehow obtained Justin’s cell phone records and found that 

he had called a number he did not recognize. I showed that message to 

Justin. I showed Justin all the messages that came in. And he panicked. 

He looked at it, I think rightfully as a potential threat to my family. And 

he devised what I thought was a fairly brilliant response. We were 

planning to go the next day to Bakersfield for me to examine some of the 

hard drives that contained the conversations I mentioned earlier and 

Justin contacted Mr. Mitchel and engaged in a rambling conversation 

which was basically all fake saying send me my money, wire it to me, 

send it to Bakersfield. The idea being he would pick it up in Bakersfield 

and then no one would ever come and look for anyone in my home 

where I have two children. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. That took place the evening before we left and 

by the time we arrived in Bakersfield the next morning, there were 

people hunting for Justin at the airport and they had already gone to his 

home the night before around, I believe it was around 10:00 at night 

thinking that he was with his mother. And from what we were told by 

his mother, there was a hotel by hotel search going on. We had hoped to 

go to Justin’s house to pick up these hard drives. We obviously could 

not and we ended up going to stay at the home of a friend of Justin’s 
102

mother and all of the equipment was brought over to us. But the speed 

with which we were talking, he was talking to somebody in Virginia and 

suddenly there are people hunting for him in California who I believed 

was a very strong suggestion of the level of potential danger that this 

young man was facing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. And in his testimony he talked about 

Ken Gourlay who actually is going to be testifying or appearing later. 

And that Ken Gourlay talked him into going to a computer camp up in 

Michigan and subsequently molested him there according to the 

testimony. Did Justin tell you that Ken Gourlay molested him? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Yes. And there has been nothing that has been 

more emotionally traumatic for Justin than in recounting the events 

involving Ken Gourlay. I was very surprised he was able to get through 

his testimony today. He has never been able to have a full 

presentation/discussion about what happened with Ken Gourlay without 

either becoming enraged or beginning to sob. And he also at one point 

showed me a video in which Mr. Gourlay, it was taken in Mexico in 

which Mr. Gourlay is in the video, walks behind the camera and begins 

operating the camera and the video becomes pornographic so I had no 

doubt that the things being described by Justin and Mr. Gourlay’s 

involvement were-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So there is no question in your mind from the 

evidence that you saw that Mr. Gourlay was involved in production of 

child pornography. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Not at all. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

 At this time, I would recognize the gentleman, Dr. Burgess from 

Texas. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, do you, I think you spoke to it but there were times 

you were concerned for your own safety. Is that correct? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I was more concerned for my children. I know 

people who might feel my looking at people who do accounting fraud 

and I normally do not have to worry about are they going to come and 

balance my kids’ checkbooks and there was a very large emotional 

element in this for me in terms of dealing with the reality of what was 

happening to other children, seeing my own children, realizing that 

Justin’s members in my hometown included a pediatrician, included 

teachers, included a lawyer who represents children and family issues. 

And I probably became more than a little paranoid about the safety of my 

own children but there were instances such as this situation with Mr. 

Mitchel where I was truly concerned for the safety of my kids. 
103

 MR. BURGESS. And Justin, were you concerned about your mother’s 

safety during this time? 

 MR. BERRY. Throughout all of this, I was very concerned. I was 

very concerned about the safety of me, the safety of my little sister. I 

just--these people are relentless. 

 MR. BURGESS. And when you say there were people hunting for you 

at the airport in Bakersfield when you arrived, how does that occur? 

How does someone hunt for someone in an airport? Were you paged 

over the air, were there people that you recognized? 

 MR. BERRY. Actually, when we got to the airport, Kurt and I, my 

mother was there to pick us up from the airport. 

 MR. BURGESS. We have got five of those. 

 MR. BERRY. All right. 

 MR. BURGESS. Okay, go on, maybe six. 

 MR. BERRY. All right. When my mother came to the airport to pick 

us up, she informed Kurt and I that my father had been looking for me 

and Kurt as well. Whenever we arrived, she said that staying at the 

house was not an option because an individual had come by that previous 

night asking if I was there as well, and let me know what was going on in 

that situation when I arrived. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. When we arrived on our plane it was one of 

those situations, I failed to turn off my phone when I was in flight and as 

we landed, the message-- 

 MR. BURGESS. I am shocked. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Yeah, I am sorry. We landed. I immediately 

had a message and my phone rang, his phone rang. His phone rang with 

a phone call. It was his mother who was fairly frightened who was 

saying there are people here. There were people who had come as well 

as people who were up from Mexico, including his father. They had 

come up the night before because they were involved in these activities 

and we were told that there were people at the airport who were looking 

for Justin. 

 MR. BURGESS. Would you have been able to identify them? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I would not have been, I will say, no. 

 MR. BURGESS. Justin, would you have been able to identify those 

people at the airport? Did you call law enforcement and say arrest these 

men? 

 MR. BERRY. Well I never saw anyone with my own eyes, no. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. And law enforcement as you can imagine when 

we were at, the Bakersfield circumstances were high pressure enough. It 

was immediately after these events that Justin contacted Mr. Ryan and 

solidified that relationship and Mr. Ryan immediately contacted the 
104

CEOS. That is why when I say it was July 14, the reason why is we 

were in Bakersfield on July 13. 

 MR. BURGESS. Let me go back to something just for a minute if I 

could, Justin. I appreciate you being here and know this must be difficult 

but you said that someone rented an apartment on your behalf while you 

were still in high school or just graduated from high school? 

 MR. BERRY. That is correct. Gilo Tunno who was originally of 

Portland, Oregon, at the time. I had been contacted by this individual 

over the Internet instant messaging and spoken with him. He offered to 

come to Bakersfield, California, and rent an apartment, sign the lease in 

his name because I was not 18 at the time. 

 MR. BURGESS. But and so this was an apartment that someone 

rented that they allowed you to use. They did not rent you an apartment, 

did they? 

 MR. BERRY. No, they rented it for me. 

 MR. BURGESS. Now is it-- 

 MR. EICHENWALD. When Mr. Tunno arrived in Bakersfield, I have 

the records from that apartment rental. He rented the apartment and then 

made sure there were two things in the apartment, Internet access and 

cameras. This was not Mr. Tunno’s apartment. This was Justin’s 

apartment that was rented for him by Mr. Tunno for the purpose of 

making sure that the shows continued. Justin’s mother was coming by 

his room too much and so that was going to be a problem. Once the 

apartment was rented, there was no problem anymore. 

 MR. BURGESS. Now has this person been arrested? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. That is the individual I mentioned who was 

arrested subsequently for raping an 8-year-old boy. That was the fellow 

who was being investigated by the Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement agents who were trying to figure out who the kid was in 

Bakersfield who they believed had been molested by Tunno. And again, 

that was information--they only learned that Justin-- they spent 4 months 

of their time trying to find somebody who was already a Federal witness 

and they learned that Justin was a Federal witness. They learned that this 

boy had come forward not only saying yes, he had been molested but that 

there is video evidence of it in the course of an interview with me. 

 MR. BURGESS. Well Mr. Eichenwald, I mean you said it so 

eloquently, you are concerned about where are the arrests of the people 

that molested Justin and I guess I would ask the same question and what 

has been done to preserve evidence, what has been done to make certain 

that prosecution of these individuals is still possible? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I am not sure I understand. 

 MR. RYAN. Let me, I want to make sure that something is clear. 

This particular individual is a guest of the United States before Justin 
105

came forward to law enforcement. He was convicted based on other 

activities. Law enforcement did catch him, the ICE agent. We are 

cooperating with the case agents to help on additional work in that case. 

 MR. BURGESS. I see. But Mr. Eichenwald, you had or gave us 

testimony that Justin had said to you when are they going to arrest the 

people who molested me. And I guess I would ask the same question. 

What is being done in that regard? What is being done to hold those 

individuals accountable, to present evidence, to preserve evidence? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I could not tell you. Again, some of the 

evidence regarding some of those individuals is contained on the laptop 

computer that Justin described to the Government back in July. No one 

has ever picked it up. I mean, that is why we talk about an active 

investigation when you say there are four hard drives, I believe it was 

four hard drives, it may have been six. The number of hard drives and 

there is a laptop computer all of which contain evidence. And they 

picked up the hard drives but they do not pick up the computer. I mean, 

it is sort of you are left scratching your head. I cannot tell you what is 

being done. I cannot tell you why things are the way they are. 

 MR. BURGESS. Well if we can get some answers when the 

Department is in here on Thursday. Mr. Eichenwald, I just commend 

what you did. A good deal of likelihood that Justin would not be alive 

today had you not intervened. It certainly, I mean it is a fantastic story 

that you just literally stumbled upon one day. Is that correct? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. One of the very strange things about the webcam 

pornography business is that if one, I mentioned the competition. If one 

site or one group of sites become successful, the competitors will start to 

launch very devious ways of attacking them. What happened for me is I 

came across one of these devious attempts to attack a site. I had just 

come back from a book tour on my last book about Enron and decided I 

wanted to do something international on the same area I deal with so I 

did a search for, a did a Google search for Interpol fraud alerts and in the 

course of looking through what popped up, I came across what purported 

to be a posting by a Tallahassee law firm about an Interpol investigation 

involving eight, I believe it was State Attorneys General who were 

looking at fraud, a fraud case involving a series of websites. 

 Most of those websites were a credit process or many of those 

websites were credit card processors. The posting was detailed, I was 

delighted. This was a story that was wrapped up in a bow. I just had to 

figure a little bit out. I would call the law firm and I have something in 

the paper. As I went down looking at what each site was I came across a 

site called Mexicofriends. Given that it was a fraud case and it was 

called Mexicofriends, I thought money laundering, there was something 

good here. Mexicofriends at that point was a dead site so I stuck the 
106

word Mexicofriends into Google as a single word, and found a bunch of 

people talking about somebody named Justin who was obviously a porn 

star. I did not understand what, that had to do with fraud, but it sounded 

like it was getting to become a more interesting story on some level. 

 And eventually once I had what I could get out of those listings, I 

went to something called archive.org which is a site that preserves 

images of old websites and in the course of looking at what are these 

things that I have not been able to find, I put in mexicofriends.com and 

up popped an image that it looked like something you would find in a 

seventh grade school book. It was not pornographic, it was a photograph 

of Justin at the age of 14. Now right now he is 19 and I think he looks 

about 16. When he was 14, he looked like he was about 12 or 11. And 

as I am looking at that, I very quickly came to realize that this image, this 

person I am looking at was Justin. Is the person who I had already knew 

was some sort of porn star. And the level of disconnect in my head was 

huge. I did not know what I was looking at, what I was dealing with. I 

do know that I was abjectly horrified. And I did not at that time think 

wow a news story. In fact, my thought was I have to figure out if this is 

real. 

 And about that same time I found out that the original posting, the 

Tallahassee law firm I was going call, the Tallahassee law firm and say 

well what is this and what about this kid, it ended up that the original 

posting was a fake. It had been posted, I believe by a competitor to a 

number of sites that use different credit card processors to say there is a 

criminal investigation so all the customers should not go there, they 

should come over here. I subsequently understood the bulletin board it 

was posted on was one used by webcam operators. 

 So once I realized that was fake, now I just had a kid out there 

wrapped up in child porn but maybe that was false too because all I had 

was an image that could have been cropped out of any seventh grade 

school book and I began trying to figure out if it was real, not for the 

purpose of doing a story because truthfully I did not, it did not occur to 

me there would be a story there, not bother to get law enforcement. 

There was a posting for Justin’s instant message address. Actually, there 

were postings for his email which he never responded to any of them, 

apparently he did not use them anymore. And then there was a posting 

for his instant message address. I put that in my buddy list. He 

eventually signed on. I tried to contact him twice. Both times I was too 

aggressive in my questioning. I started off by saying something like how 

old are you and he immediately blocked me. But after that, I went onto a 

third screen name and tried a much slower approach and it was not until 

a number of days after that, I cannot tell you how long it was when I 

finally became convinced that he was a real person and that he was a real 
107

teenager because I was asking him what do you want to accomplish in 

your life? What is it you want to do? And he replied I want my mother 

and my grandmother to be proud of me. And at that moment, I knew I 

was dealing with an abused, sexually abused child. And subsequent to 

that, made a rapid arrangement to meet him in Los Angeles at which 

point I revealed, and at that point I began to realize there was a story here 

and I was in the problem of not having identified myself as a reporter. 

So when we met, I immediately identified myself as a reporter, explained 

who I am, what I do, and after about an hour of questions from him and 

then began asking him details about this webcam world. 

 MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous. I just 

would ask if I could ask a question to be answered in writing by Mr. 

Eichenwald. I know you must have thought about the issue of freedom 

of the press for a place like myspace and yet restriction of online 

predators and I actually would be very interested in the journalist take on 

freedom of the press versus controlling the abuse of the Internet for child 

pornography. 

 So with that, I will yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from 

Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that and 

I am going to be respectful of your time and of the committee member’s 

time today. We truly appreciate the time that you have given. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, your series is riveting and having read through that 

it is well done. I am glad you did it. But you know, I think that reading 

it and listening to you and Justin today, it just shows us time and again 

the frustration that our constituents have and rightfully so many times in 

trying to deal with the Government, in trying to deal with government 

agencies, and trying to deal with the bureaucracy, whether it is with this 

issue or whether it is with other issues. And I thank you for what you did 

and for the accountability that you have called us into by placing some 

criticism and some questions and laying those on the table for us to 

consider. Addressing the moral security of this Nation, there is nothing 

greater that we do. And it is a responsibility that we take as being a very 

important responsibility and our constituents should be able to trust that 

we are mindful of the need to protect and address the moral security of 

this great Nation. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, reading your articles and then looking through the 

testimony and I know you said that it is hard to get in here and kind of 

quantify the scope of online child pornography and you mentioned there 

are five, you had at least 585 sites that were created by teenagers. Is that 

correct? 
108

 MR. EICHENWALD. That is an internal listing off a single portal. I 

have actually provided that listing to the committee. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. And so that was one portal. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. That was one portal. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Wow. Okay, and do we have any way of 

knowing when you are on the Internet, when you go through one of the 

servers how many sites there are that deal with child pornography? Do 

we have any idea of the scope of the number of those sites? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I have, I know that what I have read in the 

interviews with law enforcement and interviews with folks from the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children whatever number 

we were to pick today would not be true tomorrow because the number is 

growing and growing very, very quickly. I just saw last night in fact that 

there is an organization that basically does Internet security and spam, 

capturing spam and one of the interesting things they do is they analyze 

the spam that they capture. And just last night, I saw this, they have 

come out with a report that the fastest growing piece of spam they are 

getting now is for new child pornography sites. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Now do we know how many of those 

within this universe of new sites that continue to pop up on an ongoing 

basis, do we have any idea if most of those sites are housed on U.S. soil 

or offshore? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. The best analysis actually comes out of Britain. 

Right now the British are from what I have read, the British identify two 

areas of the world as being the primary locations for the production of 

child pornography. Eastern Europe is number one and the United States 

is number two. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay, I thank you. Thank you very much. 

 Justin, how long--and I never found this in your reading. How long 

did it take before you mom picked up that something was not right with 

all of this new equipment and your attraction to the Internet? How long 

did it take her to kind of chew into this? 

 MR. BERRY. Up until recently here, when I told her. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. And if I could add in, I mean, Justin’s mom, you 

know, he comes at--what happened when he was 13 and 14, he was a 13 

and 14-year-old. I hear about it as a parent. His mom began to notice 

there were problems, that he was not acting quite the same way, that he 

was behind closed doors more often she tried to get him to come on out, 

open the door, she began to sense he was withdrawing. She took him to 

see a mental health counselor who diagnosed him at the time as having 

ADD which he does not have. In fact, at the time, from what I have 

heard the belief now is that he was already experiencing problems from 

trauma, from the trauma of what was happening to him. And in terms of 
109

the equipment, he did have his own website development company and 

he was actually designing websites through real companies and actually 

getting paid for it. And so it was not unusual for him to have money or 

equipment. You know he could hide the more outrageous sums and just 

make sure that anything that she caught onto he would just say well that 

is from my website development business. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Mr. Ryan, let us go to the cell phone 

records. I think that all three of you mentioned that one of the predators, 

Mr. Mitchel had purchased Justin’s cell phone records. Do you know 

what avenue he traveled to purchase those records? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I do not know if he purchased them or not. I just 

know that he-- 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. He had those. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. He suddenly was instant messaging Justin; a 

phone that he believed reached Justin but it was actually reaching me. 

He instant messaged my home phone number. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Well the cell phone record issue is one 

that this committee is addressing and whether it is pedophiles or identity 

thieves or drug traffickers or those that would seek to do an individual 

harm getting access to those records. That is something that is of great 

concern to us. 

 I want to again thank you all for your time and for being here. 

 And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time so that we can move 

onto the other panels today but I thank you. We will have some other 

questions that we will submit to be answered in writing. 

 MR. WALDEN. [Presiding] Thank you. The gentlelady yields back 

her time. 

 I want to thank all of you for being here today obviously. And Mr. 

Eichenwald, I read the comments that you gave in a speech to Marquette 

University where you were somewhat less than kind, but obviously 

truthful about your views regarding CEOS. And in those comments, you 

said it became obvious no matter how urgent the situation, no matter how 

many times CEOS was told that the witness’s life was in danger, no 

matter how many times they were told of other children in peril, no 

matter how many times they were told about evidence being destructed, 

they would not act with any exigency. Is it as bad as you say it is? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. I can only speak to this circumstance. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. And in this circumstance it was as bad as I say it 

is. It was very hard to understand. And I need to take a step back and let 

you recognize the strangeness of this situation. There has been a wide 

belief that the New York Times made the decision to persuade Justin 

Berry to become a Federal witness because we were offended by the fact 
110

that there were people who paid him for pornography. That is 

completely untrue. I would have been delighted to simply write the story 

and expose this but when Justin began to reveal that there were real 

children that he knew of who were being harmed and exploited and 

abused by real adults that he knew of and proceeded to show me 

evidence of this or certainly things that were suggestive that this was 

happening, I went to the executive editor and said we cannot just sit here 

and work on a story while children are being molested and raped. And 

so I was authorized to go back and tell Justin you need to become a 

Federal witness. The whole idea that there would be some huge delay 

when someone is coming in and saying this is what is happening, I have 

personal knowledge of it, I being Justin. I mean there is one of the 

individuals, probably the individual he was most worried about I know 

from a filing in Mr. Mitchel’s case that the Government obtained a 

videotape of this boy on July 26, the second day that Justin Berry was 

speaking to them. And so they were-- 

 MR. WALDEN. That was a result of that discussion? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. As a result of that discussion they were aware 

that this existed. They knew that Justin specifically knew this kid. And 

they knew that he had said a man who molested me was in the room 

when that video was taken and other videos are being filmed. There was 

where Justin had a very difficult day when a video of that kid was posted 

that had been filmed obviously in a hotel room. And it was a question of 

how bad is this going to get. And so during that whole period of time, 

the difficulty for me was not having enough to write. Not having--I 

cannot prove anything yet. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. My reporting was not sufficient, but knowing in 

my gut and in my heart what is going on and also knowing that all 

anybody had to do was go serve a search warrant and they would have all 

that they needed. 

 MR. WALDEN. And 1,500 names and credit card information data 

points that were given to the Justice Department and all the other 

information that you brought forward, do you know if the Department of 

Justice has arrested any of those people? Justin, do you want to-- 

 MR. BERRY. I know that Mr. Mitchel has been under arrest, Mr. 

Tunno has been previously arrested. He is working with that on a 

different case. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MR. BERRY. Mr. Richards is another individual who was 

endangering children and there are others that have molested me that 

have not been arrested. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. 
111

 MR. EICHENWALD. I would also mention that Mr. Tunno’s arrest 

had nothing to do with this case. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right, yeah, I understood that from the other 

testimony. 

 Mr. Ryan, you were a Federal prosecutor. Correct? 

 MR. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WALDEN. I am not an attorney but explain to me this affidavit 

process. When the affidavit was released and made public-- 

 MR. RYAN. Congressman, it is very traditional in law enforcement. 

There is a covert phase of your investigation and the covert phase is very, 

very important because during that covert phase, you can get ready, for 

example, to serve search warrants in Boston. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MR. RYAN. And in Roanoke, and in Bakersfield all at the same time. 

And we are very good at that as a Justice Department. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MR. RYAN. I mean as a youngster, I was taught the business by 

agents and older prosecutors. In this case, an affidavit that depended on 

Justin’s testimony was the basis for the arrest warrant and search of Mr. 

Mitchel’s residence. That was a very important case and I credit the 

Justice Department and CEOS for prioritizing that. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay, but what about the release of that information 

and the exposure of Justin and the exposure of these other men. 

 MR. RYAN. That case it was unforgivable in my opinion. 

 MR. WALDEN. But has it been resealed today? 

 MR. RYAN. No. 

 MR. WALDEN. Should it have been resealed? 

 MR. RYAN. Yes. 

 MR. WALDEN. If you were the prosecutor in charge, what would 

have happened? 

 MR. RYAN. If I had been anywhere near this case, I would have just 

immediately filed a one page application with the court to reseal the 

affidavit. 

 MR. WALDEN. And have you asked the Justice Department to reseal 

this or was that your role? 

 MR. RYAN. I said unprintable things to the Department of Justice 

when this was released. I asked them why frankly they could screw up a 

one car funeral by-- 

 MR. WALDEN. What was the reaction to you about A, releasing this 

and B, did you make a request that it be resealed and what did they say if 

you did? 
112

 MR. RYAN. The conversations on that, I would have to--let me try 

and recall them as best I can for the record but the bottom line is nothing 

happened. And-- 

 MR. WALDEN. So you did ask them to reseal and they have not 

resealed? 

 MR. RYAN. You know, I do not recall asking them to reseal it. I do 

remember telling them at the time that it was an outrageous piece of 

malpractice-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Did they explain why they released the information-- 

 MR. RYAN. There is a letter that is the best department explanation 

that I received last night at 5:00. 

 MR. WALDEN. And what does that letter say and could you provide 

it for the committee? 

 MR. RYAN. I can. 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Ryan, it is intriguing to me. This happened in 

September, right, that the affidavit was released? 

 MR. RYAN. Yes. 

 MR. WALDEN. And you got the letter how many hours before our 

hearing? 

 MR. RYAN. Well I raised it in a different context. Mr. Berry was 

never contacted to participate and provide a victim witness statement in 

the sentencing of Mr. Mitchel and I thought that since the Department 

had relied on his information to obtain the arrest and search warrant that 

they would be interested in using him as the key victim because he had 

been abused by Mr. Mitchel and it was in that letter that I pointed out, I 

guess ironically, that the Department had released the affidavit, they 

might want to come back and ask us for the information so that the court 

would know about the abuse. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. 

 Mr. Berry, I just have less than 2 minutes and I have to ask you what 

may be a difficult question for you to answer. But you have testified that 

during a certain summer, Mr. Gourlay who I think is here in the 

audience, took you to his home and sexually molested you, you were 13 

years of age. And he was what, in his 20’s at that time? 

 MR. BERRY. I believe so, yes. 

 MR. WALDEN. And were you scared? Were you upset? 

 MR. BERRY. Upset is not even the word. 

 MR. WALDEN. And he promised it would never happen again and 

yet it did? 

 MR. BERRY. That is correct. He promised me it would never happen 

again and it did. 

 MR. WALDEN. And he took advantage of you again. The question, I 

think probably a lot of parents have is having been through what you 
113

have been through, having seen that happen and happen again, why were 

you not able to cut off contact with Mr. Gourlay? And this is not an 

attack on you, but what is it that allows somebody to grip you like that to 

the point that you were scared, you were upset, you were all these things 

and yet being in your life. 

 MR. BERRY. As a 13-year-old being molested and abused, I do not 

know exactly what my thoughts were. All I know is that I buried those 

emotions until recently and right now it really hurts. 

 MR. WALDEN. What advice would you have for other young people 

who may be in a similar predicament? How could they break it off 

where at that age you were not able to? What would you tell them? 

 MR. BERRY. Yeah, truthfully I am not too sure. I am really not. I 

do not know if I would listen myself. I was pretty stubborn as a kid as 

most teenagers are. 

 MR. WALDEN. I understand that. All right, well thank you for your 

courage and for being here today. My time has expired. 

 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey. 

 Actually, Mr. Ferguson, we are going to recess for 5 minutes to take 

a bit of a break and give our witnesses a bit of a break. We forget that 

sometimes and the committee will resume its business in 5minutes. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The hearing will reconvene and the Chair will 

recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for his 10 

minutes of questions. Mr. Eichenwald is coming back in so Mr. 

Ferguson you are recognized. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Give Mr. Eichenwald a chance to take his seat. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. My apologies. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Get back settled, not at all. 

 Mr. Eichenwald, in your testimony, you referred to sites like 

myspace.com and buddypick.com and you called them a virtual Sears 

catalog for pedophiles. Can you explain why that is the case and if you 

would, would you try and be concise? Why do you believe that is the 

case? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Kids put up the images. They put up their 

contact information, many times to attract attention to their site; they 

pose in provocative ways. There will be shirtless shots. There will be 

everything there to suggest which kid is comfortable with what. And 

whenever there is a kid who is found who is more explicit than the usual, 

not illegally explicit, just explicit, just sexualized, I have watched these 

conversations. Those kids begin to be discussed by the predators. There 

are postings about them and the links to their sites are posted. 
114

 MR. FERGUSON. I know you said that you were not here to make 

public policy recommendations, I understand that. But what do you 

believe the ISPs should do with regard to these sites? 

 MR. EICHENWALD. The ISPs have a responsibility. I truthfully do 

not know. I mean the reason I do not make public policy 

pronouncements is because I simply do not know the mechanics and 

mechanisms. And ultimately, I am not sure what an ISP is capable of 

doing or should be required to do. I think I would say Steven Ryan 

knows a lot about that. 

 MR. RYAN. Congressman, I think this is-- 

 MR. FERGUSON. Just pull the microphone closer to you, please and 

turn it on. 

 MR. RYAN. My technological guru. Congressman, I think the 

legitimate ISPs do a lot in this area. The problem of course is they have 

to balance the rights of privacy of legitimate subscribers and also not 

invading communications. I think it would be very useful for the 

committee frankly to have a roundtable discussion without the press 

here, with staff, with the Members coming in at the end to find out what 

the ISP industry can do in this area. I really do think that industry could 

be an important partner with law enforcement. There is a center that has 

been established in Pittsburgh that is a cooperative center between State 

and Federal law enforcement and in my corporate capacity when I am 

representing corporations, we have established relationships with that 

Internet clearinghouse center for law enforcement and we do make 

referrals there. So I think there is important work that is being done by 

the private sector with the law enforcement community in this area. I 

think it would benefit the committee to know more about that. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Okay, I appreciate that. 

 Justin, Mr. Berry, your testimony, you mentioned that child predators 

over the Internet are laughing at law enforcement. What do you mean 

when you say that? 

 MR. BERRY. When I was still in this business, I talked to or spoke 

with one of the child predators and told them I was going to turn them in 

to law enforcement. Their response to that was they laughed at me and 

they told me that I would be the one in trouble. And that I would be the 

one being prosecuted for child pornography. I wish I could say that 

would be true or would not be true. These people, the law enforcement 

efforts I do not know what is going on in all the cases. All I know is 

what is going on in this case and it seems that they are right. 

 MR. FERGUSON. These folks are technologically savvy. 

 MR. BERRY. Some are, some are not. 
115

 MR. FERGUSON. I am talking about the folks that you described as 

the predators, the folks that are laughing at law enforcement. These are 

folks that are Internet savvy, they are technologically savvy. 

 MR. BERRY. Like I said, some are, some are not. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Why do you think it is difficult for law 

enforcement to find these folks, the folks that are making and distributing 

this material and buying these images of children? 

 MR. BERRY. Maybe asking them would be a better question. I do 

not know if-- 

 MR. FERGUSON. Well we will. I promise we will. I wondered if 

you maybe had any theory or any thoughts with regard to this. 

 MR. BERRY. I have been heavily disappointed by what has happened 

in regards to this case. And I can see if that is a reflection on the United 

States and how they feel and how they prosecute child pornographers, 

well I can see why they would feel that way. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. Congressman, there is one individual I would 

strongly recommend the committee speaking with. I will have to get you 

his name later. He is an art professor at a university who as an 

experiment in 2000, spent many months trafficking among the predators 

basically doing what I have been doing and watching their conversations. 

And actually it was from what I interviewed him in the course of my 

article and he is the first one who told me about how the predators truly 

laugh at the Federal enforcement effort. That they believe the only 

people who get caught are the ones who are just too dimwitted to figure 

out how to handle the situation. A lot of it does have to do with the 

technological capacity of the people who are the predators. They share 

information on how to avoid leaving footprints, how to avoid leaving any 

evidence that they have been to sites, any evidence of what they put on 

their computers. Mr. Tunno, who we have heard about a number of 

times, who is involved in this situation, actually had invented a computer 

that had no hard drive so when it was unplugged from the wall, the 

illegal images or whatever other evidence was on the computer would 

disappear. These are smart people. They are sophisticated people. They 

know that, if child pornography is what they want, they know how to get 

it, requires them to be technologically sophisticated and unfortunately 

they are ahead of the game. 

 MR. FERGUSON. I am advised by staff that professor’s name is 

Philip Jenkins. 

 MR. EICHENWALD. That is it, yes. 

 MR. FERGUSON. He has been interviewed by the committee staff. 

That is the professor you were talking-- 

 MR. EICHENWALD. He is a wonderful resource because he is a 

person who has been for many months and he wrote a fabulous book 
116

about this--for many months talking with these people and his 

information dates back to 2000. But from a historical basis in particular, 

it really underscores the obsessive nature of the online predator as well as 

the technological sophistication and their contempt for Federal law 

enforcement. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Now Mr. Chairman, we are obviously continuing 

our investigation into this subject and I would imagine and I would hope 

frankly as we learn about whatever inadequacies there may be in the law, 

that as we look at legislation to correct and address problems in the law 

in terms of prosecution, information available to those clearinghouses 

and whatever else, I would respectfully suggest that we might name that 

legislation for Justin Berry. He has been through a lot and he has 

experienced a lot. He has done some difficult things and courageous 

things. By his own admission he has made mistakes and it has taken a 

lot for him to appear before the committee today. And I would hope that 

we would consider that. 

 I have a couple of more questions for Mr. Berry. What do you think 

would be a fair sentence for the men that you say molested you? 

 MR. BERRY. These people, these predators are not going to stop. If 

you arrest them, they are going to go back and find another kid and they 

are going to keep doing it until they are put away. I would hope they 

would get life. 

 MR. FERGUSON. You testified, Mr. Berry, that you now see Ken 

Gourlay’s molestation of you as the beginning of your downturn, the 

beginning of this spiral that you entered into in your teenage years. Why 

do you think that? 

 MR. BERRY. When I was molested by Ken, before that I was a 

happy kid. I went to school, I played in sports, I had a few friends. 

Afterwards, now that I look back in retrospect, my life from there on has 

changed dramatically. I would have never imagined I would have done 

the things that I have done and I am not proud of it. I cannot say exactly 

how it affected me, all I know is to this day right now I am seeing a 

psychologist and I am a pretty messed up kid. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Thanks very much for being here today and we 

appreciate your testimony. Mr. Eichenwald, we appreciate your 

testimony as well the work that you have done in uncovering this 

situation. 

 And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thanks, Mr. Ferguson and we appreciate your 

suggestion and I do think that we obviously are going to be looking at 

legislation to enforce the firewalls relating to this issue and it is a 

complex issue and we will need to work on that. Your suggestion in 
117

naming that after Justin Berry is something we definitely will consider 

and will follow. 

 Mr. Walden? 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, if I might. 

 Mr. Berry is there anybody in this room who you believe molested 

you? 

 MR. BERRY. Yes, Ken Gourlay. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Are there any other questions of this panel? Okay, 

well I am going to thank the three of you very much for your time, for 

your testimony. Justin, we know that it was quite difficult for you and 

we look forward to staying in touch with you through our committee and 

wish you the very best in pursuit of your college degree. And Mr. Ryan, 

thank you very much for your testimony. And Mr. Eichenwald, we once 

again thank you for the articles you wrote in the New York Times to 

focus attention on this issue. 

 And with that, we will release this panel and we will call up the next 

panel which will actually be the third panel. And that is one person and 

that is Mr. Ken Gourlay who is accompanied by his attorney. I believe 

his name is James Rasor with the Rasor Law Firm in Royal Oak, 

Michigan. 

 And Mr. Gourlay, if you would have a seat at the table. Now Mr. 

Gourlay, you are aware, you have watched the other panels and you are 

aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and in doing 

so we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any 

objection to testifying under oath today? 

 MR. GOURLAY. No, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Under the rules of the House and the rules of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, you are entitled to be advised by 

legal counsel about your constitutional rights. Do you desire to be 

advised by counsel during your testimony today? 

 MR. GOURLAY. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And would you identify your counsel for the 

record, please? 

 MR. GOURLAY. Mr. James Rasor. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you are Mr. Rasor? 

 MR. RASOR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay, thank you. 

 MR. RASOR. Jim Rasor of the Rasor Law Firm in Royal Oak. A 

pleasure to be before the committee today. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. RASOR. And I think this has raised some very interesting 

questions in testimony. 
118

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Now I want to make it aware that the 

legal counsel will not be testifying in this panel but will be here for the 

purpose of the advising Mr. Gourlay on his constitutional rights. 

 [Witness sworn] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. You are now under oath, Mr. Gourlay and do you 

have an opening statement that you would like to make? 

 MR. GOURLAY. No, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. Mr. Gourlay, you heard Justin Berry 

testify under oath that you initially contacted him online when you saw 

him on his webcam and then you continued to contact him through 

instant messaging regarding his interest in computers. He was a 13-yearold boy at the time and you were a man in your 20’s. According to Mr. 

Berry’s sworn testimony today you invited him to attend a computer 

camp near your home in Michigan and during that trip you sexually 

molested him, the 13-year-old boy, for the first of what would be many 

times. In addition, Mr. Berry testified that you and your company, Chain 

Communications or www.thechain.com, were involved in commercial 

enterprise which made money from the sexual exploitation of minor 

children over the Internet. Mr. Gourlay, did you ever have sexual 

contact with Justin Berry when he was under the age of 18 years old? 

 MR. GOURLAY. I will decline to respond based on Fifth Amendment 

privilege. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Are you refusing to answer any questions that we 

may ask you today based on the right against self-incrimination afforded 

to you under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? 

 MR. GOURLAY. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And is it your intention to assert this right in 

response to all further questions from the subcommittee today? 

 MR. GOURLAY. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Given that if there are no further questions from 

the members, I will dismiss you at this time subject to the right of the 

subcommittee to recall you if necessary. So at this time, you are 

excused. 

 Okay, at this time, I would call up the fourth panel of witnesses and 

that is Mr. Ernie Allen who is the President and Chief Executive Officer 

for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and is 

located in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Allen, we appreciate your being 

here today. I have enjoyed our conversations with you prior to this 

hearing and the great work that your National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children is performing and I would like to recognize you 5 

minutes for your opening statement on this important subject matter. 
119

TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

FINANCIAL OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR 

MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

MR. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

I am delighted to be here as you discuss this important issue. 

 I have submitted written testimony but per your request, I would like 

to do a brief summary focusing particularly on the scope of the problem 

of child pornography. You have heard from other witnesses this morning 

that this is an exploding problem not just in the United States but around 

the world. You have heard that the latest estimates are that commercial 

child pornography is a $20 billion industry and non-commercial child 

pornography is an even larger share of Internet child pornography. But I 

would like to make a couple of key points that I think are important to 

this Congress. One is that while this is a global phenomenon, we believe 

that the majority of the consumers are Americans. Secondly, we believe 

that the majority of the victims are Americans, and we also believe that 

the age of the victims being used and exploited in child pornography is 

becoming younger and younger and the images are becoming more 

graphic and more violent. 

 What I would like to do briefly is direct your attention to the screen. 

You have asked for some visual information. As the committee knows, 
120

in 1998, the Congress asked our center to become the 911 for the Internet 

on these kinds of issues. We have created a Cyber TipLine that has 

handled 385,000 reports of child sexual exploitation; 350,000 of those 

reports are on child pornography alone. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Excuse me, Mr. Allen, what was the year that you 

started this? 

 MR. ALLEN. In 1998. But just to give you an idea, the first year of 

the Cyber TipLine we handled 4,800 reports. In 2004, we handled 

112,000 reports. So this is a growing phenomenon. 

 One of the key issues we are tying to address is who these children 

are. In the aftermath of the Ashcroft Decision by the Supreme Court 3 

years ago, increasingly defendants are now arguing these are not real 

kids. These are virtual images. So judges and prosecutors are asking 

that we try to figure out who these children are. We have been able to 

identify working with Federal law enforcement in the United States and 

law enforcement around the world, 660 children have been identified but 

we have reviewed 3.7 million images so this is a huge and growing 

phenomenon. 
121

 One of the other points I would like to make to the committee is that 

overwhelmingly the perpetrators of these offenses are not strangers to the 

children. Almost half of the offenders have been members of the child’s 

family. Another 32 percent have been family friends and associates. 

The phenomenon that we talked about in Justin’s panel that preceded 

this, the sort of self-produced images, that covers 5 percent of the reports 

we have received but is a growing share of the problem with the advent 

of the webcam and other technology. 
122

The age of the children who we are identifying in these images, 73 

percent of the victims had been pre-pubescent. And of the offenders that 

we have identified, 39 percent of the offenders have had images of 

children younger than 6 years old, 19 percent younger than 3 years old. 
123

 Now a couple of quick examples. I talked about the importance and 

in each one of these cases obviously we have eliminated any possibility 

of identifying who the children are. In the recent case, ICE agents made 

a child pornography arrest involving an offender but there were six 

young girls in these images who we were not able to identify rapidly. 

What our center is trying to do is to place these children somewhere on 

planet Earth so we can identify the appropriate law enforcement agency. 

In this case, there was some evidence in the background, a television set 

with an advertisement that enabled us to narrow, identifying the 

company that produced this cup to narrow the focus to several 

Midwestern States; a grocery bag on a shelf that similarly helped us hone 

in on where these children were; an envelope on a desk that enabled us to 

reduce the focus to one city. And then in one of the images, it is very 

difficult to see but there is, the child had had--she was drugged and had 

her Brownie or Girl Scout uniform removed. Through enhancing this 

image, we were able to identify the last two digits of the scout troop. 

And through the other information and in localizing the information, we 

were able to identify the six children and the offender who is currently 

being prosecuted in that State. This is an ongoing challenge. 

 I want to give you just a quick example of the kinds of sites that are 

out there. And we are currently working with law enforcement not only 
124

State and Federal but around the world to identify these sites and then 

use every legal means to shut them down. This is one example. This is--

obviously we have removed images from the sites--but this is an active 

child pornography website. As you can see, you are encouraged to join. 

This is a fee-based commercial site, $150 a month and you are offered 

the opportunity to provide credit card information or other method of 

payment information. What is happening in so many of these cases is 

that the individuals are purchasing access to this illegal content, using 

credit cards and other methods of payment information and we are 

working very hard to end that. Credit card information--it is hard to see 

from here, it is on the bottom of the screen. 

 One of the steps we have tried to take, I know in the earlier panel 

you talked about the difficulty of prosecution and law enforcement 

simply because the magnitude of the challenge is so great. What we 

have tried to do is to create a financial coalition. We brought together 

credit card industry leaders, banking leaders, Internet industry leaders 

with the premise that you cannot possibly prosecute everybody. And at a 

minimum, what we can do is following the money, stop the payments 

under existing terms of service agreements under existing law, and shut 

these sites down. If we take away the profitability, it is going to be very 

difficult for them to sustain themselves. And the process that we have 

developed just to show you quickly, we are going to use our Cyber 
125

TipLine to identify the reports, aggressively identify these sites. Once 

that is done, our analysts will visit the sites and confirm that it is illegal 

child pornography. Then what we will do is work with Federal law 

enforcement to perform test transactions. 

 What the financial industry has told us is that credit card companies 

do not often know what the purchase is for. If we can identify the 

merchant bank for them in a timely way, they can use their legal leverage 

to stop the payments and use their licensure provisions to put the 

pressure on the banks to terminate these relationships. Once we have 

done that, the companies will provide us the details of that transaction, 

the credit card company will isolate the transaction and the location of 

the merchant. The credit card company will amend the information in 

the database and one of two things will happen. We are going to provide 

it to law enforcement for 3 days so that law enforcement can make a 

determination of whether it wants to initiate a criminal investigation. 

That will always be the first priority. But if it does not act within those 3 

days, then we would provide that information to the appropriate financial 

institution, issue a cease and desist letter, and ask them to take 

administrative action to shut down the businesses. 
126

 The last thing, Mr. Chairman, that I want to do is show you a highly 

edited photograph. We hear from people every day that well, child 

pornography, isn’t that just adult pornography? Aren’t these 20-yearolds in pigtails dressed to look like they are 15? This is a real image that 

flowed through our Cyber TipLine. The child was identified. The 

predator was identified, has been arrested, and prosecuted. The child is 

getting help. This little girl was 5 years old. As you will notice in the 

image, she had a dog collar around her neck. And in the second photo, 

the child was covering her face with her hands because she did not 

understand what was going on and was so traumatized and terrified by 

what was happening she would rather have been dead. This is an 

insidious problem, it is a growing problem, and America needs to wake 

up to it and do more. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 [The prepared statement of Ernie Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I welcome this 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss how the Internet is used to commit crimes 

against children. Chairman Whitfield, you are a tireless advocate for child protection and 

I commend you and your colleagues for your leadership and initiative. The National 

Center for Missing & Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) joins you in your concern for the 
127

safety of the most vulnerable members of our society and thanks you for bringing 

attention to this serious problem facing America’s communities. 

Let me first provide you with some background information about the National 

Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC is a not-for-profit 

corporation, mandated by Congress and working in partnership with the U.S. Department 

of Justice as the national resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited 

children. NCMEC is a true public-private partnership, funded in part by Congress and in 

part by the private sector. Our federal funding supports specific operational functions 

mandated by Congress, including a national 24-hour toll-free hotline; a distribution 

system for missing-child photos; a system of case management and technical assistance 

to law enforcement and families; training programs for federal, state and local law 

enforcement; and our programs designed to help stop the sexual exploitation of children. 

These programs include the CyberTipline, the “9-1-1 for the Internet,” which serves 

as the national clearinghouse for investigative leads and tips regarding crimes against 

children on the Internet. The Internet has become a primary tool to victimize children 

today, due to its widespread use and the relative anonymity that it offers child predators. 

Our CyberTipline is operated in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(“FBI”), the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and the Internet 

Crimes Against Children Task Forces, as well as state and local law enforcement. Leads 

are received in seven categories of crimes: 

● possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography; 

● online enticement of children for sexual acts; 

● child prostitution; 

● child-sex tourism; 

● child sexual molestation (not in the family); 

● unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; and 

● misleading domain names. 

This last category was added as a result of enactment of the PROTECT Act in 2003. 

These leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who visit the reported sites, examine 

and evaluate the content, use search tools to try to identify perpetrators, and provide all 

lead information to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The FBI, ICE and Postal 

Inspection Service have “real time” access to the leads, and all three agencies assign 

agents and analysts to work directly out of NCMEC and review the reports. The results: 

in the 8 years since the CyberTipline began operation, NCMEC has received and 

processed more than 385,000 leads, resulting in hundreds of arrests and successful 

prosecutions. 

However, despite our progress the victimization of children continues and there is 

evidence that it is increasing. The number of reports of online enticement of children to 

the CyberTipline increased 400 percent since 1998. Our records show a significant and 

steady increase in these reports over the years. This upward trend is very disturbing and 

shows the seriousness of this issue. But this is not the only evidence. 

According to a recent study, one in five youth ages 10 to 17 who used the Internet 

regularly received a sexual solicitation over the Internet within the previous year. 

However, less than 10% of sexual solicitations were reported to authorities.1

 

These numbers are powerful testimony to the fact that children are at risk and that we 

must do more. 

 

1

 Finkelhor, David, Mitchell, Kimberly J. and Wolak, Janis, Online Victimization: A Report on the 

Nation’s Youth, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2000. 
128

Over the years as technology has evolved so, too, have the methods for victimizing 

children. The Internet has provided a veil of apparent anonymity, enabling predators to 

seek out children, win their confidence and then victimize them. 

As technology evolves, so does the creativity of the predator. Today, we are hearing 

a great deal about new innovations, including the use of webcams, social networking 

websites and Internet access on cell phones. 

These innovations are popular and are utilized by millions of Americans. Yet, as 

with every other new program or service, there are those who would use them 

inappropriately and for unlawful purposes. 

For example, there has been great attention to the social networking websites. 

While they are marketed to and primarily utilized by young adults, kids are attracted as 

well, and there have been instances in which offenders have taken advantage of the 

images and information displayed to target kids. 

Some of the social networking sites link defined communities of registered users, 

such as students attending a particular college or high school. Others are open to anyone 

over a certain age. These websites permit registered users to create an online profile, 

including photographs, with categories of interest such as music and sports, as well as an 

online journal. They are highly personalized and often extremely detailed. Children 

consider this to be an easy way to connect with friends, find new friends and share their 

thoughts and feelings. 

However, child predators consider these sites to be an easy way to find child 

victims. They can use the information posted by children to pretend to be someone with 

shared interests, then develop a ‘cyber-relationship’ that can lead to that child being 

victimized. The number of reports involving online journals received by our 

CyberTipline has increased. In recent years, many kids were using their email profiles 

and chat rooms in a similar fashion to share their hobbies and interests and make 

“friends”. However, those forums didn’t have nearly the same implications as the social 

networking sites given the enormous universe of users. This recent phenomenon 

reinforces the importance of education messages where we engage teens to be a part of 

their own online safety. 

Today, NCMEC is working with leaders in many industries who are involved in the 

burgeoning field of social networking in order to explore improvements, new approaches 

and better ways to attack the problems. Further, we are also working on plans to bring 

together key business, law enforcement, child advocacy, governmental and other interests 

and leaders to explore ways to more effectively address these new issues and challenges. 

Webcams offer the exciting ability to see the person you’re communicating with 

over the Internet. While this has many benefits, such as allowing divorced parents to have 

“online visitation” with their children in distant states, it, too, can be used to exploit 

children. Many children are victimized inadvertently, by appearing on their webcams 

without clothes as a joke, or on a dare from friends, unaware that these images may end 

up in a global commercial child pornography enterprise. Other children are victims of 

blackmail, threatened with disclosure to friends and family if his or her ‘performance’ 

before the webcam doesn’t become more sexually explicit. Too much technology and too 

much privacy, at a sexually curious age, can lead to disastrous consequences. 

The teenage years are a time of personal exploration. This is only natural. However, 

the new form of social interaction is over the Internet, exposing children to, literally, a 

world of potential danger. 

Finally, let me briefly report to you on the exploding problem of child pornography 

via the Internet. Child pornography has become a global crisis. A recent report by 

McKinsey Worldwide estimated that today commercial child pornography is a $20 

billion industry worldwide, fueled by the Internet. Its victims are becoming younger. 

According to NCMEC data, 19% of identified offenders had images of children younger 

than 3 years old; 39% had images of children younger than 6 years old; and 83% had 
129

images of children younger than 12 years old. There is also strong evidence of increasing 

involvement by organized crime and extremist groups. Children have become a 

commodity in this insidious crime. 

We are particularly concerned about the linkages between child pornography and the 

financial system. In a recent case investigators identified 70,000 customers paying 

$29.95 per month and using their credit cards to access graphic images of small children 

being sexually assaulted. 

That is just not acceptable. As a result we have convened a Financial Coalition 

Against Child Pornography. At this point it includes as members 18 major financial and 

Internet companies, including MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Bank of America, 

Citibank, Microsoft, America Online, Yahoo and many others. We are bringing new 

financial institutions into this Coalition every day. 

Our goal: To eradicate commercial child pornography by 2008. 

How are we going to do that? We are going to follow the money. First, we will 

aggressively seek to identify illegal child pornography sites with method of payment 

information attached. Then we will work with the credit card industry to identify the 

merchant bank and stop the payment. Then we will shut down the sites. 

In each case we will work hand-in-hand with federal, state, local or international law 

enforcement, and the first priority will be criminal prosecution. However, our 

fundamental premise is that it is impossible to arrest and prosecute everybody. Thus, our 

goal is twofold: 

(1) To increase the risk; and 

(2) To eliminate the profitability. 

We have created working groups of industry leaders explore the best techniques for 

detection and eradication. 

In addition, these companies have asked NCMEC to serve as the global 

clearinghouse for this effort, sharing information and working together on this effort in a 

truly collaborative way. 

We need to do a better job as a nation of identifying and addressing the greatest risks 

to our children today. 

NCMEC urges lawmakers, law enforcement and the public to take a serious look at 

the dangers threatening our children today, and to move decisively to minimize the risks 

posed by those who exploit new technology and target our children. 

Now is the time to act. 

Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Allen, thank you, and once again we 

appreciate your being here and the great work that you are doing in this 

important area. 

 I know you had showed us the images of this little 5-year-old girl 

prior to the hearing today and it is unbelievable that someone would 

exploit a child in that way. And I believe that you are telling me that the 

person who was indicted, convicted, and sent to prison in this case 

actually had a site that was generating in the neighborhood of $2 million 

a month in revenue. Is that correct? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well it was a different site but that is right. I mean one 

of the things that really awakened us to this problem, we thought the 

child pornography problem had been virtually eradicated because the 

Supreme Court of the United States in 1982 said it is not protected 

speech. 
130

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. ALLEN. It is child abuse. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. ALLEN. But what awakened us was one lead we received that 

led to an investigation of Federal law enforcement and local law 

enforcement of a mom and pop website. They decided they were not 

making enough money doing what they were doing so they set up a child 

pornography website. When that was shut down by local law 

enforcement, these people had 70,000 customers paying $29.95 a month 

and using their credit cards to purchase access to graphic images of 

young children being sexually assaulted. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Unbelievable. And they were both convicted. Is 

that correct? 

 MR. ALLEN. They were both convicted. The husband is doing 60 

years in prison and the wife is doing 20. They were making $2 million a 

month net. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN. And I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the most frightening 

aspects of this problem is that it has reached beyond pure pedophilia and 

organized criminals and other entrepreneurs now suddenly recognize that 

children are a commodity. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. ALLEN. And this is a way with relatively low risk and high 

profitability to make a lot of money. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. Well you are the real experts in your 

organization in this field and I assuming that you would consider the $20 

billion figure we hear per year on this type of activity is probably a 

conservative figure. 

 MR. ALLEN. I do not think there is any question about that and I 

sincerely believe that we really do not know how big the figure is. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. Well tell us a little bit about Cyber TipLine. 

How would children and parents actually find this Cyber TipLine? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well Mr. Chairman, we are non-profit. We are not 

Proctor and Gamble. We cannot advertise in the media but what we try 

to do is use free media and promote it in every way possible. We for 

example, a number of Internet service providers provide links on their 

sites, companies like AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AT&T, Cox 

Communications. And we try to promote it in every way we can. The 

goal is if people encounter this kind of content, we want them to report it. 

They can be anonymous but we really need to find out about these sites. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. You may have heard Chairman Barton 

today talking about the fact that we are getting ready to mark up a 

telecommunications bill that is going to change the way the telecom 
131

business does business. Would you have any thoughts or suggestions on 

using that bill as a vehicle of some small steps that we might take to 

make it easier to put these websites out of business or to prosecute? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of 

things. One is I believe it is imperative that these companies report 

suspected content like this. As you know, the Congress in 1998 also 

passed legislation called the Protection of Children from Sexual 

Predators Act that mandates electronic service providers to report child 

pornography on their systems to law enforcement through the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Now today, 215 ISPs 

including the major ISPs, are doing that. In addition, we are in 

discussions with the wireless industry and two of the major wireless 

companies, Verizon and Sprint Nextel, are currently reporting 

voluntarily. But there are still thousands of ISPs who are not reporting. 

This is an issue that is moving into the wireless world. And I think a 

requirement that these companies when they encounter this kind of 

content report it, is imperative. Identification is the first step to 

eradication. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. Well that is a good suggestion and I 

know our committee does look forward to continue working with you to 

explore additional options as we consider legislation on this in the near 

future. 

 You had mentioned the Department of Justice. Do you find yourself 

working closely with the Department of Justice and specifically the Child 

Exploitation and Obscenity Section? 

 MR. ALLEN. We do. We work very closely with Federal law 

enforcement generally and our Cyber TipLine. The FBI’s Innocent 

Images national initiative is connected online to all the leads we receive. 

CEOS is connected online. The Homeland Security’s Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement plus the FBI, ICE, and the United States Postal 

Inspection Service all assign agents, inspectors, and analysts to work out 

of our center in Alexandria. So we are not law enforcement. We are a 

non-profit mandated by Congress working in partnership with the 

Department of Justice. What we are trying to do is build the cases for the 

appropriate law enforcement agencies. We also work very closely with 

the Justice Department-funded Internet Crimes Against Children Task 

Forces, 46 of them around the country who are making hundreds of 

arrests and prosecution. So we are working with every agency that has 

some role in this issue. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now I know that the Department of Justice 

provides some funding for you through their-- 

 MR. ALLEN. Yes, sir. 
132

 MR. WHITFIELD. --Congressional appropriation process but--and I 

am not even going to ask you to comment but if you heard all the 

testimony today, you know that we have some real concerns about the 

effectiveness and the enthusiasm with which the Child Exploitation and 

Obscenity Section appeared not to operate in the Justin Berry case and 

that is something that we are going to look at more closely. 

 You testified in your opening that the goal was to eradicate child 

pornography as a commercial enterprise by 2008. Do you think that is a 

reachable goal? 

 MR. ALLEN. I have been accused of being naive in the creation of 

that goal but yes, sir, I do. I think this is a challenge of mobilizing these 

financial companies with law enforcement. I firmly believe that the vast 

majority of this commercial enterprise is accounted for by relatively few 

organizations and people. And I believe that it is like taking, tracking 

down terrorist financing, and anything else. I think you follow the 

money. You use the kinds of tools and resources you have and you shut 

it off. I think that that is not going to eradicate child pornography, but I 

think if we can get it back to where it was and, in fact, I and the FBI and 

others testified before Congress a decade ago that if there were no 

pedophiles there would be no child pornography. I am skeptical that all 

70,000 of those people accessing that one website in Texas were 

pedophiles. So something else is going on here. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. ALLEN. There was research in 2002 by ETPAD International 

and the Bangkok Post that estimated that there were 100,000 child 

pornography websites. That was 2002. But frankly, I think this is an 

issue where law enforcement has come relatively recently to this process. 

Once again, law enforcement has not been at the forefront of getting and 

being able to utilize the new technology. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. ALLEN. And instant images is only 10 years old. And so I think 

that is realistic. I think we can do that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And did you also tell me that there is now 

developing a tourism business in which pedophiles go on trips to foreign 

countries and young children are brought to their rooms. Is that correct? 

 MR. ALLEN. Yes, sir. It is a global enterprise. And this Congress 

had the wisdom in the Protect Act in 2003 for the first time to provide 

legislation that enables the prosecution of U.S. citizens who go abroad 

for that purpose and there have been many charges brought just in the 

couple of years since then. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Allen, my time has expired. 

 I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 
133

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Allen, I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying to 

get it wrapped up by ‘08 but how is that possible when you get your ISPs 

you say there are 250 and reporting more, but there are thousands more 

out there plus wireless providers. How are you going to get the rest of 

them if you got 250 right now? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well I think two responses to that, Mr. Stupak. One is 

we need not just to wait for people to report it, we need to aggressively 

go out and find it and we are trying to do that. And secondly-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Who is we? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well Federal law enforcement and the National Center. 

We have been using spidering technology to go out and proactively 

search out illegal sites and we are going to continue to do that. Secondly, 

I believe that the key to this is the financial industry. And the good news 

is to this point we have been able to encourage and persuade 18 major 

companies to join in a financial coalition against child pornography 

including MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover. 

 MR. STUPAK. How many of these 18, did you ever check them 

against Justin Berry’s list to see how many of the 18 were on his list of 

1,500 names and transactions? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well now these and I am talking about, I mean, when 

you spiral the web and look for active child pornography websites, the 

major sites that you find or the major methods of payment that you find 

today are the third party payment sites like Egold which is a part of this 

coalition and the credit card companies. Now a lot of those are bogus. 

But MasterCard, Visa, American Express have all said to us we do not 

want to make any money on this. 

 MR. STUPAK. But what are they doing? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well they told us the same thing. 

 MR. STUPAK. Yeah. 

 MR. ALLEN. They have agreed to participate in this process in 

which-- 

 MR. STUPAK. What does that mean, participate in this process? 

What can they really do? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well what they are going to do is take the information 

that we generate, they are going to share it within this network of 

companies. They are going to, once we have identified with them the 

merchant bank and law enforcement has said we are not going to 

investigate or prosecute on this one, they are going to take steps under 

their agreements. I mean credit card companies are just associations of 

banks to hold the banks responsible because when a bank operates an 

illegal account and submits payment, it is not only a violation of the law, 

it is a violation of their-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Has any of that been done yet? 
134

 MR. ALLEN. Just begun. We just started this 2 weeks ago. Hold us 

accountable, we are going to do that. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well what about this meova.net, the third party that 

we heard so much about in the last panel? 

 MR. ALLEN. We have no contact with them. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN. But we welcome everybody’s involvement and 

welcome the committee’s help in bringing other financial institutions 

into this process. 

 MR. STUPAK. But isn’t that the name that in Justin Berry’s case, 

why these were paid was this meova group and not the big credit card 

companies? So how do you get them to participate? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well we do it one at a time. We basically leverage the 

relationships we are building with the credit card companies and the 

banks and we--I mean I am not suggesting Mr. Stupak that there is a 

quick, easy solution to this. 

 MR. STUPAK. No, there is not and that is what I am trying to drive 

at. 

 MR. ALLEN. Yeah. 

 MR. STUPAK. How do we get it done? Even if we put something in 

legislation tomorrow, I am not too sure it is going to either. I think we 

have to have a more comprehensive approach. 

 Two years ago, you testified before this committee about the use of 

peer-to-peer clipboards by child pornographers and pedophiles as a way 

to share files without being identified. This is often the system that child 

pornographers and the customers use to share files and individuals from 

all the world can use these networks. Could you describe how this works 

and whether there have been any advances? Have you been in control of 

these networks, these file sharing networks? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well the way it works is that this it basically does not 

require an ISP, this basically linked the files shared through networks 

like Kazaa and other mechanism. What is happening is there has been 

aggressive effort by Federal law enforcement and the Internet Crimes 

Against Children Task Forces to make cases. The case that the Attorney 

General and ICE announced a couple of weeks ago was in essence a 

peer-to-peer network, child pornography on demand. You know, it 

remains a challenge because it is harder to identify. It is harder to 

capture that image at the moment that it is distributed than it is if it is 

distributed through an ISP. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well part of my concern is the music company shut 

down Napster for illegal file sharing of copyrighted material. Why can’t 

law enforcement be more aggressive in shutting down these sites? 
135

 MR. ALLEN. Well frankly, I think the largest challenge is again, I 

think law enforcement is overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. 

We would welcome, I mean, I do not speak for the FBI or Homeland 

Security or anybody else, but I think this is a problem that is going to 

require more resources, more personnel. Innocent Images needs to get 

bigger. The Cyber Crime Center at ICE needs to get bigger. 

 MR. STUPAK. Throughout your testimony today and even the earlier 

the testimony, everyone talked about the Federal law enforcement, 

Justice, things like this, Department of Justice. Can you or do you work 

with State and local law enforcement? 

 MR. ALLEN. Yes, sir, we do actively. And I think a very important 

point that needs to be made is that Federal law enforcement cannot 

possibly do all of this. What we have emphasized very strongly is 

building State and local capacity because in every one of these cases, just 

like Justin in Bakersfield, there was a local victim. The only thing that is 

different about this is the medium that is being used to transmit the 

image. 

 MR. STUPAK. Have you had any access to the information that Mr. 

Berry provided Justice? Have they worked with you at all, Justice like I-

- 

 MR. ALLEN. I do not think we have seen that information. 

 MR. STUPAK. You also testified that a 1999 law that requires 

Internet service providers to report child pornography on their sites or 

face substantial fines and that was back in 1999 that law was passed. 

Five years later in 2004, the reporting mechanism had not yet been 

formalized. Has any been formalized? I mean, why should it take 5 

years? If we knew it was a problem in ‘99 and we passed a law, it is 5 

years. Has it been formalized or has it not? What has happened? Has 

anybody been fined or anything ever happened with that? 

 MR. ALLEN. No, sir it has not been formalized. What we have been 

advised by the Justice Department is that there was a flaw in the statute 

that in essence it is a civil statute with a criminal penalty and so we have 

met with many. The good news is that the majority ISPs are complying. 

We have developed our own system with them. We work with the U.S. 

ISP Association but anything this committee can do to make every 

electronic service provider in America have to report, I think it is a good 

thing. One of the real challenges quickly, Mr. Stupak is that a lot of 

these companies are saying to us that absent some safe harbor provision, 

their concern is that when they transmit these images to us they in fact 

may be violating the law. So I know the Justice Department is taking 

another look at that. We welcome whatever resolution can happen. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well I know Mr. Chairman, and I think members of 

this committee should be--we passed the law in ‘99 and this is the first 
136

we have heard that there is a problem with it. I would think after 7 years 

someone would step forward and say hey, we cannot do what you 

intended, to go after this Internet pornography especially with children, 

because there is a flaw in the law. So thank you for that, we will note it 

for those questions on Thursday. 

 Since controlling peer-to-peer networks seems so difficult, do you 

think the new financial coalition, the one you have listed here against this 

child pornography to follow the many, will eradicate child pornography? 

What percentage of the child pornography is shared without payment? I 

think we have had a lot of that where you had to produce a payment, plus 

you had produced pictures, nude pictures, or fill in the blanks or I call 

them trading cards if you will pornography. Is that here today? 

 MR. ALLEN. In our judgment, we think that the largest share of child 

pornography is distributed and shared without payment. Even though the 

commercial site of this problem is a billion dollar problem, we think the 

non-commercial side is larger. 

 MR. STUPAK. I think you mentioned it earlier, but if you could take 

a moment and expand upon it. I think you said law enforcement lacks 

the resources. What area do they lack the resources? I thought you 

indicated they could come to your shop and do some work there but what 

are the resources that are lacking? Is it just training in what is going on? 

Is it the empire or what is it? 

 MR. ALLEN. Well there has been an aggressive effort to train. We 

have been training unit commanders and investigators in computer 

facilitated crimes against children for some time. Ten years ago, I was 

aware of one specialized unit in a local police department; the San Jose 

Police Department had a kind of an early cyber crimes unit. The good 

news today is that most major police departments now have specialized 

units. The good news today is that there are 46 Internet Crimes Against 

Children Task Forces funded by Congress around the country that are 

State and local with Federal involvement. But I just think the sheer scale 

of this problem requires greater investment, more people, more 

technology, more advanced technology, because it continues to evolve. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you one more clarification. I had asked 

you earlier if your center has been provided any of the names or the 

information on the Justin Berry case. It is my understanding that the FBI 

has an agreement to provide all the images to your center. 

 MR. ALLEN. That is right. 

 MR. STUPAK. So if your center--have you received those images, 

and if not and that means CEOS has not given you the images, then the 

FBI--you have not seen them yet, have you? 

 MR. ALLEN. Candidly not to my knowledge, no. 
137

 MR. STUPAK. So you cannot give me comparisons then either 

without the images. 

 MR. ALLEN. That is true. Now I will confirm that. I do not know 

that absolutely, but to the best of my recollection, I do not believe we 

have received those images. 

 MR. STUPAK. Any reason why not? Not names but just images so 

you could do you work? 

 MR. ALLEN. Not to my knowledge. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Thank you. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. 

 Mr. Allen, let me just ask one concluding question here. Around the 

world, do most countries have laws against child pornography and child 

molestation? 

 MR. ALLEN. The answer unfortunately, Mr. Chairman is no. 

Through our international center, we just did an analysis, we have done a 

report that we are releasing on Thursday of the 184 member nations of 

Interpol. Ninety-five of those countries have no law on child 

pornography at all. About 135 or 140 including some of those that do 

have some law do not criminalize the possession of child pornography. 

The good news is we reviewed this law based on five categories of 

statute. The good news is five countries including the United States have 

enacted laws in each one of those five areas. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN. And another 22 have enacted laws in all areas except 

ISP reporting. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN. But there is a lot of work that needs to be done around 

the world as well. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Allen, I thank you very much. 

 Ms. Blackburn, did you have any questions for Mr. Allen? 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

 I do have a couple. I do not know if--and I apologize I have got 

constituents that were in and I had to jump out--and I think you have 

maybe answered these but let me just go back. In your very opening 

statement, you said something about looking at how much of the industry 

is in the U.S. and how much is offshore and that was one of the questions 

that I had posed earlier to Mr. Eichenwald. 

 MR. ALLEN. Right. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. And the follow-up I have for you on that would 

be, are you all doing the research so that we can begin to quantify this 

and kind of get our arms around it? 
138

 MR. ALLEN. We are trying, but it is very difficult to do because 

there is no real database to measure. It is all sort of estimated. The other 

thing that is clearly happening is, for example, there was a case in 

January of 2005 in which the business, the server, was Delarosa. The 

financial support for the child pornography system was in the Caribbean, 

was offshore. But the vast majority of the customers were Americans 

and the vast majority of the victims, the child victims were Americans. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. You know, Mr. Allen, to me listening to all of 

this testimony today, it seems that the business of the child pornography 

which is just so sickening when you hear about this that it is labeled in 

some ways to identity theft, the pirating, the different types of theft or 

subversive type activity that we see over the Internet and there seems to 

be some common things that are developing and running through these 

businesses. 

 MR. ALLEN. Well Congresswoman, we have heard from a number 

of experts that there are five basic factors in play for the reason why this 

has become not just an insidious crime but big business. One is that 

children are plentiful and easily accessed. Secondly that the production 

of the material has become very inexpensive. You do not need massive 

studios anymore. Thirdly, that there is enormous consumer market for 

the content. Fourth, therefore it is incredibly lucrative, incredibly 

profitable. And five, at least comparatively there is virtually no risk, 

particularly compared to drugs and guns and tobacco and other kinds of 

commodities. So what our focus has been strategically working with law 

enforcement agencies around the world is we have got to dramatically 

increase the risk and we have got to dramatically reduce the profitability. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Because at this time it is the lowest risk, highest 

profit area of the what we would call subversive or-- 

 MR. ALLEN. Right. And that is why I wanted to add one other 

thought to the Chairman’s question earlier about is the goal of 

eradicating commercial child pornography by 2008 realistic. Well our 

basic premise is if you can eliminate the use of the credit card, we can 

take the credit card out of this process. If you can eliminate the use of 

the third party payment mechanism and we are working with the Egold’s 

and PayPal’s and those kind of companies, it is going to become more 

and more difficult to sustain the enterprise. The payment mechanism is 

going to have become a lot more sophisticated and farther reaching. 

Kurt talked this morning about the six steps removed. We just have to 

make it ten steps and then 14 steps. If you have to pay cash, access to a 

child pornography website, the profitability compared to the investment 

drops dramatically. And I think at that point, these are entrepreneurs. 

These are organized criminals. They are going to look for some other 

way to make money. 
139

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Well I thank you. I thank you very much for 

your patience with us today. I thank you for the work that you all are 

doing and I thank you for being accessible to us and allowing us to have 

some time to visit with you on the issue. 

 MR. ALLEN. Thank you very much. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. I yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. 

 And Mr. Allen, thank you so much for being with us today. We look 

forward to continuing working with you on this issue and thank you for 

the great job that you do at the center. 

 MR. ALLEN. Thank you, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I would call the fifth panel of witnesses, please. 

We have Ms. Parry Aftab who is the Executive Director of WiredSafety 

from Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. We have Shannon Sullivan who 

is a Teen Angel with WiredSafety from Irvington-on-Hudson, New 

York. We have Ms. Teri Schroeder who is President and Program 

Director of i-SAFE America from Carlsbad, California. And then we 

have Moni Sallam who is a mentor at i-SAFE America from Carlsbad, 

California. I want to welcome all of you today. We genuinely 

appreciate your patience. We similarly look forward to your testimony 

because we know that you are doing some great work to assist our young 

people and others as we try to eradicate this problem. And as you know, 

this is an oversight investigation hearing and we normally do take 

testimony, in fact, we always take testimony under oath. Do any of you 

have any difficulty in testifying under oath today? And do any of you 

have legal counsel with you today? 

 [Witnesses sworn] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. You are now sworn in and Ms. Aftab, 

we will ask you to give your opening statement first so you are 

recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PARRY AFTAB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WIREDSAFETY; TERI L. SCHROEDER, 

PRESIDENT/PROGRAM DIRECTOR, I-SAFE AMERICA; 

SHANNON SULLIVAN, TEEN ANGEL, WIREDSAFETY; 

AND MONI SALLAM, I-MENTOR, I-SAFE AMERICA 

MS. AFTAB. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 My name is Parry Aftab. I am an Internet privacy and security 

lawyer or at least I used to be. A number of years ago, I used to 

represent corporations in cyberspace protecting them until one day 

someone sent me an email telling me shut down the website, to put the 

people in jail. 
140

 I know a great deal about child pornography and I testified before 

this House. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Maybe you could just turn off the sound on your 

computer, Teri, it might make it easier. Thank you. 

MS. AFTAB. I have testified before the House of Commons and the 

House of Lords, Parliament. I advised the Singapore Government. I do 

this all over the world so I knew a lot about child pornography. But 

when I went to this site, up came 150 names of images, just names. I 

clicked on one of them and up came a picture of a little three and half 

year old being raped. She had her eyes closed in the way that those of 

who are parents remember our children. Mommy, you cannot see me, 

can you? And we all pretend that our children are invisible. No, where 

did you go? Oh, my goodness, you did, where you, you are gone, you 

are invisible. And then giggle and we tickle our children and we laugh 

about it. This little girl was being graphically raped and had her eyes 

closed hoping that she too would be invisible. She was violated not only 

by the sexual molestation but by the fact that they expected her to pose 

for the cameras. 

 I cried for an hour, I vomited for two, and I realized that the 

reputation I had earned over the years as one of the first Internet lawyers 

in the world could be used to do perhaps greater good. The companies I 

represented I thought would follow me and the law enforcement that I 

had advised would as well. And we created the world’s largest Internet 

safety and help group. It is called WiredSafety. We have 11,000 

volunteers in 76 countries around the world. Not one of us is paid a 

dime. We have no offices, we operate from our homes and offices and 

cell phones. If you dial the telephone number on our websites, my cell 

phone will ring. I sold my house, a very expensive one in New Jersey, 

and emptied my bank accounts and this is what we do. 

 It started out in the early days where we were dealing with a child’s 

sexual exploitation. We also do a tremendous amount of work in identity 

theft. We protect everybody of all ages in cyberspace and on wireless 

devices and interactive cell phones and gaming devices, on anything that 

can go wrong, from cyber terrorism to ID theft to fraud but my heart is 

with the children. 

 For years, I looked for this little girl. I never found her but instead 

we found many others. We have and this has never been a public 

statement of ours before, we have been working very closely with the 

National Crime Service in the UK for the last 7 years. Together, we 

infiltrated some of the leading sex trafficking groups in the world and 

hundreds of people have gone to jail because of our work. The person 

who did that with the National Crime Service is another one of my 
141

unpaid volunteers. I have been doing this for a long time. It is what I am 

supposed to be doing. 

 A number of years ago, I met a young woman. Her name was Kitty 

Tarbucks. Kitty was 13 from Connecticut when she met someone online 

she thought was Mark. She thought he was 23. She was a little bit 

heavy. She was a member of the swim team. She was not as popular 

because she was brighter than a lot of the other kids in the room. She 

met him online. She thought what the heck, he was in California, she 

was in Connecticut, she is never going to meet him in real life. So she 

chatted with him and she talked on the phone with him and she shared 

pictures with him and became friends. She talked about politics. And he 

thought she was wonderful and pretty and bright and smart. Six months 

into the relationship, she shared that she was going to a swim meet in 

Dallas, Texas. He said, you know what, I will come out and I will meet 

you. I will fly out from California to your swim meet and he did. She 

made arrangement with her roommate that she was going to walk down 

the hall to meet him in real life. She really wanted to and she will admit 

that to this day. She found what room he was in and he was waiting for 

her. She walked down the hall, pushed the button the elevator and went 

upstairs. She knocked on the door and it was answered. Her first 

thought was oh, my gosh, he was an adult. And he has got the ugliest 

white shoes I have ever seen in my life. He opened the door, she walked 

in and sat down on the sofa. He shut the door behind her. He sat down 

and he said, you know, Kitty, it took so long to get the luggage in the 

airport and she said yes. And the food at this hotel is not very good is it? 

And she said no. I love your watch, he said, and starting touching it. 

And your hair is so beautiful and ran his fingers through it. I have been 

thinking about doing this for a long time he said. He reached out, kissed 

her, started to grope her, and began to molest her. Luckily, her 

roommate had told her mom who was a chaperone on the trip and her 

mom and the police and security were at the door pounding until he 

opened. They whisked him away and Kitty sat there in tears while she 

tried to reassemble her clothing. The police came to her a few minutes 

later and they said you talked to this man for 6 months? We talked to 

him for 5 minutes, he is a 41-year-old investment banker and his name is 

Frank Cusovich, not Mark. What are you thinking? 

 Years later she put him in jail for about two and a half years under 

the Communications Decency Act, a section that was actually maintained 

as constitutional, and she wrote a book that was later renamed A Girl’s 

Life Online about her story. 

 But we do this all over the world. And I was working with a young 

family in the UK and little Georgiana was 13 and she had met Johnny 

who was 16 from about 200 miles away. And they were talking on the 
142

phone. Her parents knew and he said he wanted to meet her and she said 

great, my mom will bring me and he said no, you bring your mom, I am 

not coming. So she said to her mom, I do not know what to do, I have to 

lie to one of you, I am going to lie to him. She said to her mom but when 

you drop me off, pull the car up about a half a block. You will be able to 

see me but I do not want him to know you are there and if everything is 

okay, disappear, come back later, we are going to the movies. She stood 

there alone in front of the movie theater when a 46-year-old approached. 

She wondered why Johnny had sent his dad. He said, Georgie, I am 

Johnny. Her first thought was oh my gosh, he is an adult and he has got 

the ugliest brown shoes I have ever seen in my life. 

 Now I am a lawyer so I hear this, I talk to a lot of kid victims. I 

immediately think about that I am from New Jersey. We have this very 

ugly shoe store that sells only very ugly shoes in New Jersey. And I said 

what you need to do is stake out places like this because obviously the 

Internet sexual predators wear ugly shoes. And the child psychologists 

who donate their time with us and the forensic psychologist turned and 

they said, describe my shoes, Parry. Okay, no, no, look at me and 

describe my shoes. Well how can I describe your shoes if I am looking 

you in the eye and they said exactly. 

 When our children fall in love with a person they meet online who 

they think is now a perfect soul mate for them and they meet them in real 

life and find out who they are, they all become experts in men’s shoes. 

They walk through it. They got through with the molestation. They do 

things they ordinarily would not have done because they are 

embarrassed. They just think they led him on because of something else. 

 Well if you went to Myspace about a month ago and you clicked on 

safety tips, you would have learned all about us. For the last year and a 

half we have been working on the inside with Myspace and with 

Facebook, and with Febo, and all of the others. We have done a great 

deal of work in cyber stalking, cyber bullying, and sexual predators and 

we deal with these issues and provide this information to these sites. 

 One of the problems we are finding on social networking is that there 

are some benefits like we never thought there were. It would have been 

much easier if I could find social networking and say, you now, that it is 

terrible, let us shut them down. But we are finding kids who are raising 

money for charities and expressing themselves and writing music so a 

kid from Connecticut or California can write the words to it. So we now 

have to do the hard thing. We have to find a way of making them safer, 

so we worked with Myspace in the west in developing safety tips and 

links to my volunteers to help with these issues. 

 Not too long ago, I was in L.A. having lunch with a girlfriend and 

who walked in but Nick Lachey. If you do not have any young kids at 
143

home, he is the one who is getting divorced from Jessica Simpson. He is 

on the cover of Teen People and everything else. So my girlfriend was 

there and she said look that is Nick Lachey and I said I will be right 

back. And she said, we are from California, we do not approach 

celebrities. I said I am from New York, we do not admit they are 

celebrities. And I walked up to his table, I handed him my card, and I 

said Internet sexual predators Nick, are using your name to lure kids. If 

they find out, the kids have posted something that they are fan of Nick’s, 

the predator becomes a close personal friend of his. I am a close 

personal friend of Nick Lachey’s and if you send me a picture, I will get 

it to him. He really likes that picture. Do you have a sexier one, 

something in a bikini? Anything else? He turned white as a ghost. He 

said would any money--I should have said yes, but we run a charity that 

is all volunteers. I should have said, yes, but I said no, just give me a 

public service announcement. Two weeks later he had Googled me. He 

got Tom Patters who owns Polaroid and everything else to write a $2 

million check to create a safer social networking site for teens called 

YFly. When kids are bothered by people posing as a teen they can click 

report the creep. 

 I then reached out trying to find spokespeople. I used to represent a 

lot of them in the olden days and so many of them now are getting 

arrested on drunk driving and everything else, I was standing on a stage 

in Singapore and who popped through a screen behind me but 

Spiderman. And as part of our exhibits today, you will see the first of a 

series of Internet safety comics written by Marvel for us using all 4,000 

of their characters that they donated to us on a worldwide license. 

 We do a lot of this work and it is going to take all of us. There is far 

too much backbiting and knifing of MGAs in the back. Unfortunately, 

there are enough children being hurt, there is enough work to go around 

and each of us has our own specialties. What I suggest we do is look at 

some of the models that we have used around the word. UNESCO 

named me to head up their efforts on these things for the United States. 

And we do not have in this country a national task force that is put 

together with the leading experts in the world on Internet safety. Instead, 

I am on a home office task force in the UK and I advise the EU. We 

need one here and that is easy and that is cheap. You get good at doing 

that when you run a non-profit that is unfunded. 

 In addition, there are lots of questions about the statistics. Ernie, 

who I respect incredibly well, cannot give you the statistics on how many 

kids have been victimized in what way because they do not exist. 

Because on a crime reporting form there is no check, or no box you can 

check, saying that the Internet was involved in some crime. That is an 

easy fix to help us start tracking growth. We need to know that if we are 
144

going to address it to see if we are making a difference. We need to get a 

lot of players together and work together. And one of the things I 

learned a number of years ago is if we are going to reach the kids, we 

have to do it in their own language in their own ways. So I founded a 

group that is called Teenangels and it is part of our group. And they train 

for a very long time. It usually takes about a year to train a Teen Angel. 

They are trained by law enforcement, AOL, and Disney, and Oracle, and 

everybody else I know and the FTC and they learn what everybody needs 

to know about privacy policies, predators, piracy, illegal inappropriate 

use, and responsible technologies. And when they are done, they go out 

and create their own programs and they are now advising all of those 

companies. They have got a new cell phone that Disney launches 

tomorrow that is a little safer because parents can control who can text 

message or call their kids. And that came out of some of the thinking of 

the Teenangels. And Disney and AOL and the CTIA when you look at 

the Telecommunications Act that you are reviewing, the CTIA has 

turned to my Teenangels and to us for advise on how they can use our 

skills and things we know to make things safer. 

 So I would like to thank you so much for giving us the time today. 

And I would like to introduce one of my very special Teenangels who in 

addition to Nick Lachey and with Teen People that is out on the stands 

right now was selected by Teen People as one of the top 20 mover and 

shaker teens in the country. Shannon is 14 and here to talk about her 

experiences as a Teen Angel. 

 [The prepared statement of Parry Aftab follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARRY AFTAB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WIREDSAFETY

SUMMARY 

Our children are online. They do their homework, entertain themselves, 

communicate with each other and us, research things, buy and compare prices online. 

They need the Internet for their education, their careers and for their future. Of all the 

risks our children face online, only one is certain. If we deny our children access to these 

technologies, we have guarantees that they are hurt. All other risks are avoidable through 

a combination of awareness, supervision and parental control and other technologies. 

More and more children being lured and stalked by online predators who gather 

information about them from chatrooms, instant messaging, e-mails, websites and the like 

and use this information to become close to them. 

With our children walking around with Internet access in their backpacks and 

pocketbooks, we can no longer rely on parents watching whatever they do from a central 

location computer. Our children need to learn to use the "filter between their ears" and 

"ThinkB4TheyClick." This requires that we get them involved in framing solutions and 

educating each other. It also requires that we find new ways of building good cybercitizenship and helping the kids and parents spot risks in new technologies and protect 

themselves online. 

But we also need to recognize that in most cases our children are putting themselves 

in harm’s way. They are intentionally sharing risky information online in profiles, blogs 
145

and on websites. They post their cell numbers on their public away messages when using 

IM technologies. And even when they are careful about protecting their own privacy, 

their close friends may expose personal information about them by posting photos and 

information on their profiles. They are also, in greater and greater numbers meeting 

people offline that they met online. Family PC Magazine reported that 24% of the teen 

girls they polled and 16% of the teen boys they polled admitted to meeting Internet 

strangers in real life. Our children go willingly to offline meetings with these people. 

They may think they are meeting a cute fourteen year old boy, but find that they are 

meeting a 47- year old child molester instead. This has to stop. 

Smart kids are sharing sexual images online with people they don’t know, or emailing them to others they have a crush on and hope to entice. And with the newer 

video-chats and technologies, the predators have moved to luring our kids into posing and 

engaging in sexually explicit activities. 

Yet, the actual statistics are lacking. Everything we know is largely anecdotal. In 

1999, the FBI’s Innocent Images (charged with investigating crimes against children 

online) opened 1500 new cases of suspects who were attempting to lure a child into an 

offline meeting for the purposes of sex. Based upon my estimates, about the same number 

of cases were opened by state and local law enforcement agencies that year. The same 

year, approximately 25 million minors used the Internet in the U.S., Now, with more than 

75 million young Internet users in the U.S. we don’t know if the number of instances 

have increased, decreased or remain flat, given the growth. The crime reporting forms 

don’t collect information about the use of the Internet is child sexual exploitation crimes, 

or any other crimes. That has to change. 

We also need to recognize the real risks and what is hype. Notwithstanding media 

reports to the contrary, to my knowledge, law enforcement is not aware of anyone who is 

using the information children provide online to seek them out offline, by hiding behind a 

bush or grabbing them on their way home from school. They currently agree to meetings 

(even if they don’t admit it to the police when things go wrong.) But it’s only a matter of 

time before this happens, since universal access to the Internet means that even violent 

sexual offenders who are online can use it for their own horrible purposes. 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Thank you for inviting me to testify here today about ways we can keep our young 

people safer online. This is a very important topic and one to which I have devoted my 

life over the last ten years. My name is Parry Aftab. I am an Internet privacy and security 

lawyer and run the world’s largest Internet safety and help group, WiredSafety.org. We 

are an all-volunteer group and a charity formed in the United States. We have 

approximately 11,000 volunteer from 76 countries around the world, all devoted to 

helping create a safer interactive technology experience for users of all ages. 

SNAPSHOT OF U.S. MINORS ONLINE AND HOW PREDATORS REACH THEM 

It is estimated that approximately 75 million minors in the Unites States access the 

Internet either from home, schools, community centers and libraries or from some newer 

Internet-capable device. This is up more than ten-fold since 1996, when only 6 million 

U.S. minors were online. Now our children are using cell phones with Internet and textcapability, interactive gaming devices (such as X-Box Live and Sony Playstation 

Network) with voice over Internet and live chat features, handheld devices with 

Bluetooth and other remote-communication technology (such as PSP gaming devices and 

mobile phones) and social networking profiles (such as MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, YFly 

and others) where they can advertise their favorite things, where they live and pictures of 

themselves and their friends to anyone who wants to see them. 

Ten years ago, when I first wrote my safety tips telling parents to put the computer 

in a central location, that made sense. It was a central point, where parents could get 
146

involved and supervise their children’s interactive communications and surfing activities. 

Now, where they take their communication technologies with them in their pockets, 

backpacks, and purses, it is not longer as relevant as it once was. Now, instead of 

expecting parents to watch everything their children are doing online from the comfort of 

their familyrooms, or kitchen counter, we have to do more. Now, we have to teach our 

children to use the "filter between their ears" and exercise good judgment and care when 

using any interactive device. While teaching parents how to supervise their children 

online was a challenge (I have written the leading books, worldwide, for parents on 

Internet safety), teaching children to "ThinkB4uClick" is much harder. 

When I was growing up (in the days before electricity and indoor plumbing, when 

we had to walk up hill, both ways!, in blizzards to get to school ), parents used to blame 

us for not behaving. We were disciplinary problems. Now pediatric neuro-psychologists 

tell us that preteens and young teens are hardwired, through immature brain development, 

to be unable to control their impulses at this age. Either way, we recognize that preteens 

and teens take risks, don’t appreciate the consequences of their actions and act before 

they think. When their audience was their school friends, family and neighbors, the risks 

were containable. When they act out where 700 million Internet users can see, it takes on 

a much deeper significance. 

Putting Their Heads into the Lion’s Mouth 

Now, I will share something very controversial. While educators and child 

psychologists understand this, most parents will be shocked at the suggestion that their 

preteens and teens are in control of their safety online and putting themselves at risk, 

often intentionally. But unless we accept this, and direct our attentions at solutions aimed 

at this reality, we are all wasting our time. We will focus on the much smaller segments 

of preteens and teens who are being victimized through not fault of their own - those who 

are targeted at random. All others need to change their online behaviors. And that’s 

where we need to devote all our attentions. 

For this to happen, you need to understand the truth. For years we have told parents 

and minors not to share too much personal information online. "You can be tracked down 

in real life," we told them. But, notwithstanding anything to the contrary reported in the 

media and by some local law enforcement officers, to my knowledge, to this date, no 

preteen or teen has been sexually-exploited by someone who tracked them down from 

information they posted online. In each and every case, to my knowledge, to teens and 

preteens have gone willingly to meet their molester. They may have thought they were 

meeting someone other than the 46 year old who is posing as a teen, but they knew they 

didn’t know this person in real life. They are willingly agreeing to meet strangers offline. 

What does this mean? It means we can do something about this. It means we can 

educate teens and preteens about the realities of meeting people in real life they only 

know in cyberspace. It means we can create solutions. It means that this is, at least for the 

time being, 100% preventable. It means that what we do today will have an immediate 

impact on the safety of our youth. It means we have to join together and work on things 

that are effective and abandon those that are not. 

But we have to act quickly. When I testified before the U.S. House Of 

Representatives, Committee On Commerce, Subcommittee On Telecommunications, 

Trade, And Consumer Protection on October 11, 2000, I cautioned: 

Law enforcement is not aware of anyone who is using the information children 

provide online to seek them out offline, by hiding behind a bush or grabbing them 

on their way home from school. But it’s only a matter of time before this happens, 

since universal access to the Internet means that even violent sexual offenders who 

are online can use it for their own horrible purposes. (See Testimony of Parry Aftab, 

Esq. U.S. House Of Representatives, Committee On Commerce, Subcommittee On 

Telecommunications, Trade, And Consumer Protection on October 11, 2000.) 
147

Luckily, while our young people are sharing much more information online than 

ever before, to my knowledge, predators aren’t using it to hunt down our children offline. 

They are like vampires. They need to be invited in. Sadly, our teens and preteens are too 

often doing just that. They are inviting them to offline meetings, phone calls and 

videochats. But, as an expert in cyberrisk management, I can tell you that this is good 

news. Because we have a single point of risk - our children, preteens and teens. If we stop 

their risky and unsafe behaviors, and teach them when to reach out for help, we can 

manage this risk. We can keep our children safe. 

Our children are mainly at risk because of their own actions. Some are intentional. 

Others are inadvertent. They may willingly engage in communications with people they 

don’t know in real life "RL," agree to meet them offline or send them sexuallyprovocative images or perform sex acts on webcams they share with people they 

encounter online. They cyberbully each other by advertising their victims for sexual 

services, posting real or manufactured sexually explicit images of them online or by 

passing online rumors able their sexual preferences or activities. 

Preteens and Teens at Risk: Most of the high risk preteens and teens fall into three 

categories: those who are naive and looking for love and affection (typically the "loners" 

and "shy" preteens and teens), those who already engage in other high risks activities, 

such as drug and alcohol abuse, driving too fast or doing risky things for the thrill of it 

(often the student leaders, athletes, cheerleaders and very competitive teens, the risks 

takers and thrill seekers looking to let off steam or impress their peers) and those who 

don’t realize that what they do online is real, the ones who are looking to appear older, 

cooler, more fun and more popular (most of the teens and especially preteens fall into this 

category at least once). Sadly, most of our preteens and teens fit one of these categories. 

Sadder still is the fact that in recent years we have learned that most preteens and teens 

are potential victims. 

Naive, loners and socially-shy preteens and teens: Some believe that they are 

communicating with a cute 14 year old boy, who they later discover isn’t cute, isn’t 

fourteen and isn’t a boy. Most of the reported cases fall into this category, and until the 

death of Christina Long four years ago this May, experts all believed that all victims fell 

into this category. They are conned, and easy to spot online. Predators can seek them out, 

and find their vulnerabilities. They are groomed with care, and often fall in love with 

their molesters. Sadly, when the molestation finally occurs, not only are their bodies 

broken, their hearts and trust are too. 

They need to understand how the predators work online. Too often they tell me that 

they can "tell" how old someone is online. They can’t. No one can. Many predators spend 

years cultivating the right tone and language to look like a fellow teen online. 

These preteens and teens are sitting ducks. While they may have learned not to fall 

for the "help me find my puppy" ploy offline, they need to learn how that same ploy 

(appeal for assistance) works online. They need to know how to spot the risks and the 

predators, when online everyone can look like a cute 14 year old boy. They need to learn 

that romance shouldn’t occur only in cyberspace, and that parents can get involved to 

help them meet their soul-mate, assuming they really are. So, if they aren’t, and turn out 

to be a 46 year old child molester, they can come home safely and help put that molester 

behind bars where they deserve. 

Risk-takers, Thrill-seeking preteens and teens: Some preteens and teens (mainly 

teens) are looking for the thrills and challenge of engaging in a relationship (or at least 

prolonged communication) with an adult. They "play games" with the adult, and are 

intentionally extra sexually-provocative. They think they are smart enough to do this 

without getting hurt. They see this as a game, without realizing the consequences of their 

actions. And crossing the sexual line isn’t as frightening online as it would be in real life. 

The problem is that the consequences are not as apparent, the realities not as immediate. 
148

They take risks. And they think they can handle them. (They don’t often understand the 

consequences, though.) They often willingly engage in sexual communications with men 

they know are adults. That’s part of the thrill. They are also often willing to engage in 

sexual activities with the adult, but don’t realize what that can mean when things go very 

wrong. We rarely hear about these kinds of victims, because they never report it when 

things go wrong. They feel as though they "asked for it," or are to blame. When we hear 

of these cases, it’s because they are killed or kidnapped. (Christina Long was in this 

category. She was the first confirmed murder victim of an Internet sexual predator in the 

U.S. and died four years ago this May.) 

Friends are the answer here. If we can get friends too help watch out for each other, 

it is less likely that they will meet adults in real life, or if they do, got alone. Also, finding 

cool spokespeople, like Nick Lachey, to explain that it isn’t cool to be stupid and 

campaigns such as our "Don’t Be Stupid" help. So do real life stories from victims 

themselves about how they got caught and advice from the trenches. Kateisplace.org has 

sections specifically directed at this type of victim. And Teen People is an important 

partner of ours in spreading the word. 

Not really a drunken slut, just playing one online: We’ve all been reading about 

this new trend in the news (often with me as the expert). Good, respectful, otherwise 

well-mannered preteens and teens acting out in cyberspace. In profiles, blogs, on social 

networking sites and their away messages on IM, on their websites and interactive 

gaming bios, they act out. They pose in their bras, or worse. They simulate sexual 

activities (and in some cases post images of actual sexual activities). They pretend to be 

someone or something other than what they really are. And this alter-ego may be a 

sexually promiscuous teen "up for anything." 

They don’t think it is cool to tell others they were home coloring with their five year 

old niece last weekend. Instead they claim to have snuck out after everyone was asleep to 

get drunk at a wild party. To them it isn’t real. They lie. They pose. They do thing online 

they would never dream of doing in RL. They aren’t really drunken sluts - they are just 

playing one online. (Shannon, one of our award-winning Teenangels, will share insight 

into why teens and preteens are doing this, during her testimony today.) 

The Anatomy of a Cyberpredator: 

There have been many cases recently where pedophiles and other adults have lured 

children into offline meetings and molested them. Luckily, there are even more cases 

when such attempts to lure a child have brought about the attention of law-enforcement 

groups. I debated whether I should discuss any of these cases, because I did not want to 

sensationalize them. But if explaining the methods used by offenders might make parents 

more aware, and their children safer, it’s worth it. 

Cyberpredators, just like their offline counterparts, usually aren’t the scary, hairy 

monsters in trench coats we imagine standing on a dark street corner. Many are the kind 

of person you would be inviting to your home as a guest, and often have. They are 

pediatricians, teachers, lawyers, clergy, vice cops, welfare workers, journalists, Boy 

Scout leaders, baseball coaches, scientists, etc. They are almost always men. (Sometimes 

women are accomplices, but rarely are women the molesters.) They are often articulate 

and well-educated. They come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and they can be very rich 

or out of work. But they have one thing in common: they want your child. 

Most of us are sickened at the thought of an adult having sexual relations with a 

child, but to be able to protect our children, we must get into the mind of the predator. 

First of all, predators often don’t see themselves as predators. They see themselves as 

loving partners with the children they molest. To them this isn’t rape, it’s a seduction. 

And, as with any seduction, it’s a slow and painstaking process. (Predators have been 

known to wait more than two years, collecting data on a particular child, before striking.) 

That’s what makes them hard to detect. They don’t appear to your child to be dangerous. 
149

An FBI agent who shared a panel with me recently said it best: “Before the Internet, 

these people had to get physically close to your children. They had to lurk near 

schoolyards, or playgrounds. Kids would see them. Adults would see them. It was a 

dangerous situation to be in for them, because everyone would notice an adult male 

lurking around children. They often had to take jobs and volunteer positions that allowed 

them to work with children in a position of trust in order to reach their victims. Now, 

however, the personal risks the pedophiles had to expose themselves to in order to be 

around children are gone. Now they can be ‘one of the kids’ and hang out with your kids 

online without exposing themselves. As long as they don’t say or do something in the 

public room that makes them stand out, they can stay there forever, taking notes.” 

And, many of them do. They have been known to create large databases on children. 

They track the children’s likes and dislikes. They track information such as whose 

parents are divorced, who doesn’t like their father’s new girlfriend or their mother’s 

boyfriend, or who likes computer games or a particular rock group. Kids often share 

personal information about their lives in chatrooms or on profiles. This is one reason why 

they shouldn’t. The more the predator knows about your child, the more easily they can 

“groom” them or appear to be their soulmate. 

Some cyberpredators (known as “travelers” to law enforcement) seek out the good 

kids, the smart ones, the ones who are not street-smart and are from sheltered suburban or 

rural families. Many of our children match that profile perfectly. Others, however, target 

(or are targeted by) popular, super achiever, risk preferring teens. It took the death of a 

young teen from Connecticut, Christina Long, before we realized that many of the 

incidents involved teens who did not fit the loner profile. What we learned was that these 

kids never report any attacks or exploitation. The only time we hear of these cases is 

when the teen is kidnapped or killed. 

So who is a typical victim of an Internet sexual predator? Anyone between 11-1/2 

and 15. All are vulnerable. 

It Doesn’t Take Torture for Them to Spill Their Guts 

Here’s a mock chatroom discussion that my law-enforcement friends and I agree is 

pretty realistic. Imagine a predatorial pedophile sitting and taking notes on this child, and 

using this information to lure them later. Would your child fall for this? Most, 

unfortunately, would. This one is more typical of a boy victim and predator 

communication than a girl victim communication. 

Child: I hate my mom! I know it’s her fault that my parents are getting divorced. 

Predator: I know. My parents are getting divorced, too. 

Child: We never have any money anymore, either. Every time I need something, 

she says the same thing: “We can’t afford it.” When my parents were together, I 

could buy things. Now I can’t. 

Predator: Me too. I hate that! 

Child: I waited for six months for the new computer game to come out. My mom 

promised to buy it for me when it came out. She promised! Now it’s out. Can I buy 

it? Nope. “We don’t have enough money!” I hate my mom! 

Predator: Oh! I’m so sorry! I got it! I have this really kewl uncle who buys me 

things all the time. He’s really rich. 

Child: You’re sooooo lucky. I wish I had a rich and kewl uncle. 

Predator: Hey! I got an idea! I’ll ask my uncle if he’ll buy you one too....I told you 

he’s really kewl. I bet he’d say yes. 

Child: Really!? Thanks!! 

Predator: BRB [cybertalk for “be right back”]... I’ll go and call him. 

- - - 

Predator: Guess what? He said okay. He’s gonna buy you the game! 
150

Child: Wow, really? Thanks. I can’t believe it!!! 

Predator: Where do you live? 

Child: I live in NJ. What about you? 

Predator: I live in New York. So does my uncle. New Jersey isn’t far. 

Child: Great! 

Predator: Is there a mall near you? We can meet there. 

Child: Okay. I live near the GSP Mall. 

Predator: I’ve heard of that. No prob. What about Saturday? 

Child: Kewl. 

Predator: We can go to McDonald’s too if you want. We’ll meet you there at noon. 

Child: Okay. Where? 

Predator: In front of the computer game store. Oh! My uncle’s name is George. 

He’s really kewl. 

Child: Great... thanks, I really appreciate it. You’re so lucky to have a rich and kewl 

uncle. 

Saturday arrives, and the child goes to the mall and meets an adult outside the 

computer game store. He identifies himself as “Uncle George” and explains that his 

nephew is already at the McDonald’s waiting for them. The child is uncomfortable, but 

the uncle walks into the store and buys the $100 game. He comes out and hands it to the 

child, who is immediately neutralized and delighted. Stranger-danger warnings are not 

applicable. This isn’t a stranger—he’s “Uncle George,” and if any proof was needed, the 

computer game is it. He gets into Uncle George’s car without hesitation to meet his friend 

at McDonald’s. The rest is reported on the 6 o’clock news. 

It’s disgusting. It makes us sick to our stomachs, but it happens. Not very often, but 

often enough that you need to be forewarned. (Several thousand cyberpredator cases are 

opened each year by law enforcement agents in the United States.) But no matter how 

often it happens, even once is too often. Knowing how they operate and the tricks of the 

trade will help us teach our child how to avoid being victimized. Each case differs, but 

the predators tend to use the same general tactics. Aside from the “bait and switch” scam 

discussed above, they often attempt to seduce a child. They want the child to “want” 

them. 

The Script—How They Operate Online 

They begin by striking up a conversation with the child, trying to create a 

relationship of trust and friendship. They often masquerade as another child or teenager, 

typically of the opposite sex, unless the child has indicated homosexual interests. (The 

child may or may not know the “seducer’s” real age by the time they meet face-to-face.) 

Phone calls usually start at this point. Sometimes gifts are sent to the child as well, which 

may include a Polaroid camera and film. Once they have broken down barriers of 

caution, they begin introducing sexual topics gradually, often with the use of child 

pornography to give the child the impression that other children are regularly involved in 

sexual activities. 

Then they begin to approach the child’s own sexuality and curiosity, by asking 

questions and giving them “assignments,” like wearing special underwear, sending 

sexually suggestive photos of themselves to the pedophile, or performing certain sexual 

acts. These assignments eventually broaden to the exchange of sexually explicit 

photographs (using the Polaroid, cell phone camera or digital camera) or videos of the 

child. Finally, the pedophile attempts to arrange a face-to-face meeting. (He may also 

have divulged his true age or an age closer to his actual age at this point.) 
151

Why It Works 

All the lectures we have given our children from the time they are very young about 

not talking to strangers aren’t applicable online, where everyone is a stranger. A large 

part of the fun online is talking to people you’ve never met. In addition, our children’s 

stranger-danger defenses are not triggered when other kids are involved. The warnings 

apply only to adult strangers, not to other children. 

If any of us walked up to a child in a playground and tried to strike up a 

conversation, they would ignore us and probably run away. But if an unknown elevenyear-old came up to another eleven-year-old in the same playground, they’d be playing in 

ten seconds flat! That’s how the pedophiles get in under our kids’ stranger-danger 

radar—they pretend to be other kids. And children often believe what they read and hear. 

They “know” things about the predator because they believe what he told them. They 

also believe what they read about him in his “staged” profile, which supports what he told 

them. So it’s not just true, it’s confirmed. 

There are many stages at which the pedophile can be thwarted by an observant 

parent. In addition, children with healthy friendships and a strong, open, and trusting 

relationship with their parents are less likely to fall victim to pedophiles online. 

Pedophiles typically prey on a child’s loneliness. They feed the child’s complaints about 

her home life—creating an "us-versus-them" atmosphere. “Your mom is so mean to you! 

I don’t know why she won’t let you _____.” (Fill in the blank with whatever we try and 

limit: makeup, malls, concerts, etc.) 

This atmosphere does two things: It creates a distance between the child and her 

parents, at the same time bringing the child into a special secret alliance with the 

pedophile. (You should know that boys are almost as often the victims of Internet sexual 

exploitation as girls are, but they report it less frequently.) 

I have followed many cases over the last few years. In my role as WiredSafety 

executive director, I’ve also been responsible for reporting several of these to law 

enforcement and for helping many families through the pain of prosecution. Sometimes 

we just help the families survive what the molestation has done to them. (The child isn’t 

the only victim—entire families are torn apart in the aftermath of a molestation.) Parents 

feel guilty for not having protected their child, siblings don’t know how to treat their 

fellow sibling—the pain can continue for a lifetime, and even more. And, in addition to 

being hurt physically, the young victim’s heart is broken by the betrayal of trust. 

Anatomy of a Real and Early Case 

One case I reviewed many years ago involved a New Jersey teenager and an Ohio 

adult predator. It was one of the earliest reported cases of cyber-predatorial conduct, 

discovered in 1996. Luckily, the liaison was discovered before the girl met the man faceto-face. But it had gone on for a year and a half before being discovered by the girl’s 

mother. As you read the details, think about what could have been done to discover the 

situation earlier and how you can use these precautions to protect your children. 

Paul Brown, Jr., an Ohio resident, was forty-six years old. He was also unemployed, 

weighed over four hundred pounds, and lived in a basement. He had accounts with 

several ISPs. Mary (a hypothetical name for the young girl involved) was twelve when 

her mother, a schoolteacher, bought her a computer, reportedly because Mary was having 

problems making friends. When she got online, Mary posted a message on an online 

service, in the spring of 1995, looking for a pen pal. In her message she described herself 

as a teenage girl. Paul Brown, Jr,. responded to the message, using his real name 

(something they often do, surprisingly) but identifying himself as a fifteen-year-old boy. 

Brown and Mary maintained an e-mail and telephone relationship for several 

months. As the relationship became more involved, they began writing letters, and Mary 

sent Brown a photograph. He told her that he was living at home with his mother and was 

hoping to find a girlfriend. In early August, Brown asked Mary for a “favor.” “If I sent 
152

you a roll of film, could you get one of your friends to take pictures of you in different 

outfits and maybe hairstyles? Makeup if you use any, and different poses. Some sexy, if 

possible. Please. Baby for me. Thanx. You’re the best. Love Ya.” 

Mary complied. For the next eight months, they continued to converse and 

correspond, and Mary sent additional photos. Brown encouraged her with juvenile antics, 

such as using stickers in his letters to her saying things like “Getting better all the time!” 

In May 1996, Brown sent Mary a special love note. “Saying I love you... seems to be an 

understatement. At the age of 14 you have captured my heart and made it sing... I love 

everything about you....” 

Shortly thereafter, Brown confessed to being in his twenties. He also suggested that 

Mary videotape herself in sexually provocative poses. She did. After Brown had 

reviewed her videotape, he returned it to her with instructions to redo the tape and include 

views of her genitalia and breasts. He later admitted to being divorced and in his thirties. 

He reportedly also sent her small gifts from time to time. 

A few months later, in response to Brown’s promise to pass copies of the tape to 

four members of a rock band Mary admired, she sent additional videotapes to Brown. 

(Brown told Mary that he knew the band members very well.) Each tape sent to Brown 

was designated for a different member of the band and contained sexually explicit 

conduct. Brown apparently had also sent her his size 48 underwear. When her mother 

discovered the underwear, the authorities were notified. Tracing Brown through phone 

records, special agents of the FBI in Cleveland seized the videotapes and photos of Mary 

and of more than ten other teenage girls from across the country. 

Mary was fourteen when this was all discovered. Brown pled guilty to enticing a 

minor to produce sexually explicit photos and videos and was sentenced to a little less 

than five years in prison (the maximum penalty for a first offense). In a written statement 

to Brown following all of this, Mary said, “I trusted you. I thought you were my friend.” 

There are several things that stand out in this case. One, interstate phone calls were 

made by Mary. Parents should always be reviewing long-distance bills for suspicious 

calls. Two, Mary was lonely. These kinds of children are often the most vulnerable; a 

parent should be involved in their online friendships, and monitor their online lives. And, 

three, as hard as it is to know what our kids are doing when we’re not around, especially 

if you are a single parent, a year and a half is a long time for a relationship to be going on 

undiscovered. You should spend time learning who your children’s friends are, online 

and off. But Monday-morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game in 

real time. We may look at the situation and say that could never happen to one of our 

kids. However, there but for the grace of God go all of us.... 

Knowing your child is lonely and has problems making friends is the first sign that 

the child may fall prey to a pedophile or cyber- predator. Predators can spot lonely 

children. They can also spot kids who are new online and may not yet know all the rules. 

Most teens, when surveyed, admit to having been propositioned online. But what may be 

obvious to a cyberstreetsmart kid may not be so obvious to a child not yet familiar with 

cyberspace. Pedophiles befriend these kids and patiently build trust and a relationship—

looking toward the day when they can meet face-to-face. 

Encourage your children to make online friends, but learning about their online 

friends is an important way to avoid these secret relationships. Education is important in 

avoiding this danger, too. (Had Mary been forewarned about how pedophiles operate 

online, she may have been more attentive to how old Brown sounded on the phone, and 

been more aware of his classic tactics.) So is control over incoming and outgoing 

information when younger children are involved, using technology blockers, monitors, 

and filters. These kinds of situations can be avoided if you plan ahead, educate and 

communicate with your children, and keep your eyes open. 
153

Getting in Under Your Radar: 

Even when parents are watching, bad things can happen. 

I included the Paul Brown case in my first book, A Parents’ Guide to the Internet. 

(He was sentenced in 1997, when I wrote the book.) I included it because it was a good 

example of how cyberpredators typically operate, and suggested that if the mother had 

been a bit more attentive, it might have been discovered earlier. I was right about how 

cyberpredators operate. I was wrong about how being attentive might have avoided the 

sexual exploitation. It takes more. It takes both an attentive parent and a teenager who has 

been taught how these pedophiles operate online. 

In November 1998, I met a mother who did everything right. She was attentive and 

inquisitive about her daughter’s online relationships. She asked the right questions. She 

had a good relationship with her daughter, and yet Charles Hatch, a child molester from 

Utah, got in under everyone’s radar and sexually exploited her thirteen-year-old daughter. 

Jennifer (not her real name) was eleven and a half when she first met “Charlie” 

online. She thought he was a few years older, and was intrigued about befriending a 

slightly older teenage boy. Jennifer was an honors student and had already been taking 

advanced college courses while still in middle school. She lived in a loving and warm 

household with her mother and father. She also had siblings and half siblings from her 

father’s previous marriage. They were all close. 

Jennifer’s mother, Sharry (also not her real name), talked to Jennifer about her 

online friend, Charlie. She insisted on talking to Charlie himself, by phone, once he and 

Jennifer had started calling each other. He passed the phone call test, and Sharry was 

convinced that he really was the teenage boy he professed to be. Either he had 

manipulated his voice to sound younger or he had a younger person make the call. 

Charlie even called and spoke to Jennifer’s brothers, talking about when he would be 

their brother-in-law someday, after he and Jennifer were married. He pleaded with 

Jennifer to come and visit him in Utah. Sharry invited him to visit them instead. But 

Charlie always had a reason he couldn’t come. 

As things progressed, Sharry insisted on talking to Charlie’s mother. He first 

avoided it by saying she was sick, later that her sickness had become cancer, and that 

eventually she died from the cancer. The family fell for this, hook, line, and sinker. Most 

caring families would. Although the “relationship” progressed for almost two years, it 

remained relatively tame. Charlie was romantic rather than predatorial, and he sent her 

expensive gifts, including a Polaroid camera. (Remember the Polaroid camera Paul 

Brown sent?) 

Jennifer was inexperienced with boys and dating, and Charlie seemed to know not to 

push her too fast. But about a year and a half after they met online, Charlie sent her 

sexually explicit photos of himself from the neck down. She became very uncomfortable 

and pulled back. But several tragedies occurred around the same time, which made 

Jennifer easier prey. Her father was hospitalized with a serious illness, and her sixteenyear-old half brother died of a brain hemorrhage. 

Charlie, like all good predators, knew when to strike. He told Jennifer that she owed 

him sexually explicit photos of herself, since he had sent those of himself. When she 

refused, he told her that she would be left alone, since her family was dying or would 

die—and he threatened to leave her. Reluctantly, after fighting against it as hard as she 

could, she acquiesced and sent him sexually explicit photos of herself. 

When Sharry was cleaning Jennifer’s room, she discovered a letter in which Charlie 

had set forth the sexual poses he wanted Jennifer to photograph. Sharry sent him a letter, 

confronting him. She said that he didn’t sound like a teenager in the letter. She told him 

that if he ever contacted her daughter again, she would inform the police. He never 

replied, and Jennifer was not permitted to use the Internet for months. 

One day, just when Jennifer and Sharry thought that the whole episode was past 

them, the phone rang. It was a detective from Utah, who informed Sharry that Jennifer’s 
154

photos had been discovered in Hatch’s day planner by a coworker. He wasn’t sixteen—he 

was thirty-six. He was a former teacher who had been dismissed by the school after 

having been accused by a student of sexual abuse. (The school hadn’t taken any other 

action.) He was currently employed by the welfare office in Utah, and was married with 

children and step-children. 

Six months later, Charles Hatch was convicted of sexual exploitation in a Utah 

federal court. He began his six-and-a-half year sentence in early June 1999. As a 

condition of his plea, he will not be permitted to use the Internet. This mother has become 

a dear friend of mine, after seeking WiredSafety’ help in getting through this. She was 

the first parent to speak out publicly about her child being targeted by a sexual predator 

online. 

Unfortunately, the predators are willing to try many different ploys until one finally 

works. 

Using Celebrity’s Names 

I was having lunch in Los Angeles with one of my girlfriends when Nick Lachey 

walked into the restaurant. She pointed him out to me and I immediately grabbed my 

business card and approached his table (to the utter embarrassment of my friend). I 

introduced myself and told him I needed his help. I explained that predators were using 

his name and the name of other celebrities to lure kids into meetings and unsafe activities. 

They find teens who post their favorite celebrities on their profiles, websites or other 

online communications. Then they create a profile claiming to be a close personal friend 

of that celebrity. They offer to forward a pic of the teen to the celebrity, and seek sexier 

and sexier pics as time goes on, ultimately ending with an offer to introduce the teen to 

their favorite celebrity in real life. Years ago, Justin Timberlake was the most popular of 

these celebrity lures. Nick is now. He listened intently and turned white when he realized 

people where using his name to hurt his young fans. He offered his help. 

When I left his table, he has agreed to do a public service announcement to help 

teens understand that is anyone claims to be a close personal friend of a celebrity, they 

aren’t. Or won’t be for long. I was very excited, but not as excited as I was two weeks 

later when someone from Nick’s office called asking me to help them create a safer teenonly social networking site called YFly.com. I agreed and YFly.com became a reality 

with the financial assistance of Tom Petters (and the Petters Group), and the creativity 

and energy of its founders, Drew Levin and Daniel Perkins. I joined the team to set up a 

safer network and create the most advanced educational and awareness content online, 

just for teen users. The young users can click on "Report the Creep" if they suspect 

someone is an adult posing as a teen. 

It’s a beginning. Finding safer technologies and services is part of the solution. So is 

awareness using teenspeak. 

Shannon, one of our Teenangels is 14 years old. She was selected by Teen People as 

one of the twenty teens who will make a difference. She has gone them one better...she is 

already making a difference. It is with pride that I introduce Shannon Sullivan, one of my 

Teenangels. 

Common Internet Sexual Predator Ploys...How it works online 

WiredSafety has done a substantial amount of research on how predators operate 

offline and online. Working with missing children organizations internationally, Internet 

providers, law enforcement and victims and their families, we have developed a 

substantial knowledge base about how teens and preteens are lured into offline meetings 

and online sexual exploitation. From the young victims of sexual predators and online 

sexual exploitation, we have learned the typical [ploys and how they unfold. By handling 

online one-to-one help for victims of cybercrime and cyberabuse, we have learned what 
155

parents and teens need and how to get them assistance quickly. WiredSafety has stood on 

the front line against Internet criminals and abusers since 1995. 

There are certain tactics that sexual predators use offline to prey on children offline, 

whether they are strangers or someone known to the child. Interestingly, these same ploys 

are often used online, by Internet sexual predators, with some “virtual” modifications. 

Only a few ploys, which are aided by the anonymity of cyberspace, are unique to 

cyberpredators. Until our recent work, no one has pulled together a list of common 

predator ploys used by offline sexual predators and compared them with the ploys used 

by online sexual predators. Our researchers are developing additional materials and 

studies to expand what we have already learned. 

This new research is crucial to keeping our teens and preteens safer. Protecting 

young people from Internet sexual exploitation is much easier if the young people are 

aware of the kinds of tricks and ploys used by the predators. If they are alert to possible 

"ploys" they are less likely to be caught off-guard. Many of these ploys are used over 

and over again by perpetrators and taught to others within their child molester 

communities. They include: asking you child for assistance (this is the help me find my 

puppy ploy, when used offline), the love and affection, confidence and trust ploy (where 

the child is groomed to fall in love with their online soul mate), the curiosity ploy, the 

fear tactic, the games and fun, the fun and job offers and the modeling, talent scout or 

beauty contest ploys. 

"Don’t talk to strangers" is probably the most common warning parents give their 

children in an attempt to prevent abduction or exploitation. Unfortunately, these 

warnings don’t work in cyberspace, where one of its greatest benefits (and the most fun 

for teens) is being able to communicate with strangers. In addition, unlike the perception 

of a “stranger” as the raincoat clad, dirty, bearded man who lurks on street corners or in 

playground, Internet “strangers” quickly become Internet “friends” and the stranger 

danger radar is no longer working. The kids, tweens and teens are no longer treating them 

with care, and have let them into their inner-circle. That’s where the real dangers begin. 

These child molesters can get in under your and our children’s stranger danger radar. 

 Sometimes this happens because they believe their net friend is another young 

person. And a “stranger” is never another young person. Unlike the offline counterpart 

ploys, a 47 year old can easily masquerade as a 13 year old online. Or someone can be 

three or four different people at the same time online, engaging in conversations with 

themselves in a public setting, allowing young by-standers to think they are trustworthy, 

or famous or otherwise worth talking to. Online our children are in the dark, literally. 

With the number of young sexual predator victims growing, and the amount of 

contact information young people are sharing online in blogs, profiles and away 

messages putting them at greater risk, awareness and prevention in these areas is crucial. 

Partnerships with Internet service providers, media and entertainment companies and 

learning from and sharing what we know with each other is what needs to be done. And, 

it is worth the effort. Our children are entitled to sleep more safely at night, and enjoy the 

wonders of the Internet...without fear of being preyed upon or hurt. 

Parents are the Beginning 

From the time I published my first book for parents on Internet safety in 1997 (A 

Parents Guide to the Internet) we have been educating parents on how they can stay 

ahead (or at least on par :-)) with their children and teens online. Our quick guide - 

Parenting Online, is available online without charge and has been copied and distributed 

by hundreds of groups and schools around the United States. It includes a parent/child 

contract, a quick guide to parental control technologies and our very popular "Common 

Sense to Cybersense." (A copy of this guide is attached as part of the Parenting Online 

Guide.) 
156

Now, many parents want something quick. They are happy that expert groups such 

as WiredSafety.org understand all the issues and that they can turn to us. But they are 

being pulled in so many directions just by virtue of their parenthood, that they want "Just 

the Facts...Madam." Our new programs, called Internet Safety 1-2-3 make it easy for 

parents to spot the risks by age, and also by technology. Our new automated Family 

Internet Safety Plan works using this new approach (patent pending) to help parents 

understand what works for them and what things they need to do to keep their family 

safer, given the technologies they use, the ages of their children and their value system. 

(A quick example of the kinds of things covered is attached as an Appendix 3 in our 

"Cheatsheet on Risks by Age".) 

Our children are worth it, and so is the Internet. Too often blamed for everything 

from the Black Plague to the sinking of the Titanic, the Internet is a wonderful tool for 

learning, communication and entertainment. It levels the playing field between the haves 

and the have-nots. All children look alike online. No one is classified by their race, ethnic 

origin, religion, accent or physical ability. Online they are all just children. And like it or 

not, the Internet is here to stay. 

We’re all in this together. Let’s work together to make the Internet fun, safe, private 

and educational for children. And let’s work together to make sure that the children’s 

Internet industry, which has so much to offer our children, flourishes! 

For the children. 

I remain willing to help, and provide input and expertise in any way this 

Subcommittee can use my help and expertise. 

I wish to thank the Subcommittee, its chairman and all its members for inviting me 

to present this testimony on such an important subject. 

Parry Aftab, Esq. 
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Aftab. And we want to hear from 

Ms. Sullivan in just 1 minute but right now I want to recognize Mrs. 

Schroeder for her 5 minute opening statement. 

MS. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. I wanted to thank you, 

Chairman, for inviting me here to testify today. 

 And what I would like to do is talk about what i-SAFE has been 

doing for the past 6 years. We have been in Congressional 

Appropriations for the past 6 years. We are in all 50 States and we are in 

15 countries. Predatory acts against our children are the most heinous 

acts that we have ever seen. We have heard it today from Justin and we 

have seen it time and time again with many, many children. And we 

look at this in terms of, and we ask ourselves how can this be, you know, 

in terms of families, we are here to protect children. 

 Our Nation now is being faced with a new technological challenge 

which is these kids know a lot more about technology than parents. They 

know a lot more about technology than their teachers. This is their 

world. In my day, when I would come home from school, I would pick 

up the telephone and we would be talking to one another. Today, what 

the kids do is they go home, they fire up their laptops, and they get on the 

buddy list and that is their friends. And we have heard testimony today 

in terms of how do you define a friend, how somebody tries to make a 

friend online, and how that is all done under the guise of anonymity. 

 If you would look at the screen that I have here on the Internet 

landscape and as you see here, 90 percent of the kids and this is an 

assessment that we did with over 200,000 students in the schools and 

they have Internet access. If you look at the fact that 25 percent of those 

kids and we really do believe that this is a low number, they spend at 

least 5 hours a week online. If you look at also too the way the Internet 

is is that the kids like to be by themselves. We heard this with Justin in 

his room. This is where he was comfortable in terms of he needed to talk 

to people. And as you can see here with the statistics that we have with 

them, the numbers are quite high when you start looking at the fact of in 

fifth grade 40 percent. That is small. In fifth grade, we are still 

chaperoning our kids but yet they feel so comfortable on the Internet in 
185

terms of being alone. Also here, if you look at the statistics that we have 

and there is no right or wrong answer from these kids. I mean they--we 

did pre, post, and delayed assessments, but 33 percent of them said that 

they fee freer in cyberspace. And I actually have had the opportunity to 

do site visits in these schools and some of the questions that we asked 

them is why do you feel freer in cyberspace. And it is just one of those 

that they feel that they know these people. We heard from Justin and 

how he was enticed and he did things that in real life you would think 

that is something that nobody would ever do. 

 But also, too what we looked at was the fact that the students and we 

went ahead and did a survey of 30,000 students with 30,000 parents and 

we asked them, do you tell your parents what you are doing online? And 

what was interesting after this survey was the fact that the kids said no 

but the parents said yes. And actually this was published by the Justice 

Department when we were through with it, and what we found out with 

the conclusion of this that this is the digital divide. We went ahead and 

asked the kids in terms of would your parents approve of what you did 

on the Internet? Many of the kids said no and the parents said that well 

of course I would, I trust my kids in terms of what they do on the 

Internet. We look at the risky online behavior of students. As kids grow 

older, they take risks and that is inherent within them. That is how they 

learn to be able to do things in terms of they take risks riding bikes, they 

take risks in everything that they do in life and one would hope as they 

grow and they become much more mature, that those risks are much 

more calculated and they do not become risks but more so it is one model 

of appropriate behavior. 

 We went ahead and in the school districts we asked the students in 

terms of how many of them gave out personal information and what we 

found out from these kids was the fact that many of them said well I do 

not tell people my name. And one of the activities in the classroom is the 

fact that they will have to go and actually tell what is their screen name 

and they had discussed is that identifiable information? How much of 

your screen name does that say about you? And what we found out was 

the fact if you look here, there is a very high percentage of kids that what 

they do is they will put a screen name down and then describe maybe 

their age, their location, what they like, what they do. 

 We found out, too that after education, NIJ gave a $3 million grant to 

an entity in Virginia to study us for 2 years. We were selected on an 

efficacy study and we presented that study to you in November. And 

what they told me when they presented it was is that they saw that this is 

probably the fastest crime prevention in terms of preventativeness that 

really made a difference. And one of the questions I asked was why? 

Why did they see that of all the crime prevention that they had ever 
186

looked at before? And you know it was a real easy answer, which is this 

is their world. This is their cyberspace. They know all about it. And 

after the curriculum, what we found out here was that 84 percent of the 

students they were a lot more careful in terms of the information that 

they gave out. They also were a lot more careful in terms of what they 

were sharing information because now they are a lot more 

knowledgeable about I understand now in terms of what that information 

can do and where it can go. Also in actual property. Many of the 

students did not understand what is that? Isn’t everything free out there? 

They did not really grab the concept of this is actually stealing. 

 We look at the fact of meeting face to face and you can see here 

many of the students there is not any student that you would talk to that 

said yes, I do want to meet a pedophile online. There is just, I mean, that 

is just not going to happen to them. And we have talked to millions of 

kids. But the fact is while they are looking at that saying that they are a 

lot more careful in terms of being a willing participant. When they start 

giving gifts, they start thinking this is not normal. One of the activities in 

the fourth grade class was the fact that the kids turn around and they have 

something and they are to give it to their best friend. And if it contains a 

value, let us just say $50, you do not want to give that away. Well then 

why would you think that somebody that you do not know would send 

you money in the mail? 

 Up here is a chart and it is a map of the United States. This year, iSAFE will have educated 1.8 million students. And those are audited 

figures. Those are classroom instructions that we get from the school. 

We have cooperative agreements with the schools. And so as you can 

see here that, those are pretty significant numbers in terms of the 

desktops, the numbers of kids that we actually touch their lives every 

single day. 

 And one of the big things that we have found is is that the peer-topeer, you are hearing it, peer-to-peer from the kids and I have with me 

one of our I Mentors and he is from the State of Maryland. And what I 

wanted to actually show today and I have here in terms of we use 

Kentucky as a model. Kentucky was one of our original States that we 

actually implemented in and it was a State that just took off with a 

vengeance, particularly with those mentors. It was amazing to see what 

they did in their State, in that particular State. When you look at the 

model of Kentucky, we formed the partnership with the Department of 

Education, with law enforcement, with the Attorney Generals, with the 

parent organizations, with the school organizations. We did 120 man 

professional developments in that State, 88 parent programs. And as you 

can see in that State alone there are over 112,000 students that have 

received the curriculum. 
187

 Also looking in terms of the educators on a national perspective, we 

have done almost 2,000 professional developments nationwide and we 

do train the trainers so we form a strategic development, a partnership 

with the Department of Education and it’s institutionalized within their 

school day. 

 And you do not want to forget the parents because the fact is that 

parents they are trying to catch up with what their kids are doing. I was 

on the last two Dateline segments with Chris Hansen on how to catch a 

predator. And the big one that was just on television a few months ago, I 

addressed the issue of parents. And it is not the fact that parents do not 

care, it is just that many parents and including myself grew up in the 

television age, so you cannot grab the concept of can that computer 

really do that? Or, you know, if the computer is upstairs in their 

bedroom, many parents today are thinking, I am really glad that my son 

or daughter is at home, it is 10:30 at night, but the question is who are 

they up there with? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. If you could summarize, Ms. Schroeder. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes. What we have looked at today is the fact 

that kids are having two way communication. We did a project with 

VeriSign and we gave kids their first digital ID and it was called the iSTIK Project. Kentucky participated in that as well. So they see what 

kids are doing with social networking, they are in school, they are doing 

their homework online. And on this particular project what we did there 

are the kids actually had a digital ID, they went to a local area and right 

now what we are working with is YAHOO. We had Myspace contact as 

well regarding, because of the problem that they are having, Microsoft, 

and looking at the fact of being able to give these kids their own digital 

ID so it would authenticate them. So what happens is is that you are in a 

green space where there is other kids. 

 What I would like to do is just show you brief video on the mentor in 

Kentucky. 

 [Video] 

 Thank you very much. 

 [The prepared statement of Teri L. Schroeder follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERI L. SCHROEDER, PRESIDENT/PROGRAM DIRECTOR, I-SAFE

AMERICA, INC. 

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak for inviting me to 

testify before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at the hearing 

entitled “Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and 

Congress Need to Know about Child Predators.” 

Predatory acts against our children are among the most heinous of crimes 

perpetrated within our society. Historically, communities as a collective take deliberate 

and specific actions to protect their children in an effort to prevent these heinous acts. 
188

These protective actions include: education – teaching children to be wary of strangers, to 

recognize and avoid dangerous situations, to cry for help when they feel threatened. 

Our nation is now faced with technological advancements that allow even the 

youngest of children to have access to the Internet. Students today explore the wonders 

of the world by transporting themselves through cyberspace. They can travel to the 

brightest most intellectual domains of the universe and conversely, they may travel to the 

darkest most detestable realms of the human imagination; and they travel this world 

alone. A universal paradigm shift has occurred in the methods and means available to 

child predators in pursuit of their prey; and as such a universal paradigm shift has 

occurred on the preventative tactics that we employ in our efforts to protect our nation’s 

youth against these predators. 

The content of my testimony today will address the ramifications of this universal 

shift as our nation’s youth explore the wonders of the Internet. We truly are a global 

economy and as such our nation’s youth are cyber citizens engaging in online activities. 

Those activities include socialization (two way communication whether that be through 

email, chat or instant messaging), games, shopping, entertainment and education. 

I will be addressing the role of education and youth empowerment and the need to 

empower our nations youth with the appropriate tools to minimize the number of 

predatory acts predicated against them. It is imperative that a proactive well-balanced 

approach be deployed to support the challenge of embracing the activities of our nation’s 

youth online. 

i-SAFE America is dedicated to: 1) implementing a standardized Internet safety 

education program throughout the nation that provides kids and teens with essential tools 

to reduce the risk of their being victimized while engaged in activities via the Internet; 

and 2) launching an Outreach Campaign that empowers students to take control of their 

online experiences and make educated, informed, and knowledgeable decisions as they 

actively engage in cyber activities. From September 2005 through March 2006 i-SAFE 

educated over 1.3 million students nationwide. That number continues to increase 

monthly as the i-SAFE program is expanded throughout school districts. 

The i-SAFE Internet safety curriculum is a teaching and learning experience, which 

incorporates best practices as they are defined by the latest educational research, and 

correlates them to accepted educational standards. This is accomplished by providing a 

broad range of materials and formats which meet a variety of teaching and learning needs 

for students and educators in grades Kindergarten through 12. Topics are centered on upto-date information pertinent to safety issues, which confront today’s youth through 

continuing advances in Internet technology. 

The curriculum creates a successful learning environment through a model of 

integrated critical thinking activities and guided opportunities for youth empowerment. 

Active participation in i-SAFE student activities promotes acquisition of knowledge, 

analysis of online behaviors, construction of solutions to Internet safety problems and 

issues, and involvement in the spread of Internet safety concepts to others through peerto-peer. Through this process, students enhance and enrich their own lives, the lives of 

other students, and the community at large as they engage in creating a safer cyber 

community. 

Our children now live in two diverse worlds: their physical world and the world of 

cyberspace. As such, they essentially live in two cultures that often conflict. Previously, 

many of the lessons learned in the physical world don’t seem relevant in cyberspace as 

these children reach out to strangers as friends. This paradigm shift demands new 

innovative educational programs, and tools, for our children; their parents and the 

community. It is essential that children, as they travel their world of cyberspace alone, be 

provided with the knowledge and tools they need to independently recognize and avoid 

dangerous situations online; to actively engage learned proactive techniques to more 

safely interact with strangers online; to critically appraise situations in which they find 
189

themselves; and to react appropriately when they find themselves in uncomfortable, 

compromising, or threatening situations. 

Students today will be global citizens for the rest of their lives. Students view the 

Internet in a much different way than adults. 

 I would now like to address the “Parents Internet Assumptions” and the “Youth 

Perceptions/Behavior regarding the Internet.” At the time of this report approximately 

100,000 students had participated in the survey process; students participating in our US 

program by grade level were: 

• 15,000 K – 2 students 

• 22,200 grades 3 & 4 

• 62,800 grades 5 – 12 

 The i-SAFE assessment results show that in most cases there is a noticeable 

difference in a student’s participation in risky behavior from grade to grade. Older 

students are more likely to take risks and/or feel safe in the Cyber world. This finding 

reinforces the need to introduce and educate our youth in the early grades. For example: 

When asked if they had visited an “inappropriate” website; 15.5% of 5th graders said yes 

vs. 36% for 10th graders. 

 Relative to gender; males are more prone to visit an inappropriate place on the 

Internet than females (31.3% vs. 18.7%) and are likewise greater risk takers when asked 

if they were willing to meet someone from the Internet “face to face” (19.2% vs. 11.2%). 

Males were more likely to play games as their primary online activity while females were 

more likely to chat or use email. 

Also, based on pre assessment results; it is evident that once a youth enters 

cyberspace there are no significant differences in behavior between ethnic groups. 

Therefore, the Internet has become the great equalizer. 90.4% of students’ in grades 5-12 

and 84% of students’ in grades 3 & 4 have Internet access. And on an average 37% of all 

3rd & 4th graders use some form of Internet communication; that figure rises to the 80-

90% level in the upper grades. Interestingly, about 45% of students in grades 8-10 stated 

that online communications were their main method in keeping in contact with friends. 

In addition students in grades 5 –12 stated that:

• 23% are online for more than 5 hours a week (86% are online at least 3 hour a 

week). 

• 8% have been asked to keep their Internet friendship a secret. 

• 12% have been upset by something that was said by a stranger they met on the 

Internet. 

• 32% have the skills needed to get past filtering software and 20% have actually 

used those skills to get past filtering software. 

Digital Divide Between Parents & Youth 

 There is a gap between what parents say they know and what youth claim they share 

with their parents. In an i-SAFE survey with over 2,000 parents, the vast majority (94%) 

of parents stated they had a pretty good idea about their child’s online behavior. In 

contrast, only 54% of the students said they share where they go and what they do on the 

Internet with parents. Our results also show that these differences between parents and 

students generally increase with increasing age. 
190

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Grade

5

Grade

6

Grade

7

Grade

8

Grade

9

Grade

10

Grade

11

Grade

12

All

DOJ

Grades 5-12 / Digital Divide

% of Parents who stated they knew some or a lot about where their child goes or what she/he does while on the Internet.

% students who stated they share what they do and where they go on the Internet with my parents. 

 Of the parents surveyed, 93% felt that they had set ground rules for their child’s 

online activities. However, the percentage of students acknowledging that their parents 

had established rules for their Internet use drops to 63.7% (see chart below). 

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Grades 5-12 / Digital Divide

% parents or guardians, who stated they have established rules for their child’s Internet activity. 

% of students that stated their parents or guardians have made rules for their use of the Internet. 

 In addition, 21% of the students stated that their parents complained about the 

amount of time they spent on the Internet but 29% also felt that their parents really had 

no idea how much time they were actually spending online. 62% of the parents polled 

indicated that they were NOT concerned about the amount of time their child spends 

online. Interestingly, on average, 25% of the students stated that their parents, on some 

level, would disapprove of their online activities and 13.8% actually keep their Internet 

activities secret from their friends and family. The gap between what youth believes to be 
191

their parent’s level of awareness regarding their online behavior and what parents have 

stated is significant and merits continued attention. 

At Risk Behaviors 

 There are other individual statistics that underscore the need for constant Internet 

safety education. For example, the Internet has become a focus for youth to find 

entertainment, make new friends and make purchases. On an average 29% of the 

students have shared such information when going online. That figure goes up in the 50% 

in the higher grades. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Grade

5

Grade

6

Grade

7

Grade

8

Grade

9

Grade

10

Grade

11

Grade

12

All

DOJ

% of students who have given out personal information (name, email address, age, gender) online (when entering a contest, 

playing online games, signing up for websites). 

 Two other factors compound this issue. More than half of all students prefer to be 

alone when accessing the Internet (see graph below). Combine that desire with a student 

having their own computer in their room (22% overall stated that the computer they use 

is in their bedroom); and students feel empowered or freer to do what they want on the 

Internet than they do in the real world (33%). 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

% of students who like being alone when "surfing" the Internet. 
192

 It should be pointed out that even in the very early grades our youth are being 

exposed to the cyber world. It is folly to suggest, as some have stated, that “kids that are 

young are not Internet savvy.” The vast majority of K-2 teachers (54%) stated that at 

least 50% of their students have used a computer at home and 16% of the teachers 

indicated that at least 50% of their students have used email. A significant number had 

also gone into chat rooms. The age demographics of these students consist of 5, 6, & 7 

years olds. 

 28% of all students in grades 5-12 (43-52% in the upper grades) have downloaded 

music or movies from the Internet. On an average, 65% were against any type of fee 

being charged for the service. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

5 7 9 11 All

Grades

Grade

I Have dow nloaded videos (movies) from the Internet? 

There should not be a fee (money charge) for music or movies dow nloaded from the Internet? 

In real life Kids/Teens spend twice as much time with peers as with parents or other 

adults. However, through the guise of anonymity the Internet provides a medium which 

allows a student to believe that the communication they are having online is a respective 

peer when in many instances it is an adult. Even though students may be aware of the 

dangers inherent in communicating with someone online, we continue to see they make 

decisions about engaging in a behavior as if it were a one-time thing. 

Risk taking is a natural part of kids/teens lives. They take risks in order to grow, 

trying new activities, generating new ideas, experimenting with new roles. However, 

they can also find themselves in trouble with their risk taking. Concern over such risk 

behaviors have led to the creation of many types of intervention. Some of these 

interventions have attempted to manipulate kids/teens beliefs, values and behaviors 

hoping to get them to act more cautiously. Other interventions have attempted to 

improve their stability to make sensible decisions, hoping to get them to make wise 

choices on their own. Having general decision-making skills enable kids/teens to protect 

themselves in many situations. 

Education Makes A Difference 

 The good news is that in-classroom education and outreach efforts do make a 

difference. Students taking i-SAFE post assessments, immediately after completion of 

the i-SAFE curriculum, demonstrated a significant rise in their Internet dispositions. 

84% of students stated an intention to be more careful about where they go and 

what they do on the Internet. 
193

89% indicated that they would be more careful about the email attachments that 

they open. 

88% will be more careful about sharing personal information with those they meet 

in chat rooms and other places on the Internet. 

 

 On an average, 80% of the students polled after completing the i-SAFE program 

were going to be more careful about downloading music from the Internet. However, 

older students were more inclined to download and less concerned about being careful. 

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Intellectual Property

% of students that copy or have copied music from the Internet. 

% of students that will be more careful about the music they download from the Internet. 

 An area that attracts quite a bit of attention is child predation. Our pre assessment 

data shows that on an average about 15% of the youth were willing to meet someone new 

from the Internet “face to face”. After the i-SAFE program 82% of all students stated that 

they would be less likely to meet someone face to face. 

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Meeting Face to Face

I am willing to meet " face to face" with someone new I meet on the Internet. 

I am less likely to meet someone I have met on the Internet " face to face." 
194

 Though individual statistics can be interesting and in some cases alarming, the real 

power of the data lies in the overall trends that reveal the impact of emerging cultural and 

social changes brought about by the Internet. The increasing amount of time spent in the 

Cyber world, the ability to remain “anonymous”, the perceived lack of rules, the ease of 

access; all contribute to a revolution in the way our youth interact with each another, the 

way they make friends, and the social skills they develop. 

 It is widely recognized and accepted that the main activity of kids/teens, as cyber 

citizens, is online two-way communication. That communication consists of chat, email 

and instant messaging. The nucleus of the Internet affords the opportunity of two-way 

communications and inherently the computer does not know whether the users 

communicating are that of a child or an adult. This means of communication allows 

users, regardless of age, gender or socioeconomic status to openly and freely exchange 

ideas and information. Our nation’s youth has now coined a new term for “ hanging out 

with my friends” and actively searching for new friends is done through a click of a 

mouse. 

 Kids/teens rarely “travel” with their parents or a chaperone to many of the online 

areas. Buddy lists and instant messaging has replaced the traditional “telephone and 

phone book.” Without education and the appropriate tools to raise their awareness and to 

empower them to recognize the danger of being alone in a room full of strangers, our 

nations youth will continue to be at risk for exploitation. 

Let me begin by addressing specific examples of how dramatically the protective 

actions that have been employed historically have been impacted by this technologicallyenabled, Internet-driven, paradigm shift. 

Education: Parents teach children to be wary of strangers on the street, in public 

places, and at the front door; but now, the strangers that these children meet – are not on 

the street – they are in cyberspace. And, to the detriment of the parents, many of their 

children are more “Net” savvy than either parent. This inequality of knowledge hinders 

parents in their abilities to address cyber safety issues and to properly instruct their 

children about the dangers of meeting strangers online. 

Historically, when parents taught their children to recognize and avoid dangerous 

situations, those situations were based on tangible, physical elements within their 

community. Now, danger lies in an amorphous cyber-world cloaked in the allusion of 

anonymity. 

Parental Supervision: Many of our children’s activities have dramatically shifted 

from participatory activities (easily supervised by a parent and often enjoyable to watch) 

to solitary activities - engaged through the computer keyboard or joystick - that do not 

lend themselves to easy supervision nor enjoyment by a non-participant (such as a 

parent). Children may spend hours playing solitary games online, or they may play in 

tandem with their cyber friends, or they may even play with total strangers they connect 

with online in an Internet gaming community. 

The Internet has broadened a child’s ability to meet other people and acquire 

“friends.” Historically, children made friends at school, through family acquaintances, 

and from participating in community organizations. A child is no longer confined to the 

local community from which to socialize and gain friends; literally, cyberspace 

eliminates all geographical barriers and frees a child to roam the world in search of that 

one, special “friend.” Predators are also free to roam. 

The degree of difficulty for parents to monitor, or to simply meet, their child’s 

friends has increased tremendously. 

Preventative Tactics: A commonly employed tactic for protecting our children is to 

provide an adult chaperone as our children explore outside of their community. Now, 

children explore the wonders of the world by transporting themselves through cyberspace 

and they travel this world alone, without the care and protection of a chaperone. 
195

Physical Barriers. Historically, parents routinely lock their doors at home each night 

to keep intruders out; schools monitor persons who enter the campus. There are 

innumerable, vulnerable children who are isolated, lonely, and bored who constantly 

search the Internet for other children with whom they can make friends and chat. As these 

children search the web for friends so too the predator searches the web for prey. The 

predator will find the child, the child will find a “friend,” and the outcome will be 

devastating. 

The effectiveness of currently employed physical barriers has been severely 

compromised. Predators lure and seduce their victims from within the privacy of the 

victim’s own home and operate in a world that is no longer constrained by physical 

limitations or geographical barriers. They stalk their prey through cyberspace and the 

ramifications of this universal, paradigm shift are staggering. When taken as a whole 

they can be overwhelming, perhaps paralyzing; but - if ignored - the ramifications will be 

devastating to our youth. To approach any entity of this magnitude and to effect change 

it is advisable to search for a common element, theme; or component against which a 

focused solution may be enjoined. 

Up to this point in my testimony, I have provided insight into the incredible 

paradigm shift that has occurred in our society and how this new paradigm directly 

affects the safety of our children. To illustrate the critical points, I mapped the 

ramifications of this paradigm shift to a common element in cyberspace: two-way 

communication (ie. chat room, instant messaging and email) 

The remainder of my testimony will focus on potential solutions that we as a society 

may embrace as our children extend into the farthest reach of cyberspace; as they interact 

virtually with persons throughout the world and as they evolve as “Net” citizens. 

As Judith F. Krug, Director of the American Library Association’s Office for 

Intellectual Freedom, stated in her testimony before the COPPA Commission on August 

3, 2000: “The children of today will be Net citizens for the rest of their lives. They need 

to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in 

the physical world. Children should be educated in appropriate increments and 

appropriate settings on how to avoid inappropriate Internet content, to report illegal or 

unsafe behavior and to engage in safe interaction online. Children who are not taught 

these skills are not only in danger as children in a virtual world, they also will grow into 

young adults, college students and an American workforce who are not capable of 

avoiding online fraud, Internet addictions and online stalking.” 

It is imperative that any domain that engages in the attraction of kids/teens recognize 

how children actually use the Internet. It is equally important to promote the online 

social activities within the domain to support the academic strategies that teach children 

to make safe and wise choices about using the Internet and to take control of their online 

experiences: where they go, what they see, to whom they talk, and what they do. 

Our nations youth need to be given the tools to assist them in the acquisition of skills 

that will allow them to evaluate independently the information they are acquiring and 

exchanging online. By improving their "information and media literacy," they will 

become safe and responsible cyber citizens thus vitiating the “digital divide” that exists 

today between Youths Perception/Behavior regarding the Internet and those of their 

Parents. 

Currently, both businesses and governmental agencies have begun to embrace 

digital certificate technology as an electronic means for identifying participants in 

transactions that occur online. They leverage this technology as a method for verifying 

and authenticating a person’s electronic identity. The simplest way to view a digital 

certificate is as an electronic ID card. However, digital certificate technology is far from 

simple. Given that the intent of this testimony is to identify and express how technology 

can be used, rather than to define the intricacies of the technology, I will refer to digital 

certificate technology in the simplest terms possible for the reader to understand. 
196

A certification authority issues digital certificates. A certification authority can issue 

various levels of digital certificates that are dependent upon the amount of authentication 

that is required to ensure that the person who is applying for the digital certificate is in 

fact the person that he or she claims to be. In other words, to obtain a digital certificate a 

person must present proof of identity and the “level” of the certificate obtained depends 

upon the amount of proof required. 

Example: Level 1 certificate - any photo ID required 

Level 2 certificate - government issued photo ID required 

Level 3 certificate - government issued photo ID required plus passport or 

birth certificate 

Level 4 certificate - all requirements of Level 3 plus a background check 

Level 5 certificate - DNA 

How could digital certificate technology increase the safety of children who frequent 

a particular chat room or deploy two-way communications on the World Wide Web? 

A public- or private-sector chat room provider could engage digital certificate 

technology as a means for permitting or denying access to any given chat room or online 

area that allows two way communication. Conceivably, a chat room provider could 

institute a policy that only children under the age of 13 are allowed to participate in a 

particular chat room. The intent of this policy is to provide a safer online environment by 

making their “best effort” at excluding adults and potential pedophiles from the chat 

room. To enforce the “under the age of 13” policy, the chat provider would require all 

participants to login using a Level 3 digital certificate. Through the use of the digital 

certificate and the chat provider’s policy of restricting access, the children participating in 

this chat room have a lessened degree of risk than those children that participate in 

unrestricted chat rooms. 

This technology exists and i-SAFE, through the empowerment of our partnership 

with Verisign, has launched the first tool for our nation’s youth, using digital 

certification. The unprecedented Digital Credential program, “i-STIK” works to reduce 

the vulnerability of America’s students in all grades, K-12, with a unique digital 

credential that helps protect students as they engage in two way communications online. 

The Digital Credential is in the form of s small USB Token, which can be carried on 

a key chain and used at school, home; or on any computer with a USB port. The Digital 

Credential allows the kids and teens to enter an age centered chat room, or conduct two 

way communication, with confidence that everyone logged in will be who they say they 

are – chatters actual ages and genders can be confirmed from the digital credential token. 

The digital credential helps to safeguard the integrity of the child’s online experience. 

The digital credential is distributed through the i-SAFE Safe School Program at the 

time of enrollment (with parental consent) helping confirm to parents that this program is 

offered through a trustworthy source. 

The schools database, which remains with the school, provides all the necessary 

information contained on the digital credential and validation is provided to assure that 

the token is valid at the time of usage. Neither i-SAFE or Verisign has access to this 

information. The identity of the student is never disclosed, just the students age and 

gender. The program allows for easy revocation of the credential when the student 

transfers, graduates or is not longer enrolled in the schools. 

I am showing you screen shots of how this new tool will be deployed and the 

interaction between the user and technology. 
197

We currently use digital certificates to execute online financial transactions. 

Businesses use this technology to protect their monetary assets. In September of 2005 

there was a deployment of a pilot project that allowed parents to opt in to have their 

son/daughter be issued their first digital certificated which is being deployed nationwide 

as the “ i-STIK.”. 
198

Protecting our children is at the very heart of this hearing. Thank you Chairman 

Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak for inviting me to testify before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. In my testimony, today, I addressed the 

paradigm shift that has occurred within our society due the advancements in web 

technologies and the advent of two way communications that could be deployed to 

facilitate the establishment of an enjoyable environment for our nations youth. I have 

touched upon one technological approach that i-SAFE is launching to empower our 

nations youth with a “tool” to help protect our children from falling victim to online 

predators. 

In conclusion, there is no single solution for protecting our children. However, the 

value of empowering our children - through “education” – with the knowledge and 

critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day 

situations they will encounter, while online, cannot be overstressed. Children must be 

able to effectively protect themselves from cyber predators, to recognize potentially 

harmful or inappropriate actions, to actively disengage from negative behaviors or 

compromising situations, and to seek help when threatened. These lessons are learned. 

Education and empowerment are key. 
199

References: 

NTIA and Economics and Statistics Administration. A Nation Online: "How Americans 

Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet" published by the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics, and 

Statistics Administration (02/02) 

www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/anationonline2.htm

i-SAFE America student assessment data, 2005 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Schroeder, very much. 

 And Ms. Sullivan you are testifying also. Is that correct? 
200

 MS. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well you are recognized for 5 minutes, Shannon 

Sullivan who is a Teen Angel with WiredSafety. 

MS. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I am Shannon Sullivan. I am 14 and I live in New Jersey. 

 About a year and a half ago, my mom found me posting personal 

information on a social networking site. My photos, address, the school I 

attended was all up on myspace.com for 7 billion people to see. I was 

oblivious at the time that it was not just my friends looking at my page, it 

was anyone who wanted to. So we got into contact with Parry and she 

came to my school and she did a presentation on Teenangels and Internet 

safety and immediately my friends and I wanted to help. We realized 

that what we were doing was unsafe and was not going to help us in the 

long run. So we wanted to reach out and prevent other kids from doing 

what we did. 

 So we went through a long training session. It takes about a year to 

become a Teen Angel and we are now Teenangels. We graduated after 

we became Teenangels. And now we go out to our high school and we 

form other chapters of the Teen Angel Program. And our main goal is to 

spread Teenangels to as many places as we can because the more people 

we have protecting kids, teens, and teaching parents and adults about the 

dangers of Internet, the safer the Internet will be. The Internet is 

everything nowadays. It is like your car. You know, you can go 

anyplace you want on the Internet and when it is used improperly, it can 

be a very scary place. 

 So I saw that there was a big problem with Myspace.com so my 

friends and I wrote a guide, a Teenangels guide to Myspace and it is all 

in chat lingo. You probably did not understand it, but it helped a lot of 

kids because it is a lot easier for teens to understand what you are saying 

when a teen is saying it to you. You know you do not want to listen to 

your parents, you know, oh, do not go with that, do not go on the Internet 

after 10:00. But if your friend is telling you how to be safe on the 

Internet, you will listen a lot more. 

 I really wanted to become a Teen Angel because I thought it was 

very important for me to reach out to those teens who are oblivious as I 

once was. A lot of teens I see are posting very explicit pictures of 

themselves on the Internet and they do not realize how that can hurt them 

when they make goals or when they apply for college. Something they 

did when they were 12 can come back and bite them. And it is very 

scary so if we reach out to them now, then things will be different in the 

future. 

 It is amazing how much Teenangels has impacted my life and other 

people’s lives. As Parry said, I was nominated and honored by Teen 
201

People as one of the top 20 teens who change the world. And when I 

met the other teens who had changed the world, it was an amazing 

experience because I realized that things I do just to help one person be 

safer on the Internet can help a lot more people. 

 YFly is a safe social networking site. I do have a Yfly. It is 

basically like any other social networking site except it is only for 13 

through 18-year-olds. It is a step closer to preventing kids from getting 

in trouble on the Internet. As Teenangels, we work with many 

corporations such as AOL, Disney, Marvel Comics, Microsoft, Yahoo!, 

and Google, and we help them make the Internet and other interactive 

games and cell phones, make them safer. 

 We are all unpaid volunteers and we do this from the bottom of our 

heart. We want to help other teens. We are not just teens who want to 

make a difference, we are teens who make a difference. 

 Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Shannon Sullivan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHANNON SULLIVAN, TEEN ANGEL, WIREDSAFETY

Opening Statement: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to share information about Teenangels, 

WiredSafety.org and how we can protect everyone online. My name is Shannon Sullivan, 

and I am 14 years old from New Jersey. I have been a Teenangel for one year. I became 

one after my mother found out I had a MySpace. 

I have recently been honored by Teen People Magazine as a representative of 

Teenangels for our role in helping change the world. That is a big challenge. But it is one 

that teens can live up to. 

Teenangels are more than teens who learn how to use the Internet and other 

interactive technologies more safely. They are experts who advise many leading 

corporations. They have become well-known for their special insight into technology 

from a teen’s perspective. Teenangels now advise major corporations on Internet and 

technology uses, including Disney, the CTIA, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo!, Marvel and 

others. They assist law enforcement agencies in designing more effective undercover 

investigation methods. They work with large industry groups, such as the Motion Picture 

Association of America, in building educational programs and public service messages. 

They have helped create safer interactive gaming technologies, safer cell phone 

features and more secure social networking programs. They have hosted briefings at the 

House of Parliament, conducted training for law enforcement agencies and written 

articles for leading magazines. They do presentations within their community for parents, 

students and senior citizens on safe use of the Internet and new interactive technologies. 

They spend a great deal of time on Internet sexual predators issues, anti-piracy and 

cyberbullying. We teach good cybercitizenship and responsible technology use, not only 

safety and privacy. 

Teenangels are 13-18 year olds who train in all aspects of Internet and interactive 

technology safety, security and responsible use. (Tweenangels is the younger and lighter 

version of Teenangels, comprised of 9 to 12 year olds.) Once we are trained by Parry 

Aftab, leading law enforcement agencies and industry leaders around the world, these 

special teen experts create their own programs to teach safe and responsible technology 

use. 
202

Some Teenangels are technological experts, creating animations, Flash applications, 

videos and computer games that help deliver their messages. Others concentrate on law 

and policy. Many have good public speaking, research or writing skills. The best thing 

about Teenangels is that it helps young people develop their own talents and help others 

at the same time. 

We challenge teens and preteens, "Think you know more than most adults about the 

Internet? Share what you know, and learn more from the experts. Be part of the solution. 

Be a Teenangel!" 

It is important that we teach young people that being safe isn’t lame. That it’s not 

cool to pretend you were out drinking all weekend, or to pose in your bra online. Many 

teens and preteens are lying about their ages to use social networking websites. And 

when they are there, they are often doing high risk things. But, it’s important that parents 

understand that most teens and preteens are using the technology safely and responsibly. 

We just need to address them in our own language. 

Recently, Teenangels began working with Nick Lachey. When Parry wasn’t able to 

attend a luncheon with Teen People introducing me (she was in Spain launching her new 

book), Nick came instead. He learned that Internet sexual predators were using his name 

to lure teens into sending sexual pics online. Since he first met Parry he has donated his 

time to helping us keep kids safer. He is even helping us with public service 

announcements and a fun new animated educational series we are producing using 

Teenangels to teach safer and more responsible technology use. 

Teenangels is now working with Nick’s new site, YFly.com, to help create a safer 

teen social networking site. We helped create Don’t Be Stupid to teach teens that 

engaging in reckless behavior online is stupid, not cool. 

As Teenangels, we have the mission of helping make the Internet safer. We need 

your help to do that. First I would like to thank you for helping us by providing funding. 

We just received an earmark from Congress, through the Department of Justice, for 

$50,000. Since Teenangels hold bake sales and wash cars to raise money for our 

programs, this will change our world. We cannot thank you enough! 

Next, I would like to share our wish list and thoughts about what we can all do to 

help keep young people safer online..... 

Thank you for your time and caring enough to hold this hearing. And thank you for 

taking the time to listen to teens. It’s nice to be included. And I will remember this day 

forever. On behalf of all my fellow Teenangels and Tweenangels, thank you. 

Shannon Sullivan, age 14 

Teenangels.org 
203

Appendixes 

Appendix A: (from Teenangels.org) 

Safety Tips From the Mouths of Teenangels 

(The Real Experts)... 

While we have more extensive safety tip lists in Parry’s book, here is a summarized 

version of the tips we thought were most important! 

As Teenangels, safety is our biggest concern. So here are some tips and ideas that 

we and others have to share. Some of the best suggestions come from TEENS, just like 

you! 

If you have a safety tip or story of something that has happened to you and how you 

handled it, please send it to us. We would love to hear from you! Email Teenangels. 

Thoughts for Parents, Teens & Kids from the Teenangels 

Parents... Don’t be afraid of the Internet. It’s an extremely useful tool & can’t be 

dismissed because it is new & sometimes confusing. The Internet can be an excellent way 

for you & your children to bond & share a common interest. Be open with your kids & 

get involved. Most of all, learn all that you can about being safe, keeping your child safe, 

& taking advantage of the Internet’s myriad uses. Tell your children not to be afraid to 

come to you with problems of any kind. 

Teenagers...Although the Internet is a great way to meet new people, do research, 

and chat with friends, there are dangers. Be aware of these dangers. Always use common 

sense. Although you may think that bad things won’t happen to you, they most certainly 

can. Be open with your parents about what you do online. Don’t meet people offline that 

you met online! Make sure a site is secure and trustworthy before giving in your personal 

information. Obey the law and don’t steal music, motion pictures and software! Balance 

the time you spend online and offline. Remember your friends in real life and don’t take 

them for granted. Go outside & enjoy life beyond cyberspace. 

Kids... While it’s great to chat with people in kid-safe chat rooms online, you should 

spend time with friends in real life. School, family, & friends should always come before 

the Internet. Always tell your parents about what you do online. Let them sit with you, & 

teach them about the Internet. When they do sit with you, don’t get mad at them. Just 

know they care about you & don’t want to see you hurt in any way. Always remember 

that people online don’t always tell the truth. Don’t give out a lot of information about 

yourself. If anything bad ever happens to you on the Internet, always tell your parents or 

someone you trust. Always remember that it’s never your fault. 
204

Appendix B: Don’t Be Stupid! 

For Teens: 

Don’t Be Stupid! 

What you need to know about cyberdating and 

staying safe 

The Downers: 

You never really know who someone is online. They 

may sound hot and their pic may be even hotter, but 

they could be someone you don’t expect. They could 

be your little brother’s snotty 12-year old friends 

having fun at your expense. Or three 15-year old mean girls posing as a heart throb to set 

you up for humiliation. Or they could be some 47 year old pervert. Either way, who 

needs it? 

And even if it is a cute 16-year old guy or girl, there is no guarantee that when things are 

over, that sexy pic you shared with them won’t end up on some website or profile 

somewhere. Or they could use the password you shared with them to change your profile, 

pose as you and harass your friends or even lock you out of your own account. Or they 

could cyberbully, flame, cyber-harass or cyberstalk you or your friends...When you 

breakup, all bets are off! 

The Buck Stops Here...You Need to Protect Yourself Online

Smart teens have been fooled by slimy adults posing as teens. There is no safe way to 

meet someone you only know online, (with maybe from a few phone calls to help), in 

RL. If you’re thinking about meeting someone, think again. Talk to your friends. Check 

out Katiesplace.org and learn about how others have been hurt by adults posing as teens. 

Smart teens like you. Don’t do it! 

We can’t emphasize this enough! But, we also know that if you are convinced that this is 

a cute 16 year old boy or girl is the love of your life and destined for you from birth, you 

may ignore this advice and plan on meeting them in RL. If you are intent on taking this 

risk, do what you can to minimize it. Make sure you follow these Don’t Be Stupid tips: 

1. Don’t disclose too much personal info. Start by assuming that the person on the other 

end is a predator. That means no full names, street addresses, RL schedules or telephone 

numbers that can be reverse searched (check it out online or where you work, or similar 

info about your friends that can be used to find you offline. It’s always a good idea to use 

a disposable e-mail address or IM account, something you set up just for this and that you 

can drop if things start going downhill (like yahoo, hotmail or MSN.) Make sure that this 

new screen name doesn’t give away any information about who you are in RL either 

(Tiff1991@[fill in the blank]). 

2. Play detective. Photos can give away more information than you ever intended. 

Things in the background of the photo, like the license plate on your car, your house, the 

store where you work, the school or camp sweatshirt you’re wearing or a pic with you in 

front of your school can be risky. So can photos posted by your friends. While you may 

be very careful about what you are sharing online, they may not be as careful. If you link 

to their profile and haven’t told anyone where you live, but they post their best friends 
205

(including you), everyone can now figure out what town you live in and where you go to 

school. They just need to cross-reference a bit. The same thing happens with everything 

you or your friends post. Look over your profile and the profile of your friends. If you 

were a detective for Law & Order, could you find yourself in RL? If so, change whatever 

is giving too many clues away. Password protect it and guard your password, and ask 

your friends to do the same. Start a rule - never post info about a friend or their pic 

without asking first. 

3. Say Cheese! There are three issues about pics online - posting something you’ll regret, 

shooting a lame pic or posting a pic that can be abused or misused by others. Sometimes 

to get attention, teens pose in provocative ways or snap a pic when they are doing things 

their parents would not want to see. Unfortunately, parents do see them. And so do 

principals and predators (and shortly college admission staff). 

We all know that lame "MySpace" pose - bad lighting, cheeks sucked in, lips pursed, 

head tilted up, with a flash in the mirror. :-) Is that really how you want to be 

remembered? 

Putting your best foot forward and using a good pic or a fun one is much better than 

doing the "I am so hot I can’t stand it" pose. Boys posing shirtless and trying to make 

their pecs look bigger by crossing their arms underneath them, or girls posing in a bikini 

top (or worse) or very low cut pants will get you attention. But not the attention you may 

want. And cyberharassment where an innocent G-rated pic is manipulated and used to 

make you look bad or to morph your head on someone else’s naked body is 

commonplace. You can avoid that by using photo-editing software to pixilate or blur the 

image, turn it into a sketch or cartoon, sepia or black and white. This makes your photos 

harder to abuse and less attractive to the harasser or a predator. 

Our new Best Food Forward (BFF) tips teach you how to make the impression you want 

to make, without being lame or stupid. You can read about them at Teenangels.org or at 

our Don’t Be Stupid tips at YFly.com. These will help you come across the way you want 

to online. 

4. Look for the red flags. Beware of others online who: 

• ask too many questions 

• post things that don’t make sense 

• move too fast 

• promise you ridiculous things (if it seems too good to be true, it’s not true!) 

• like everything that you like, exactly the way you like it 

• know too much about you 

• engage in cybersex 

• just don’t feel right or make you uncomfortable 

• are evasive 

• can’t keep their story straight 

• initiate sexual conversation or innuendo 

• don’t know the things most teens know (just know the experienced predators 

make it their business to know these things) 

• pressure you to send sexy pics or meet in RL 

• give you the creeps 
206

5. ThinkB4UClick. It’s so easy to do things online that you would never do in RL. You 

don’t have to look the other person in the eye. No one else is there to tell you to cool it. 

You are stronger, smarter, more empowered and braver online. You may not like your 

coach, principal or former best friend or boy or girl friend. 

You take their pic and morph it onto someone else’s naked body. You post sex ads using 

their name and contact info. Maybe you take a pic of them with your cell phone in a 

locker room, bathroom, at a slumber party or in the changing room at the Gap. You build 

a profile telling everyone what a slut they are, or post these pics online anonymously. Or 

you send sexual images of yourself to someone you like, thinking they will want to go 

out with you if they see how sexy you are. They don’t, but share the pic with their fifty 

nearest and dearest friends - who show it to their friends and so on and so forth.... 

You think no one can find you, trace you or figure out who you are (you’re wrong!). 

There is nothing between your impulse and your click...no time to think about it, no time 

to calm down. No time to use the "filter between your ears." 

You are also typing fast and aren’t proofreading your text-messages, IM or posts, and 

often send it to the wrong person on your buddy list or misspell their screen name. You 

may forget to type in "jk" or the word "not." You may find yourself in trouble without 

knowing why. Think R-E-S-P-E-C-T! (Now do it like Aretha, with lots of style!) Taking 

that extra second to make sure you send it to the right person, aren’t misunderstood and 

are willing to be accountable for what you are doing and saying online is crucial. It will 

save you lots of grief later! 
207

Appendix C 

For Teens: 

Finding Love in all the Cyberplaces...Don’t Be Stupid!

If you decide to meet someone in-person, and ignore everything we taught you -- at least 

follow these tips and trust your gut. If something feels wrong, get out of there and report 

it. And remember that about 30% of the victims are boys. They just don’t report it. So be 

careful! 

1. Go public. Find out what they will be wearing and arrange for a place to meet. Then 

get there early and stake things out. The idea is to spot them before they spot you. Make 

sure that you meet in a well-lighted public place. It should be big and public enough so 

you can he help if you needed it, but not so big, crowded and noisy that you wouldn’t be 

heard or couldn’t get help. Don’t meet in an amusement park, where screaming is part of 

the scenery. A mall is a good choice, but sit back and watch and see who shows up. If 

they are not what was promised, run...do not walk...home, to the security office or to the 

local police department. Make sure someone calls the police. 

Never meet at your place or theirs. Never get in a car with them. Go with lots of friends 

(preferably Sumo wrestlers). Ignoring these tips could cost you your life. Really. Several 

smart teens have been killed in the US over the last four years by people they met online. 

Don’t become a victim. 

2. Bring backup. If you are going to meet, bring a lots of friends (preferably big ones :-

)), and someone where you are going. Leave information about the person you are 

meeting. The bad guys will try and get you to erase the e-mails or bring your laptop or 

hard drive with you, so they can destroy the evidence. Best case scenario, trust your 

parents or another adult family member. This has saved more than one teen from being 

kidnapped, raped or killed. 

3. Find your own ride. Don’t accept a ride from them or offer a ride to them...even if 

they appear to be cute and cuddly. Stay in control of where you go and how you are 

going to get there and back. Bring a cell phone and make sure it’s charged. Have others 

check in on you too. 

4. Take it slow. Even if that’s not your style, make it your style for any cyberdating 

situations. Just because they have told you their favorite bands, movies and food doesn’t 

mean you have any idea who they really are. Treat it like a first date. It will feel weird at 

first. You feel closer than you would on a first date. They will know lots of things about 

you that you have shared. Often very personal things. But start from scratch. Don’t move 

faster than you are comfortable doing and don’t feel pressured. Keep others around for 

awhile as you get to know each other and trust your instincts. 

5. Rat on the Creep! Your parents will kill you if they found out you met someone from 

the Internet in RL. But if you don’t report it to someone, this creep may kill some teen in 

reality! Most of the time when police arrest an Internet sexual predator, they find lots of 

e-mails on their computer threatening to call the police if they bothered the teen one more 

time. Had someone actually called the police, another teen might have been saved. Even 

if you won’t tell your parents, find a way to report the creep. Check out Katiesplace.org 

for ways you can do that and more safety tips and real stories about real teens. 
208

copyright 2006, Parry Aftab, all rights reserved. For permission to reprint this, contact 

Parry at Parry@wiredsafety.org. 
209

Appendix D

For Teens: 

Finding a Better Faith 

A fictional account... 

I thought I had met my dream guy. I really did. Now, I see where my mistake was, 

sure. It was in believing what I saw in the movies and on television. Believing what I 

read in magazines about true love and soul mates. I believed in the Madison Avenue 

picture of love, romance and happily ever after, and glossy views of happiness and 

popularity. I was taught these things my whole life by my everyone I knew and from 

books, movies, and songs. I was told that if I were good enough, thin enough, charming 

enough, pretty enough, and exciting enough my life would be fulfilling, happy and 

exciting. But no one ever tells you how dangerous this blind belief can be. 

When I was a freshman in high school, I was miserable. I lived in one of those 

towns where the same kids are in your grade all the way through school, so everyone gets 

to know each other pretty well. They knew me in middle school when I had acne and bad 

clothing and was shy and self-conscious. And then I grew out of that, but no one much 

noticed. I know I was pretty in the year or two before I died because people started 

noticing me – people who didn’t go to my school, who didn’t remember how I used to be 

awkward. 

And it felt good. I felt different and happy and hopeful. I thought to myself that 

maybe now I would have a boyfriend. Maybe he just couldn’t find me before because I 

was shy and awkward, and it’ll definitely happen now that I’m in high school and all the 

older boys can see how pretty I had become in the last few years. But it didn’t. No one 

looked at me any differently than they ever had and I got depressed. I thought to myself 

that high school might just be middle school again – that maybe nothing would be 

different and I would have to go through three more years of being lonely and waiting 

until something better happened. For a while, I got resigned myself to this fate and then 

something changed and I got up one morning and said no. I think I said it out loud, 

actually, it’s kind of funny to think of now. I decided that I would say no to this fate – 

that I wouldn’t be alone and I wouldn’t be miserable – not anymore. I decided that I 

would meet someone and I would have a boyfriend within a month or two – do or die – 

that I would take my life into my own hands. And that I did. 

I started going online and searching for people to talk to – people who would be 

more mature and would understand me. I sorted through people’s profiles on Friendster 

and Xanga.com and set up my own. And then I met someone, and it was just as easy as I 

ever dreamed it could be. We IMed for hours, about everything and I felt, for the first 

time, that someone really understood me. Sounds pretty silly now. We talked about our 

families, our dreams, books that had changed us – everything. I thought I was falling in 

love. I knew I had found “the one.” I was the lucky one, and had found my soul mate 

early. 

When he asked me if I wanted to meet, at first I said no, that I didn’t know him well 

enough. He didn’t push it, and instead, we started talking on the phone. He had a very 

deep voice, which didn’t surprise me because he said he was 18, but it probably should 

have. Anyway, a month later he said he had to meet me. He said he couldn’t’ stand it 

anymore – that he loved me – and said that if I wouldn’t meet him he would come find 

me because if he didn’t see me he’d die. In the end, it didn’t quite work that way, though. 

I realized that my parents would kill me if a random guy showed up at the house 

looking for me. I couldn’t have that happen, so I agreed to meet him. It was stupid, I 

know, but I was told more time than one that it’s okay to do stupid things when you’re in 

love. 
210

I met him at the mall, in the food court. He was 37, not 18. I started crying and told 

him that he lied to me and I never wanted to see him again. I felt betrayed, and confused. 

He handed me the rose he had brought and a book of poems. I just stared at them, having 

problems separating the 18 year old I knew so well, form this man standing in front of me 

with tears rolling down his cheeks. 

While he cried quietly, he told me that he loved me so much – that he knew I would 

never date him if I knew how old he was, which is true. I worked up the courage to leave. 

But he started making a big scene – pleading with me not to leave him. Telling me how 

much he loved and appreciated me, when no one else did. I was afraid someone I knew or 

who my family knew might see so I agreed – his last request – to go outside to talk. 

He said he had a present for me in his car, and could he just give it to me. I said ok, 

probably the stupidest thing anyone’s ever done. He clamped his hand over my mouth so 

no one could hear the screams. Then he pushed me in his car, throwing a blanket over me 

and holding me down so no one could see. He poured some smelly chemical over the 

blanket near my face. At first I held my breath, but finally had to take a breath. I knew I 

was in trouble, and felt dizzy immediately. I must have passed out. I don’t know how 

long it was before I woke up, and realized this wasn’t a horrible dream. It was real. He 

took me someplace in the woods, dragged me from the car and tied me up. He beat me, 

while he raped me, crying and telling me he loved me the whole time. I felt like my 

insides were being ripped out. That was how I lost my virginity. And my innocence. And 

more. 

I still feel like its all my fault. Why did I believe him? Why did I believe that 

anybody normal could be that into me? Even after all this time, the only answer I can 

come up with is that I had believed in make-believe. If I hadn’t wanted to fall in love so 

badly, if I hadn’t needed someone wanting me to validate how I felt about myself, I 

wouldn’t have let my judgment get clouded. I would probably be alone in my room, 

depressed, but I’d be better off than I am now. 

So believe in happily ever after, but reality too. It’s okay to be hopeful because life 

would be too hard without it. But don’t let it cloud your better judgment. Have faith in 

yourself and don’t waste it on people who may or may not love you or save you or 

complete you. And don’t trust people – at least for a while, at least till you know who 

they really are and what they are capable of. And never just because you talk with them 

online and on the phone and think you know them. Love and loneliness don’t excuse 

stupid behavior, and they certainly don’t buy you another chance to fix it. 

I will never know what could have happened in my life – who I could have met or 

what I might have done, because he killed me before leaving my body for some hikers to 

find weeks later. I was almost unrecognizable. My parents had to identify me, and the 

hair, clothes and complexion I worked so hard to make perfect weren’t even identifiable 

anymore. I was ashamed that I had done this to my parents, and my little sister, and most 

of all to myself. 

My friends didn’t envy my “kewl” new life. They, instead, mourned me, and even 

my dearest friends talked about how “stupid” I was. 

My little sister couldn’t stop sobbing. She held my hand, and clung to the casket 

when they tried to take it out of the church. I tried to hold her hand back, but nothing 

happened. I wanted to reach out and comfort her. But from now on, she wouldn’t have a 

big sister to do that anymore. She couldn’t climb into my bed and tell me about her kitten 

and why she wanted to be “just like me” when she grew up. 

I hope she wouldn’t be just like me. I hope she is smarter than I was, and not as 

trusting. Not as naive 

I wish I had a second chance. I wish I could warn others about this kind of thing. But 

I can’t. I’m dead. 

This “love of my life”, my “soul mate” didn’t only rob me of my innocence and any 

chance at happiness – I’ll never know if I could have made it. I never got a fair shot. If 
211

you’re in the same situation I was in, I can’t say if it’ll ever get better, or if you’ll ever be 

successful, or rich, or pretty, or lose the weight, or get the guy, but I can say you better 

hang around and try, because I’d do just about anything for the second chance. A chance 

to find someone real. A chance to know if I could have been happy. 
212

Appendix E 

About Teenangels from a school technology director in Wisconsin: 

About 5 years ago, I got a phone call from one of the parents in our school district 

asking that her daughter’s Internet and email privileges be revoked. She decided that her 

daughter would no longer be allowed to be part of the “Cyber World.” 

When I spoke more with this parent, I learned that the daughter had been harassed 

online. She had given out personal information and was now receiving inappropriate 

emails and phone calls at her home. 

I immediately looked for resources online to help this family. The Internet is such 

an incredible resource – I wanted to find a way to convince the family that education 

regarding Internet use was a better solution than instituting a complete ban for their high 

school daughter. 

As a result of my searches, I happened on information about Parry – I contacted her 

and she agreed to speak at a school assembly with a parent information meeting to 

follow. After Parry’s talk, I literally had a line of students in my office – these students 

wanted to help other teens to be safe online. From that group, our TeenAngel chapter 

was started. 

The Teens devoted an entire Spring Break to intensive training and the rest is 

history. Our TeenAngel chapter works to educate Teens (and parents) about online 

safety. We have a “Tech” division that works on programming and helps community 

members with problems ranging from P.C. trouble to instructions on virus removal. 

Our teens are highly motivated and highly technologically savvy. Among other 

things, our group has attended the Wired Kids Summit in Washington D.C. working with 

legislators and corporate executives to help make the Internet a safer place for kids. One 

of our teens was featured on “The John Walsh Show” in their “Hometown Hero” 

segment. Locally, our teens have presented to numerous school, church, and parent 

groups as well as presented at state conferences focusing on issues relevant to Teens. 

This is a great program. In our high school, it has become a place and program for 

our “Tech” guys to devote their energy and talent. 
213

Appendix F 

From Katiesplace.org, written by one of our Teenangels who wants to teach others how 

to avoid being victimized in the way she had been. 

When Your Mentor Becomes Your Tormentor - Alicia’s Story 

You never notice yourself growing. It’s so gradual, so smooth a process that the 

daily or even monthly changes are simply undetectable. Mirrors don’t help – its only in 

comparing photographs, in seeing yourself at different stages, that one can notice the 

differences. 

My relationship online with Mac grew just that slowly. When we were first 

introduced online, he was courteous and interested and subtle, none of those childish IMs 

which are so common, among young teens, flaunting their new-found sexuality like so 

many new toys. He didn’t try to have cyber sex with me, didn’t make crude comments or 

ask me to go on the webcam. It doesn’t work like that. He was thoughtful and gentle and 

nice, and, of course, entirely deceptive, and so we became friends. Just friends. And it 

was all very innocent - for a time. 

It was in the slowest, least noticeable way that he eased me into a more intimate 

relationship online. He was an expert, but, of course, I didn’t know that at the time. The 

way the conversation moved into more personal territory never felt threatening because it 

moved so slowly. We would talk for a few minutes more each day, about something a 

little more personal each day, and some days we could talk about nothing personal at all. 

He never pushed, never insisted and so convinced me that I wanted to tell him personal 

things, or ‘parrot’ those things that he so wanted to hear from me. And I did. 

So we talked about everything – not just the sexual stuff. He was interested in me, as 

a person – my thoughts, my goals, my relationships with friends and family members. He 

gave me adult advice and always took my side. He was my advocate, unconditionally, at 

a time in my early teenage life where that was just what I needed. School was: well it was 

school, mean girls and nasty boys and everyone trying to be all that they’re not- And my 

family and I, were very close, but we didn’t always see eye-to eye about everything, 

sometimes they just seemed to think that I was still a child. But there was always Mac, 

and I could count on him to see things my way Always online. Always ready to talk. 

Always on my side. It was the most comforting thing imaginable. 

Soon enough, he wasn’t just someone that I could trust, he became the someone I 

needed – I began to believe that he was the only one I could depend on to understand the 

real me, which is exactly what he wanted, of course. Somehow, in this process, this 

grooming of me, he had changed me, had destroyed my ability to reason. Imagine, I 

walked out the door, right out of my own front door into the darkest iciest winter night, 

with no money and no coat, to meet a madman who I thought was my best friend. 

Was I crazy? No. Was I duped? Entirely. When I review it all, comparing my mental 

photographs of our relationship at different times, I think, how could it have happened? 

How could my sanity, my reason, my mental state have decayed like that – how did he 

make me shrink away to nothing? How could I have gone from being a smart, sane girl 

having casual conversations with an online friend to doing something I would have sworn 

I could never do –who... shy timid little me?—never!!!!- meeting a total stranger in the 

dark, cold night – leaving home in the middle of a happy, loving, family holiday meal? 

My only answer is that I wasn’t crazy – I was just under the spell of an incredibly skillful 

manipulator who knew that slow and steady wins the race – or at least the hearts of young 

girls. He took me apart and put me back together and bit by bit, day by day, byte by byte, 

he became the focus of my life and the one who understood me best. Why wouldn’t I 

want to meet someone like that IRL? It felt right. 

And yet it was so wrong. The moment he persuaded me into the car, I immediately 

knew that I was in trouble. I knew. I had this terrible sinking feeling in the pit of my 
214

stomach as we drove down my street, out of my neighborhood, and then, onto the 

turnpike. Trapped “Quiet” he said. “Let’s keep the trunk empty.” I kept my eyes cast 

down, stealing quick furtive glances up at him from the corners of my eyes. Somehow, I 

instinctively knew that he was like a savage beast, and that I had only to make full eye 

contact to engage his anger, to force him to attack. I stared down at his shoes as we 

drove. At his pants, his socks, I studied them, eyes cast down. I could describe it all to 

you today – that image, that feeling, trapped ...it will haunt me forever. Those hours 

sitting there, the waiting.... 

What terrible fate awaited me when we arrived at his home? I never envisioned 

anything as terrible as the reality. When we arrived at his home it was – worse than even 

I had imagined it could be. It was way worse than a bad after-school movie. It was Friday 

the 13th and Texas- Chainsaw-Massacre! And he had it planned – days before, maybe 

months before, maybe the first time we ever spoke. I was stripped, tortured, beaten. .... 

Raped. Those words still stick to the roof of my mouth and are glued thickly to my 

tongue. I listened through the windows to cars passing by, to the voices of neighboring 

families going out for lunch and to the mall and coming home again at night, yet there I 

remained, collar around my neck, chained to a post, naked. This was me at age 13. 

Waiting for death. How would he do it? Would he stab me, would I bleed to death, my 

blood adding yet another stain to the filthy carpet” Would he beat me to death with whips 

and fists, chained helpless, unable to defend myself? 

Into this morbid fantasy, unbidden, a fairy tale that my mother had read to me while 

tucked warm and safe into my silken little ‘blankie’ kept flashing into my mind. The one 

of an Arabian slave girl held captive by her master. The tale unfolds that at the moment 

her stories ceased to entertain him, to amuse him - then he would kill her, with this in 

mind, the helpless slave fought for her life with the only weapon she had - her mind... 

And she became my inspiration. I would persevere, I would not die. My captor would not 

win this battle. I knew that my family loved me, that they would move heaven and earth 

to find me. But I had to stay alive until they did. So I struggled, silently, determined to 

win back the life I had left behind. My life that somehow had seemed to become so 

empty, so sad... why? I understood now, in those cold hours alone, waiting for the 

monster’s return, it all began to come clear. I wanted my life back! I wanted to feel my 

mom’s gentle kisses good-night and my dad’s crushing hugs, I wanted to run outside into 

the sun, to add my voice to the other happy children’s, far, far away from the dark 

coldness of his dungeon. I wanted to experience anything – anything - except what was 

happening to me. I desperately wanted to live! 

So I waited it out. I prayed. It might not seem, to you, like the most courageous 

thing to do – I didn’t fight him, didn’t engage his anger. But, somehow, I knew that he 

would kill me, throw me away like trash in some cold shallow grave if I resisted 

anymore. He enjoyed my pain. So, I just wasn’t there I left – mentally anyway. This 

wasn’t happening to me. I escaped into my head and tried desperately to hang on to my 

sanity. It took my whole being to merely breathe. One breath at a time I waited for my 

death. I knew that one wrong move would cost me my life and so I simply waited, telling 

myself “today, yeah today they’ll find me... rescue me,” convincing myself that this 

would not be how it all ends, that my parents would not find their only daughter’s dead 

and battered body in this evil man’s filthy house. I couldn’t, I wouldn’t, let it end that 

way. So I resolved to live. Breath by breath. Moment by moment. 

And I did. I made it through, a miracle of survival, when so many other girls have 

been less fortunate. And I can’t say if it was faith, or luck, or personal resolve that saved 

me. And it doesn’t really matter. I truly feel that something greater than myself has 

directed me. I am alive. I was given the second chance that so many others had been 

denied. 

I promised myself in those dark and painful days and endless nights that if I were 

spared, if I were given a second chance at life, I would share my horror, to teach others - 
215

maybe you - how to avoid becoming his next victim. I would help them understand that 

the mentor you thought you found online might become the tormenter who steals your 

heart, your innocence and your faith in mankind. And ultimately, your life..... Mac 

failed. While the emotional and physical scars may last a lifetime, he didn’t shake my 

faith in myself or in mankind. He may have stolen days, weeks, months, he may have 

taken my childhood, but the rest of my life is mine. And I have reclaimed it. I will not 

allow him to torment me anymore. Only I have the power to control my future. I refuse to 

be defined by his betrayal of my trust, by his cruel sadistic acts or by those dark days, 

however devastating they may have been. I have a mission and an important role to play. 

I want to inspire others to move on, past their exploitation, to find their own life mission. 

I was spared and given a second chance. And I don’t intend to waste it. I will continue to 

speak to young people and dedicate my life to helping catch criminals, like Mac. I am 

also helping, here, to build KatiesPlace.org and as a volunteer with WiredSafety.org and 

others. 

So, please don’t remember me as the girl who was torn, twisted, confused, lured 

abducted and abused. Remember me for what I will accomplish. Please don’t let this 

tragedy define me. I am so much more than that. And so are you. Join me in this mission. 

Together we can change the world, one child, and one life at a time. You can read about 

miraculous rescues and the dedicated and courageous men and woman responsible for 

bringing victimized children to safety here at KatiesPlace.org. And you can e-mail me 

through this site. Please, be safe...be aware...

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well thank you very much Ms. Sullivan, we 

appreciate your testimony and look forward to asking you some 

questions later on. 

 Mr. Sallam, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening 

statement and thanks for being with us today. 

MR. SALLAM. Thank you, sir. 

 As you know, my name is Moni Sallam. I am a ninth grader at 

Riverdale High School in Howard County. The Internet has opened up a 

new world of opportunity and dangers for kids today. On the plus side, 

we have instant access to any information, music, cultures, and 

opportunities that probably would have taken you months to access if at 

all when you were a kid. On the negative side, kids can talk to anyone 

they know or do not know at any time of the day or night. Kids are 

contacted on a daily basis by people they do not know. School bullies do 

not just find you at recess, they taunt you at any time of the day or night 

and they get others to join in too. 

 The major problem is that due to a lack of education, kids make bad 

decisions while online. Kids give out their personal information, they 

share pictures of themselves with people they do not know, and they 

download music illegally. That is the reality of kids today. Online 

predators know this and use the Internet to lure kids to danger. 

 It is all about education. Just like other safety issues like bike and 

water safety, education is the only way to help kids behave responsibly 

online. A perfect example is if you ask kids or teens if they would ever 

get into a car with a stranger, probably 100 percent of them would say 
216

no. The reason is that we are told from the time we are old enough to 

play outside never to talk to strangers, never to get near a car with 

strangers. Kids know to look both ways before crossing the street. They 

know to wear helmets when riding a bike because we are taught these 

things from an early age. On the other hand, if you ask kids or teens if 

they would ever meet a stranger in person who they met online, an 

alarming number of them would say they saw nothing wrong with it. 

 Although informed people know that the Internet is a new way 

predators lure kids to danger and there are plenty of examples of 

tragedies that have happened to kids who met predators online. In my 

county alone, predators have been arrested for pretending to meet kids 

and trying to lure other kids to meet them. This is happening across the 

Nation. Internet safety education from an early age is required to change 

attitudes and behavior. Internet safety education is key to changing if 

you are going to be online. That is why i-SAFE is doing an amazing job. 

i-SAFE empowers kids like me with the decision tools we need to keep 

us safe and act responsibly online. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Sallam. How old are you by 

the way? 

 MR. SALLAM. I am 14. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Oh, yeah. 

 And Ms. Sullivan, you have graduated from high school or-- 

 MS. SULLIVAN. No, from grammar school. I am 14 also. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. You are 14. So having-- 

 MS. AFTAB. Very articulate. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah, I almost felt guilty asking them how old 

they were after our subject matter here today, but how did you two come 

in contact with WiredSafety and i-SAFE? Ms. Sullivan, how did you 

become aware of WireSafety? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. Well my mom is a computer teacher at the grammar 

school I attended and she got in contact with Parry and Parry came to my 

school to do a presentation on Internet safety because a lot of my friends 

were posting personal information on the Internet using Myspace.com. 

So once she came, she told us very frightening stories about kids who 

listed personal information, who talked to strangers on the Internet, and 

she made us aware of the dangers that we were putting ourselves in. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So were you shocked from what she said? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. I was sitting on the edge of my seat. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Were you? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. Yes. 
217

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you feel like or do you or some of your friends 

maybe had been contacted by predators but you had not really proceeded 

with them or-- 

 MS. SULLIVAN. None of my friends have but I have many stories of 

people who have so I think that is why it is our job to aware these teens 

of what they are doing and how to keep themselves safe. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And did you make contact on the Internet with 

people you really did not know or-- 

 MS. SULLIVAN. No, I only used the Internet to talk to my friends. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Sallam, what about you? How did you 

become aware of i-SAFE? 

 MR. SALLAM. I first became aware of i-SAFE when I was in seventh 

grade. I was watching TV actually and I happened to come across an iSAFE professional development program just like Ms. Schroeder talked 

about in her presentation. And I watched it and I just realized that this is 

a huge problem and it could affect people that I know. And I was 

actually first worried about how my sister would be reacted by this big 

issue. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you think that any of your friends or classmates 

have viewed child pornography online? 

 MR. SALLAM. No, sir, I do not think. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. You do not. 

 Ms. Schroeder, I know that you all have been quite successful in 

Kentucky with these programs that you have talked about and it is my--is 

it--am I correct that you are teaching this program now in every school 

district in Kentucky or is that right? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now how were you able to accomplish that and 

how many other States do you teach in every school district in the State? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. What we did this past year was Microsoft actually 

provided funding for us and we took our professional development 

online so we created I-learnonline and they provided funding for the 

professional development for educators, as well as the youth for the 

mentor side and they are just now providing funding for the parents, as 

well as for 50 plus. So what happens is, the way that we are able to do 

this now is that educators on their own can actually go in and review our 

module. And when they are through completing the module, they get 

professional development credit and then a gateway opens up and they 

have access to all the curriculum and the activities, the workbooks for the 

kids electronically. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well we thank you for the great job you are doing 

in Kentucky and elsewhere and how old is i-SAFE? How old is it? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. We were formed in 1998. 
218

 MR. WHITFIELD. Ninety-eight, okay. 

 And Ms. Aftab, how do you identify students to be Teenangels? 

How do you go about that? 

 MS. AFTAB. The Teenangels identify themselves. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MS. AFTAB. They share a belief that every child has something to 

offer. And when they see me on television, if I do Dateline or Good 

Morning America, or something often the kids will see that. We are in 

magazines. I do eight interviews a day sometimes. And so when kids 

see us or they see us in person or they want to make a difference, they 

will reach out to us. The program is free along with everything else we 

do. We who run it are also unpaid volunteers. I have one of them from 

Stone Ridge School here in Bethesda, Maryland, who is sitting back 

there with one of her Teenangels. The training is we email it out to them 

and help them do it and the kids come to us. And what we find is some 

kids are really great at public speaking. Others may be shy but they are 

terrific at research. And part of Teenangels, Teenangels is a little 

different from I-Mentor in that the kids who are Teenangels have to 

undergo extensive training and independent research. They have actually 

developed new product. They have to go out and research new 

interactive devices. They developed safer cell phone settings that are 

now being adopted by Disney. They have come up with safer interactive 

gaming for X-Box Live. So when they learn and we have all of the 

experts teaching them about everything they need to know, they develop 

things. 

 The Motion Picture Association of America honored one of my 

Teenangels who came up with a 30 second PSA--he is 15--called use it 

and lose it. It’s about bringing your video camera into a movie theater 

and what is going to happen. This 15-year-old had social anxiety 

disorder and his mother came to me and asked if he could be a 

Teenangel. And I said well we work in chapters generally but she asked 

me if would make an exception and he has done extraordinary things. 

And a young girl from Pittsburgh who is 13 who had met an Internet 

sexual predator in their live, who was rescued 4 days later by the FBI 

where she was found chained to the floor, came to us and she wanted to 

be a Teenangel too. So the kids who come to us and want to make a 

difference, we give them a way to do it. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. 

 Ms. Schroeder would you or Mr. Sallam explain the mentor program 

at i-SAFE? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. What happens with the mentor program is they 

actually go through a training. We have our own mentoring network. 
219

And so what the kids actually learn to do is they become a little bit 

different than what the cyber angels do because this is-- 

 MS. AFTAB. Teenangels. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. I am sorry, Teenangels. This is in school. So for 

instance as you saw with the Kentucky kids, high school kids, they will 

actually get service learning credits. We have service learning 

curriculum and they actually decide to adopt a class and they will 

actually go in and train that class and/or they may go into a lower 

division school and then they work the kids for the younger kids say K, 

first, or second grade and they may go in and do learning with them 

because we have a literacy curriculum as well. So there are various 

things that the kids can do from peer-to-peer in terms of being able to 

help promote Internet safety. We also have school assemblies so the kids 

actually participate in the school assemblies. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And how many mentors are there around the 

country? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Right now we have 156,000 I think that are actual 

certified mentors. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. One hundred fifty-six thousand? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. One hundred fifty-six thousand that are certified 

mentors. Now those are, the certified mentors, are the ones that actually 

conduct the training. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I see. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. So every single student that goes through the 

curriculum, they actually become mentors because it is part of the 

curriculum that they do in the classroom. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And how many Teenangels, Ms. Sullivan or Ms. 

Aftab? 

 MS. AFTAB. We are a different program. Ours is a train-the-trainers 

program so the Teenangels reach out and train others. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MS. AFTAB. We have 450 certified Teenangels who are the right age 

right now, a lot of them have grown up. And we have about 3,400 in the 

pipeline. Until recently, I had actually hand-trained all of my 

Teenangels. It was the most fun I have had. Now their training is put 

onto CDs so that anywhere we are not, the Teenangels can. And we are 

working with the scouts and with other organizations. In fact, we have 

got a new Teenangels chapter that is starting with Camp Fire Girls and 

Boys in Anchorage, Alaska. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Really? 

 MS. AFTAB. Yeah. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you operate in other countries as well? 

 MS. AFTAB. Seventy-six countries around the world. 
220

 MR. WHITFIELD. And what about i-SAFEty? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Fifteen countries and schools. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And how many Teenangels are back here in 

the corner this morning? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. One and one want to be. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. One and one want to be, okay. Well-- 

 MS. AFTAB. They have to miss school to do this. But they are now. 

The interesting thing is they are doing hard consulting for big 

corporations. They are working on the inside with Myspace and 

Facebook and with Yahoo! and Google and Disney and Microsoft where 

they are helping advise on new product and ways that they can be 

misused and used by kids. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So all of our mentors and Teenangels, they are all 

quite proficient and we know they will do well in whatever they decide 

to pursue. 

 MS. AFTAB. And we are lucky to have them. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah, absolutely. 

 I want to thank you all for the great job that you are doing for these 

programs and the good work that you are doing. And particularly want 

to thank the Teenangels and the mentor and mentors for their assistance 

you are doing with other students. 

 And at this time, I recognize Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. 

 Ms. Sullivan or Mr. Sallam, what do you feel these sites--Myspace 

and there is another one we saw today Spotlife and Buddypicks--now 

what do you think of those as a general rule? Are they useful or helpful? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. They are a good way to keep in touch with your 

friends. Many teens are enticed by social networking sites because you 

can make it all about you. Sites like Myspace, you can change the 

background to whatever you want, whatever font you want, you can put 

funny pictures, you can put pictures of yourselves and your friends, you 

can comment on your friends’ pages. It is very teen orientated. So they 

really enjoy it. It can be useful because it is different than just IM you 

friends it is more like staying in touch with your friends, more extensive, 

but they can be misused. You can post personal information. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, do you think the benefits outweigh the risk? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. Excuse me? 

 MR. STUPAK. Do you think the benefits of these sites outweigh the 

risk? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. No, I do not. There is too many risks because 

many-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Then why have them? 

 MS. SULLIVAN. Because-- 
221

 MR. STUPAK. I mean you are the experts. I mean I have never been 

on the Internet and I could not tell you from the bottom, but I guess I am 

just trying to get your own feelings on it because it has been a tragic 

story what we have heard about today and unfortunately it is being 

repeated time and time and time again in this country and more offshore 

and everything else. So I just want to learn the value of these sites and if 

we cannot monitor them or police them better than what we are doing. 

 MS. AFTAB. And how can you use them safely I guess. 

 MS. SULLIVAN. Yeah. It depends how the teen or the child is using 

it. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MS. SULLIVAN. If someone has their profile set on private for only 

their friends to see and they are not talking to strangers or people they do 

not know, then it is safe. It is a good place for them to be. But otherwise 

if they are letting anyone who has a myspace or commenting, people 

they have never met, and people they never will meet, then it can be 

dangerous. So it depends on how you look at it. If you see that your 

child or teen is being safe on it and they are using it to contact their 

friends then it can be safe and it does have benefits. But otherwise, if 

they are posting too much personal information and they are talking to 

people they do not know, then it is dangerous. 

 MR. STUPAK. So I bet you a month does not go by here where there 

is an embarrassing email that came out of some office here. The issue is 

not when the sender sent that email to the other office probably thought it 

would go no further but somehow inadvertently, however, it gets sent all 

over and suddenly my privacy is everybody’s public knowledge and not 

only is it embarrassing for the office that originated the email but it just, I 

think sort of reminds us that what we may think and what we believe and 

sitting behind that desk and doing your emails or going to your myspace, 

while we think it is private, it is really not and that is why I think we are 

all vulnerable and not just young people and us too with our emails. So I 

was just wondering about that. 

 Mr. Sallam, let me ask you this, the Chairman asked you and you 

sort of said no but these porn sites, there has been gregarious talk about 

sitting home or you are surfing the net. Do you have discussions with 

your friends about the fact porn sites are out there? As you surf you may 

hit them, things like that? 

 MR. SALLAM. That is a tough question. 

 MR. STUPAK. Yeah, I mean what I wanted to get at is-- 

 MR. SALLAM. When you are surfing the Internet, the fact that stuff 

is out there and we do like stumble upon it and it is especially with 

myspace like some people post pornographic images on their myspace so 
222

it is sort of people who have myspace, it is sort of easy to stumble upon 

something like that. 

 MR. STUPAK. Do you talk about it with your friends? 

 MR. SALLAM. Not really. 

 MR. STUPAK. Couldn’t that be a deterrent in the programs you are 

doing? I mean, we all know they are out there, acknowledge they are out 

there and discuss it, why you are not to go there and the dangers involved 

in it? 

 MR. SALLAM. Yeah, of course there is always a bad aspect of 

looking at these pornographic images, the factor of getting a virus, but it 

does not really come up in discussion with my peers. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Ms. Schroeder, would you submit the FCACY 

study on the i-SAFE Program? I would be interested in learning a little 

bit more about that. And you said it has been around since about 1998. 

Has there been some studies as to the effectiveness of the program? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes. MIJ did a 2 year study on i-SAFE and they 

presented it to me about 2 months ago so, absolutely, I will request that 

study. 

 MR. STUPAK. The 2 year program you said or 2 year study, I am 

sorry, has there been anything else who have measured the effectiveness 

of i-SAFE? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Well we do pre-polls and delayed assessments and 

actually we have our national assessment center so we are providing 

assessment data. We even provide it to the FBI because we do trainings 

for them as well and I would be happy to provide that to you. 

 MR. STUPAK. You mentioned the FBI, do you work with local law 

enforcement and things like-- 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes, we do. We have-- 

 MR. STUPAK. There is at least one more. Maybe three more. It 

looks like a new agenda, three more. Okay. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. We have our i-SAFE Task Force and our i-SAFE 

Task Force actually is a partnership with local law enforcement, FBI, the 

Attorney General’s office. School resource officers from around the 

country actually are trained and they participate, as well as FBI and their 

outreach department, so they are actually teaching the classes, as well as 

in schools. 

 MR. STUPAK. In your testimony, I think you mentioned something 

about 30 minutes once a week for 5 weeks. Do you have any follow-up 

with that because I would think there may be more to this? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes, we do. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well what is that? What does that consist of follow 

up? 
223

 MS. SCHROEDER. What happens is is that the classroom curriculum 

actually is comprised of a 30 minute segment because you have to fit it 

into a class day. So once it is implemented into a school district and/or a 

classroom, it really is up to that teacher in terms of that. We create and 

we have five core modules and then we have supplemental modules. So 

what the teachers usually do is they always do the five core modules and 

then after that they go and they do the supplemental modules. The way 

that we follow up with them is the fact that we are always supplementing 

the information. For instance when cyber bullying came out, we created 

a cyber bullying curriculum. So they go online, they request that 

curriculum. It has its own life within that school district in terms of its 

being taught all the time. And then students too as well, they have their 

school assemblies that they are doing as well and then that involves, they 

will bring local law enforcement in and we have our parent nights. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. You just mentioned cyber bullying again. 

Explain that for us for the record so we know what is cyber bullying. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Yes. What that is is you know you would be 

bullied on the school grounds? Well now what kids have done is they 

have taken it online. So for instance if I am a student and I have 

something to say about you I will blog it or I will go and maybe post 

different pictures about you, crop them, then I will go and call attention 

to them. So for instance for me as a student when I come back to school 

the next day everybody knows about it not just a few kids that on a 

school ground it would just be one on one. One situation that was such a 

tragedy was a student in Vermont and actually his father was an IBM 

executive and they contacted us. IBM did and said this is what is 

happening to one of our executives and that is when we really looked 

into this. In this particular situation, this boy was bullied at his school, it 

then went on and on and he ended up taking his own life. Ms. Teen New 

Jersey who is a spokesperson for us, her parents moved her three States 

when she was bullied online as well. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. You are also promoting the digital certificate 

technology for children. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Correct. 

 MR. STUPAK. And one of the requirements to obtain such a 

certificate is they have a government-issued photo ID, do I understand it? 

Do many students have such a photo ID? I do not usually think that the 

school IDs are accepted as a government ID cards or government-issued 

ID cards. Where would students use them? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. The way that this technology works is it is called 

the i-STIK. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 
224

 MS. SCHROEDER. On the first day of school when parents actually 

sign the acceptable use policy, they will say yes my son or daughter can 

have an i-STIK. So next to biometrics it is actually authenticated there at 

the school. 

 MR. STUPAK. I see. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. So we did a study with ten States and most kids 

took their i-STIK and went to the school administrator, they had their ID 

there, they knew that that was Susie Brown and Susie Brown was issued 

that i-STIK and so that, it is just very simple. It is actually like an ATM 

card. It can be used anywhere on the Internet. Right now it is 

empowered by VeriSign and also eBay; Yahoo! was actually 

participating in this study as well. And we are looking at this being a 

place where if you are a student, you would be able to go to these areas 

online and it would be able to authenticate you so it only knows in terms 

of male, female, age range, and demographics in terms of West Coast, 

East Coast. 

 MR. STUPAK. And that is a pretty safe, secure site so no one can 

access this information? 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Well, the goal is that you are educated so when 

you are actually getting into an area if I am going to go chat or 

communicate, then it will only allow other people within those 

parameters to chat or communicate with me. So it really empowers the 

students quite a bit because now they choose where they want to go. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. 

 I am going to just ask one other question of Ms. Aftab and then we 

will conclude the hearing. But and you had a lot of experience with this. 

You were a lawyer prior to getting involved in WiredSafety. And do you 

find that parents’ perceptions of what their children are doing online 

differ significantly from the reality of what their children are doing 

online? 

 MS. AFTAB. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, I have actually written all of 

the leading books for parents on Internet safety in the United States and 

around the world. And WiredSafety, the volunteers before me have been 

doing this for 11 years so it was a long track record here. Parents are 

clueless, totally clueless. And even the parents who use the Internet are 

clueless. And it is interesting, we have been talking about this for years 

and I will go out and I address 1,000 parents a month and 5,000 students 

myself in person and every single month, and when I go out to them, the 

parents keep saying not my kid. And I say your kids are communicating 

with strangers, no. Twenty-four percent of the teens that were polled by 

family PC magazine, teen girls admitted to meeting strangers off line that 

they met online, 24 percent. And 60 percent of the survey that we did 
225

with the University of Southern Florida in 1999, 60 percent of the teen 

girls, 11,000 teen girls between the ages of 13 and 16 engaged in cyber 

sex, admitted to it. One of the girls said that she would not, she had 

cyber sex but she did not go all the way. I always joke, that means she 

did not use punctuation. But these kids are doing this because they can 

and the parents have always said not my kid. And then myspace became 

popular. And myspace has put fear in the hearts of parents everywhere 

and I think it is seriously overblown. They have the most liberal law 

enforcement, pro-law enforcement policy on the Internet today. So they 

get it but the parents do not. So now the parents are saying not my kid, 

my cherubic 13-year-old, 14-year-old would never do those things and 

they go onto their site and they see them posing in their bra, or licking 

their lips and arching their back and they are thinking oh my goodness. 

And a lot of these kids who are home coloring with their 5-year-old niece 

over the weekend are pretending that they were out drinking last 

weekend. So they are not really a drunken slut, they are just playing one 

on myspace. And their parents have no idea. And so what we now need 

to do is awaken parents, get them to open their eyes at the same time they 

do not throw out the Internet which all of our children need. We have 

hearings about the dangers online and the terrible things that can happen 

to children but the greatest single risk our children face in connection 

with the Internet today is being denied access. We have got a solution 

for everything else. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Aftab, I thank you very much. And Ms. 

Schroeder for the good work that you are doing. And Ms. Sullivan and 

Mr. Sallam, we really appreciate your being here and the great leadership 

that you are providing. 

 Before concluding, I would ask unanimous consent that we enter into 

the record the letter from the Department of Justice from Mr. Ryan 

regarding Justin Berry’s--both letters to and from. And oh, yes, Ms. 

Schroeder, we would like to put your overheads in the record as well. 

Do you have problem with that? 

 [The information follows:] 
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235

 
236
237

MS. SCHROEDER. Not at all. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MS. SCHROEDER. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. With that, the record will remain open for 30 days 

and I think Dr. Burgess may have some additional questions and if he 

does we will get them to you all. But that concludes today’s hearing and 

thank you very much for your patience. 

 [Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
238

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN 

OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, 

KIDS AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW 

ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(Chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Bass, Walden, Ferguson, 

Burgess, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Stupak, DeGette, Inslee, and 

Whitfield. 

 Staff Present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian, Counsel; 

Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel; 

and David Nelson, Minority Investigator/Economist. 

MR. WHITFIELD. This hearing will come to order, and today marks 

the second day of hearings that the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee is having on child pornography and sexual exploitation of 

children over the Internet. 

 Today, as I said, this is our second day of hearings on the sexual 

exploitation of children over the Internet. Today, we hope to gain a 

better understanding of how U.S. law enforcement is working to combat 

the horrifying and growing commercial business of sexually exploiting 

children over the Internet, and what is being done to put those online 

child predators behind bars. 

 The testimony we heard on Tuesday was disturbing. For example, in 

this $20 billion a year business of commercially exploiting children, the 

images of child victims are increasingly younger and increasingly more 

violent. I cannot fathom who these people are that seek to view these 

images of children being sexually abused and, frequently, being abused 

on demand. As one witness on Tuesday described it, these images are 

digital crime scenes, and it sickens both our heart and soul. 
239

 Some of the most disturbing testimony at Tuesday’s hearing came 

from Justin Berry, a victim of online predators. Justin’s testimony about 

the Department of Justice’s handling of his case was particularly 

troubling. Justin testified that he himself has no faith in the Department 

of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. This is a section 

of prosecutors in the Department that are supposedly experts in handling 

cases like Justin’s. When a victim witness has no faith in the people that 

are supposed to be his advocates, there is clearly something wrong with 

the process. 

 While I am sympathetic to the Department’s concern over discussing 

ongoing investigations, the allegations raised by Justin Berry’s testimony 

on Tuesday raise important process questions that need to be addressed 

by the Department. We have some specific questions for the Department 

of Justice at today’s hearing. These questions include: why has it taken 

so long for the Department to act and rescue children in imminent danger 

of being molested; why Justin’s father, Knute Berry, a man who 

allegedly profited off of the sexual exploitation of his son, has not been 

charged or arrested; why there have been no arrests from the over 1,500 

names of subscribers to Justin’s website, that featured images of children 

being sexually abused, and which he supplied to the Department of 

Justice; why Aaron Brown, the person who ran a credit card processing 

company called Neova.net, that processed the orders for sexually 

exploitive images of children, has not been arrested and charged in 

connection with Justin’s case; why Ken Gourlay has not been charged or 

arrested in connection with the alleged money he made hosting Justin’s 

own website, nor for his alleged sexual abuse of Justin while Justin was 

still a minor; and finally, why the Department of Justice allowed an 

affidavit to be unsealed and remain unsealed for 6 months, and still is 

unsealed today, in a criminal case that had the effect of putting Justin 

Berry’s life in danger? 

 We do not want these disturbing details about the handling of 

Justin’s case to go unanswered by the Department, and hope that some 

insight will be gained through this hearing today, and that is one of our 

clear intents. 

 I would like now to briefly turn to the other witnesses that we will 

hear from today. Law enforcement has a very difficult task ahead, and is 

fighting an immense criminal enterprise of online child predators. We 

need to give law enforcement the necessary resources to save our 

children from online predators. I look forward to hearing from the 

various law enforcement witnesses today about their successes in the 

field, as well as concerns and problems they face. Child predators on the 

Internet are using all technological means available to avoid law 
240

enforcement efforts, and law enforcement must respond in an effective 

way. 

 Finally, it is critical that we have an understanding of what is going 

on in the various State legal systems. About 70 percent of all 

prosecutions involving child pornography are handled at the State and 

local level. Therefore, the State laws regarding the illegality of 

possession, manufacturing, distribution, and enticing of minors in child 

pornography need to be as strong as the Federal laws. My home State of 

Kentucky, as an example, recently passed legislation that will make 

possession of child pornography a felony instead of a misdemeanor. I 

look forward to hearing from witnesses, including Mr. Weeks from 

PROTECT, about sentencing issues surrounding these cases involving 

the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. 

 And at this time, I will recognize Mr. Stupak of Michigan for his 

opening statement. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED. WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

GOOD MORNING. 

 TODAY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

BEGINS ITS SECOND DAY OF HEARINGS ABOUT SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF 

CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. TODAY WE HOPE TO GAIN A BETTER 

UNDERSTANDING OF HOW U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WORKING TO 

COMBAT THE HORRIFYING AND GROWING COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OF 

SEXUALLY EXPLOITING CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET AND WHAT IS 

BEING DONE TO PUT THESE ON-LINE CHILD PREDATORS BEHIND BARS. 

THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD ON TUESDAY WAS DISTURBING. FOR 

EXAMPLE, IN THIS 20 BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUSINESS OF 

COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITING CHILDREN—THE IMAGES OF CHILD VICTIMS 

ARE INCREASINGLY YOUNGER AND INCREASINGLY MORE VIOLENT. I 

CANNOT FATHOM WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE THAT SEEK TO VIEW THESE 

IMAGES OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED AND IN MANY 

INSTANCES--ON DEMAND. AS ONE WITNESS ON TUESDAY DESCRIBED IT—

THESE IMAGES ARE “DIGITAL CRIME SCENES”. IT SICKENS MY HEART AND 

MY SOUL. 

 SOME OF THE MOST DISTURBING TESTIMONY AT TUESDAY’S HEARING 

CAME FROM JUSTIN BERRY—A VICTIM OF ON-LINE PREDATORS. JUSTIN’S 

TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S HANDLING OF HIS 

CASE WAS PARTICULARLY TROUBLING. JUSTIN TESTIFIED THAT HE HAS 

NO FAITH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CHILD EXPLOITATION AND 

OBSCENITY SECTION. THIS IS A SECTION OF PROSECUTORS IN THE 

DEPARTMENT THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY EXPERTS IN HANDLING CASES LIKE 

JUSTIN’S. WHEN A VICTIM WITNESS HAS NO FAITH IN THE PEOPLE THAT 

ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HIS ADVOCATES—THERE IS SOMETHING CLEARLY 

WRONG WITH THE PROCESS. WHILE I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE 

DEPARTMENT’S CONCERN OVER DISCUSSING ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS, 

THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY JUSTIN BERRY’S TESTIMONY ON TUESDAY 
241

RAISE IMPORTANT PROCESS QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED 

BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT TODAY’S HEARING. THESE QUESTIONS 

INCLUDE— 

• WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO ACT AND 

RESCUE CHILDREN IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BEING MOLESTED? 

• WHY JUSTIN’S FATHER—KNUTE BERRY—A MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY 

PROFITED OFF OF THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF HIS SON HAS 

NOT BEEN CHARGED OR ARRESTED? 

• WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO ARRESTS FROM THE OVER 1500 

NAMES OF SUBSCRIBERS TO JUSTIN’S WEBSITE THAT FEATURED 

IMAGES OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED? 

• WHY AARON BROWN, THE PERSON WHO RAN A CREDIT CARD 

PROCESSING COMPANY --CALLED NEOVA.NET—THAT PROCESSED 

THE ORDERS FOR SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES OF 

CHILDREN, HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED AND CHARGED IN 

CONNECTION WITH JUSTIN’S CASE? 

• WHY KEN GOURLAY HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED OR ARRESTED IN 

CONNECTION WITH THE ALLEGED MONEY HE MADE HOSTING 

JUSTIN’S WEBSITE AND FOR HIS ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF 

JUSTIN WHEN JUSTIN WAS STILL A MINOR? 

• AND FINALLY—WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ALLOWED AN 

AFFIDAVIT TO BE UNSEALED---AND REMAIN UNSEALED FOR OVER 

SIX MONTHS-- IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT HAD THE EFFECT OF 

PUTTING JUSTIN’S LIFE IN DANGER? 

WE DO NOT WANT THESE DISTRUBING DETAILS ABOUT THE 

HANDLING OF JUSTIN’S CASE TO GO UNANSWERED BY THE DEPARTMENT 

AND HOPE THAT SOME INSIGHT WILL BE GAINED THROUGH THIS 

HEARING. 

 I WOULD LIKE NOW TO BRIEFLY TURN TO THE OTHER WITNESSES 

THAT WE WILL HEAR FROM TODAY. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS A VERY 

DIFFICULT TASK AHEAD AND IS FIGHTING AN IMMENSE CRIMINAL 

ENTERPRISE OF ON-LINE CHILD PREDATORS. WE NEED TO GIVE LAW 

ENFORCEMENT THE NECESSARY RESOURCES TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN 

FROM ON-LINE PREDATORS. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE 

VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES TODAY ABOUT THEIR 

SUCCESSES IN THE FIELD, AS WELL AS, CONCERNS OR PROBLEMS THEY 

SEE IN INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTING THESE CASES. CHILD 

PREDATORS ON THE INTERNET ARE CLEARLY USING ALL 

TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO AVOID LAW ENFORCEMENT 

EFFORTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST RESPOND. 

FINALLY, IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF 

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE VARIOUS STATE LEGAL SYSTEMS. ABOUT 70% 

OF ALL PROSECUTIONS INVOLVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ARE HANDLED 

AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL. THEREFORE, THE STATE LAWS 

REGARDING THE ILLEGALITY OF POSSESSION, MANUFACTURING, 

DISTRIBUTION AND ENTICING OF MINORS IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY NEED 

TO BE AS STRONG AS THE FEDERAL LAWS. MY HOME STATE OF 

KENTUCKY RECENTLY PASSED LEGISLATION THAT WILL MAKE 

POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A FELONY INSTEAD OF A 

MISDEMEANOR. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM WITNESSES, 

INCLUDING MR. WEEKS, FROM PROTECT, ABOUT SENTENCING ISSUES 
242

SURROUNDING THESE CASES INVOLVING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF 

CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. 

 THANK YOU. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 April is Child Abuse Awareness Month, and so, it is appropriate we 

are holding these hearings. As we learned Tuesday, this problem has 

many sordid faces: commercial websites, predator seduction over peerto-peer networks, pedophile groups that demand and trade new materials 

as the price of admission to complete their set of pornographic photos, 

and sex tourism, which are trips organized by American men to foreign 

countries for the purpose of sexually molesting and filming sex acts with 

young people. 

 We learned other disturbing facts too numerous to list here, but a few 

that are noteworthy. Victims of this disgusting trade are 28 times more 

likely to become prostitutes 86 percent of the victims develop serious, 

long term mental illness. Eighty percent of these predators have material 

depicting victims under the age of 12, 40 percent under the age of 6, and 

20 percent under the age of 3. Unfortunately, yesterday’s news revealed 

that a Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security 

had been arrested by authorities who were posing as a 14-year-old girl. 

The arrest occurred as the officer portraying herself as a 14-year-old girl 

was to pose nude for him on a webcam. 

 As Mr. Justin Berry testified, there is no reason for a 13 or 14-yearold to have a webcam. Mr. Chairman, the committee staff has spent 

many hours interviewing key Federal officials who investigate child 

pornography every day. Unfortunately, they are not here to testify today. 

Today, we will hear from a few frontline law enforcement officers, and 

some witnesses purporting to represent the frontline prosecutors and the 

Federal law enforcement officers. I say purportedly, because I don’t 

believe that the most experienced witnesses are here today. 

 On Tuesday, we heard a withering indictment of the Child 

Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice, CEOS. 

CEOS are the prosecutors responsible for coordinating these horrible 

cases nationwide. Unfortunately, the head of CEOS is not here. Instead, 

Justice sent us a U.S. Attorney from the State of Montana to present its 

testimony. I hope this individual has some knowledge in this area he will 

be talking about today. 

 The Department of Justice is not the only agency that did not provide 

its most knowledgeable staff as a witness today. Both the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, ICE, have incredible, underfunded cybercrime operations 

with great expertise in working these cases nationally and internationally. 

These critical law enforcement agencies have two of the most articulate 
243

and committed special agents working on child exploitation. These 

talented and dedicated supervisors, Arnold Bell of the FBI’s Innocent 

Images Unit, and Claude Davenport of the Child Exploitation Section of 

the ICE Cybercrime Center, have not been permitted to give testimony 

today. Instead, the individuals who will appear here have job titles 

bestowed upon them by bureaucratic politicians. Again, I suspect that 

they have little recent law enforcement experience in the dirty world of 

Internet child pornography and sexual exploitation. 

 That makes our job extremely difficult, for us here in Congress to do 

oversight work when agencies do not send the witnesses we request. I 

will be pressing for answers as to why those that labor so hard to protect 

our children from the worst of all crimes are denied adequate personnel 

and critical technical resources. The agents that actually work these 

cases need much more recognition and support in what they receive from 

their superiors. These men and women are overwhelmed by the size of 

the problem, and handicapped by timid prosecutions, at least on the 

Federal level. The FBI, ICE, and the Inspectors of the U.S. Postal 

Service have brought down networks involving tens of thousands of 

criminals that have, or likely will physically molest children, yet despite 

their efforts, the Federal prosecution of these perpetrators is rare. 

 On the State and local level, the story is different but widely 

variable. We are aware of a county district attorney in New Hampshire 

that averages one prosecution every 10 days of these predators. He says 

he could do one a day if he had more attorneys on staff. He does have 

the assistance of the ICAC, coordinated Federal and State local computer 

crime specialists, assisting him in developing the necessary cases and 

evidence, but he still needs the manpower to present the cases in court. I 

find the ICAC’s testimony about the Internet service providers being a 

major obstacle to the investigation of child exploitation over the Web 

particularly troubling. I can’t help but believe that the credit card 

companies and PayPal accounts also have responsibility to police their 

clients who are accessing these child pornography sites. 

 Yesterday, I was pleased that our colleagues unanimously accepted 

my amendment in the Telecommunications markup to crack down on 

Internet child pornography. My amendment orders the Federal 

Communications Commission to devise regulations that require both 

cable service and phone companies offering cable service and 

technologies to prevent child pornography from being conveyed over 

Internet networks. This will serve as a good start at curtailing child 

pornography on the Internet, but we also need stepped up law 

enforcement at all levels, Federal, State, and local. 

 Mr. Chairman, the Federal prosecution effort is far less vigorous than 

that found on the State and local level. As I noted Tuesday, in a major 
244

case where 20,000 verified American child sex offenders are out still 

walking our streets, prosecutors have been able to convict less than 2 

percent of the identified perpetrators, while law enforcement in Australia 

obtained convictions of over 55 percent of their countrymen identified in 

the same international bust. If Australia can do 55 percent, I am sure we 

can do better than 2 percent here in this country. 

 We, Congress, have a long way to go to assist law enforcement to 

help in this fight. I hope that we don’t stop with this hearing today. As a 

former law enforcement officer, I will use every opportunity to crack 

down on illegal Internet activity, bank card transactions, and inadequate 

Federal statutes that tie law enforcement hands when pursuing child 

pornography perpetrators. 

 With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you for having 

this hearing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Stupak, thank you, and I want to also thank 

you for raising this issue of the witness from the Justice Department 

today. Of course, we are glad to have Mr. Mercer here. He is a U.S. 

Attorney from Montana, and I know he has experience in these child 

pornography cases, but we specifically asked for Raul Roldan, who is the 

FBI’s cybercrimes expert, and we also asked for Drew Oosterbaan, who 

is the Director of CEOS, and neither one of them is here, but I did notice 

that Raul Roldan was on CNN today on the Today Show, so he had time 

to go on television, but he didn’t have time to be here with us. 

 At this point, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for his opening statement. 

 MR. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this second hearing. 

 Mr. Chairman, I, too, think it is outrageous that we have law 

enforcement agencies that are willing to, and perfectly happy, to send 

some of their most knowledgeable representatives to do interviews on 

national media, but they can’t come before a subcommittee in the 

Congress to share their expertise and their thoughts and strategies with 

the Congress and the American people. I think it is outrageous. 

 I certainly appreciate the witnesses for being here today. I appreciate 

the expertise and the insights that they will lend to these hearings. But I 

think it is a very, very serious issue, and I hope that we will follow up on 

that. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stupak, for your 

leadership on this issue. I am happy to see that as parents and as 

Members of Congress who are serving on this committee, that we are 

making a concerted effort to get to the bottom of an industry which so 

horribly affects many children in our country. I also want to thank the 

witnesses for testifying and helping us get to the real causes of this 

problem, and why it is so pervasive in our society. 
245

 I am sure that it is safe to say this past Tuesday’s hearing touched 

and shocked every one of us who was there in that room, or who got to 

watch it on television. Although we have been aware of this problem, 

many of us have been aware of this problem, I think it is doubtful that 

prior to Tuesday, that any of us genuinely knew the details of this sordid 

world that so many children find themselves victims of. 

 The question running through everybody’s minds and my mind is 

how, how could this happen to so many children? How could it be so 

easy for a sexual predator in today’s world of advanced crime fighting 

and investigative techniques? And how is it that we, as a society, seem 

to be incapable of putting a stop to it? I can’t thank enough 

organizations like WiredSafety and i-SAFE, people like Kurt Eichenwald 

from the New York Times, who is here again today, who have brought 

national attention to this issue. We must recognize that it is our job as 

Members of Congress to give these organizations and our law 

enforcement officials the tools they need to fight this unbelievable crime. 

 With yesterday’s revelations about a high ranking DHS official being 

charged with online seduction, and yesterday’s announcement of 27 

people being charged in an international child pornography ring, it is 

clear that we are just beginning to scratch the surface of this industry, 

and we have a long, long way to go. 

 Recently, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

reported that 39 percent of people who are caught with images of child 

sexual abuse had images of children younger than 6 years old. We have 

a 6-year-old daughter. Nineteen percent of people who have been caught 

with these images, one in five, were caught with images of children 

under three years old. We also have a 3-year-old daughter. This evil is 

beyond our comprehension. 

 As proven by these hearings, my colleagues and I have made a 

commitment to do everything in our power to fight this problem, and to 

punish offenders to the fullest extent of the law. These people are not 

normal criminals. Their offences go above and beyond typical crimes. 

They steal the innocence of a child, and leave in their wake emotional 

and physical scars that will affect these young victims for their entire 

lives. After hearing Justin’s heart-wrenching testimony on Tuesday, it 

became apparent that it is a problem within our justice system that allows 

this industry to continue and remain profitable. Justin told us that these 

predators laugh at law enforcement, but an estimated $20 billion industry 

that makes it profits by violating children is absolutely nothing to laugh 

at. 

 I am anxious to hear the testimony of our witnesses, and to have an 

opportunity to question them regarding what needs to be done by 

lawmakers and parents and teachers and law enforcement officers, to put 
246

an end to this industry, and to find out how we have fallen so sadly short 

of our goals so far. 

 Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Stupak, for your 

commitment, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for her opening 

statement. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. Chairman, this is a little unusual for this committee, because 

having jurisdiction over telecommunications and the Internet, we are 

usually always jumping at the chance to talk about the wonders of the 

Web. And the Internet has been one of the most incredible creations of 

the last century. At the beginning of the new millennium, we look 

forward to a future of untold promise and new innovation that we can’t 

even imagine today, and I think what we are seeing this week, sadly, is 

sometimes this innovation can move in ways that are horrific to us. 

 The Internet has changed the way we do business, conduct research, 

play, and communicate with each other, and it has made many day-today activities like shopping so much easier. Those of us who have 

teenage children know that young people often are the ones who figure 

out the ways to use the Internet in new and different, but that is the 

problem is the activities that have been made easier by the Internet are 

being used now to commit crimes against humanity in a much more 

facile way, and that is the sexual exploitation of children. 

 That is what we are faced with when we conduct these hearings 

today. Our technological pride and joy has been hijacked. It has enabled 

a plague of proportions that none of us here today every imagined. 

Cloaked in anonymity, and enabled by technological innovation, this 

blight has been growing to extreme conditions under our very noses. 

How do we preserve the things that we value about the Internet? Can we 

find the right balance between privacy and freedom, in eradicating this 

heinous epidemic? I don’t think we have the answers today, but that is 

what we are here to determine, and I would say we have a very difficult 

job ahead of us. We can’t stand idly by and let our young people be 

devoured by this terrible use of technology. 

 One thing that is clear to me, after hearing Justin’s testimony and 

reading the newspaper articles and other materials, is that these terrible 

predators are working a lot faster than we are, and government, for a 

change, needs to thing about working faster than the people who are 

taking advantage of our kids. 

 All of us agree that these hearings have been a horrific eye opener. 

Mr. Ferguson talked about his young children, 3 and 6. Well, I have two 

girls, who are age 12 and 16, and I don’t think any of us realized how 
247

pervasive this child exploitation over the Internet is. I will tell you this, I 

certainly intend to go home and talk to my two daughters about this 

problem, and what they can do, when I go home tomorrow. 

 We have learned that it is now an industry that now nets a profit 

close to the gross product of some small countries, and so I, too, am glad, 

Mr. Chairman, that you and Mr. Stupak are holding these hearings, 

because it is an issue that would be easy for us to try to sweep under the 

rug. But I think it is too important for that, and so, I think every member 

of this subcommittee needs to make a commitment right now to 

accomplish three things as the result of these hearings: first, to identify 

the problems with the Federal response to this crisis; second, to figure 

out how we are going to address this scourge; and third, to pledge that by 

the end of the 109th Congress, which is about 15 weeks away, we will 

have made an impact on this. 

 What we should not do is have these hearings, make ourselves feel 

better, go home and talk to our kids ourselves, and then breathe a sigh of 

relief that we fixed the problem, because that is not going to fix the 

problem. This scourge is just a mouse click away from directly 

impacting us, our families, and our communities, and so, I would say we 

have a moral imperative to take action. 

 I share the disappointment that everyone else has, that the witnesses 

that were requested from the FBI and the other agencies are not here 

today. If there was ever an issue that the executive branch should work 

with the legislative branch on, it was this issue. This is an investigative 

hearing, and with all due respect, we need facts, not generalized policy 

statements. 

 And so I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, as Americans, we should be 

disgusted that our country is the number one consumer of child 

pornography. How did we get here, and how are we letting this happen 

to our children? We cannot let this issue go away. We can’t be a do 

nothing Congress, and if we can make an impact on this issue, Mr. 

Chairman, I would suggest that everybody on both sides of this 

committee can go home and hold our heads up very proudly. 

 So, I think let us commit together to get to work. Thank you very 

much. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Ms. DeGette, and you raise some 

penetrating questions, and we hope to get those answers. Ever since Kurt 

Eichenwald wrote the first articles in the New York Times about this 

issue, our committee has been focused on it, and no one has been more 

focused on it than our full committee Chairman of Energy and 

Commerce, Joe Barton of Texas, and at this time, I would like to 

recognize Mr. Barton for his opening statement. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. 
248

 I do have a formal opening statement, but I have to get something off 

my chest. We have been working on this subcommittee, and Mr. Dingell 

and I, the full committee on this issue for 6 months or so, maybe longer, 

and we keep trying to cooperate with the Justice Department and the 

FBI, and you folks seem bound and determined to be as uncooperative as 

possible. 

 This is the opening statement time, so I am not going to ask any 

questions, but I want you to know, Mr. Mercer, that I am going to call 

the Attorney General one more time, and we had better get the people we 

want to testify. Not that you are not a credible witness, but I didn’t hear 

of all of Ms. DeGette’s statement, but my guess is, having scanned your 

testimony, that she has scanned it too, we don’t need to know specifics of 

case investigations. That shouldn’t be public. But on behalf of the 

people of the United States of America who we represent, as the most 

closely elected officials to the people, we do deserve to get the witnesses 

that they are supposedly hands on, trying to solve these problems, and we 

are not doing it. You are not giving them to us. Your Department is not 

giving them to us, and the FBI is not giving them to us. 

 Now, I am told half the room are FBI agents, and when the second 

panel comes, I am going to have some pretty straight questions for the 

FBI. But we are going to get the facts one way or the other. This is just 

too important an issue to let bureaucratic, I am trying to think of the right 

word, turf wars impede it. And when you have a Republican majority in 

the Congress and a Republican President, we ought to be able to work on 

a bi-branch basis, if that is the right term, to get the facts out, and that is 

not happening. 

 So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my entire statement, formal 

statement, be put into the record. But this is probably the most important 

investigation. We have got all the investigations going on in all the other 

bodies and other committees, but child pornography is the most 

pernicious thing that is affecting our society at its very roots, and we 

need to root it out, and we need to put an end to this Internet child 

pornography system that is growing like a weed on our society, and one 

way or the other, we are going to get our executive branch officials to 

cooperate with us and testify. That is just going to happen. 

 So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. But I want to 

thank you and Mr. Stupak for your perseverance on this issue. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding this second day of hearings on sexual 

exploitation of children over the Internet. 
249

Just two days ago, we heard testimony from witnesses who described the sickening 

world of Internet child pornography. As repulsive as Tuesday’s testimony was regarding 

the magnitude of the child pornography problem, I was just as troubled by the opinion 

shared by some of the witnesses that the fight against child pornography in the United 

States is, if not a losing battle, one that is not being won. 

Only one conclusion could be drawn from the witnesses’ testimony: the sexual 

exploitation and abuse of children over the Internet has reached a crisis point. Today, we 

are here to learn about what is being done to find, prosecute, and convict these child 

predators. 

I look forward to learning whether the witnesses from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the United 

States Postal Inspection Service share this opinion and what they believe must be done to 

bring child predators to justice. In particular, I hope to hear more about the role of 

Internet Service Providers and credit card companies in these investigations, and whether 

more should be required of them with respect to retaining data and conducting due 

diligence of those who use their servers and financial networks to distribute child 

pornography. 

I also look forward to learning more about state efforts to prosecute those who 

commit crimes related to the sexual exploitation of children. While the federal 

government is actively pursuing investigations of child predators, the vast majority of 

investigations and prosecutions of these crimes are being conducted at the state and local 

level. Unfortunately, penalties for child sex crimes in some states are the equivalent of a 

slap on the wrist. It is inconceivable to me that some who possess, create, or distribute 

child pornography go home on probation. Their victims don’t get off so easily. They 

suffer for the rest of their lives. 

Finally, I believe this hearing should address some of the concerns raised by Justin 

Berry at Tuesday’s hearing. Justin, Kurt Eichenwald, the New York Times reporter who 

investigated and reported Justin’s story, and Justin’s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, all testified 

that the Justice Department has failed to adequately pursue investigations against the men 

who molested Justin and the customers who sexually exploited him over the Internet. I 

have personally talked to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about these concerns, and 

he has assured me that his department is serious and is actively pursuing this 

investigation. I don’t doubt his word, but I do hope the testimony offered today by the 

Department of Justice will provide further information about the status of the 

investigation. 

In closing, I want to commend the law enforcement agents who are here today as 

well as their colleagues in the field. I believe all my colleagues join me today in saying 

that we are prepared to do everything possible to help you put an end to the child 

pornography industry and bring child predators to justice. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we look 

forward to continue working with you as we attempt to get the key 

witnesses before the committee. 

 However, your opening statements in their entirety will be placed in 

the record without objection. And at this time, I will recognize Dr. 

Burgess of Texas for--oh, I am sorry--recognize Mr. Inslee for his 

opening statement. 

 MR. INSLEE. I just want to follow on Chairman Barton’s statement 

that this country really is enraged, and is demanding answers, and 

ultimately, we will obtain them, and we hope that the message that is 
250

delivered is that we need to move forward together quickly. The country 

is not going to wait any longer. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. At this time, we recognize 

Dr. Burgess of Texas. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 In the interests of time, too, I am going to submit a statement for the 

record, because we do have a full day ahead of us, but I just can’t help 

but observe that the one piece that I took away from Tuesday’s lengthy 

hearing was the comment that the perpetrators were laughing at law 

enforcement, and law enforcement is in this room today. They are 

laughing at you on the Internet about this problem, and I want you to 

take that very, very seriously. 

 I wanted to also take a moment of personal privilege, and once again, 

recognize don’t tell anyone home in my district, but I want to recognize 

the New York Times reporter for doing the right thing, and I think if he 

had not stopped and picked up the person at the side of the road, they 

might not be with us today. So Mr. Eichenwald, again, I want to 

congratulate you, and thank you for doing the right thing when you were 

faced with a situation that you probably didn’t completely understand 

right at the beginning. 

 I, myself, have to wonder why it has gotten to this point. I mean, we 

are a society that puts warning labels on airplanes that says danger, you 

may die if this crashes. Why don’t we put a warning label on a webcam, 

not age appropriate for those under 18 years of age to use by themselves 

in their bedrooms for longer than 12 hours at a time. I wonder about 

America’s legal system. 

 We have heard testimony in this committee on multiple occasions 

about the abuses of the class action system. Where are the lawsuits 

against the payment companies that allow this to happen? Why have 

they not stepped up to protect America’s children, but mostly, I am 

embarrassed by the Federal agencies, and by the fact that we haven’t 

taken definitive action in Congress. I know it is going to be difficult. I 

want all of us in the Federal government, those in Federal agencies and 

those in Congress, to muster the institutional courage to do the right 

thing. 

 With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. And at this time, I will 

recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the 

work that you and the staff have done on this hearing, and the series of 

hearings, and I thank you also, say thank you to our witnesses for 

continuing to work with us, to be here and work with us on the issue, as 
251

we seek to crack down on child pornography and sexual exploitation and 

abuse. 

 This past Tuesday, the subcommittee did hear testimony from Justin 

Berry on the pervasiveness of child predators on the Internet. He 

described to us how the predators help to lure teenagers, to setting up the 

websites, the webcam situation, as Dr. Burgess just mentioned, and then, 

gradually lure them into sexual acts for money. 

 He also told this committee that the Department of Justice’s CEOS 

has failed to act on information he provided to them at the risk of his 

own life, to find over 1,500 child predators and distributors of child 

pornography. And I am looking forward to hearing from the Department 

of Justice on why this happened. It is incomprehensible to me that there 

are people who are employed by the Federal government of this Nation 

who will hide, arrogantly hide behind bureaucracy, stonewall behind 

bureaucracy, and allow this to happen. That is inexcusable. It is 

absolutely inexcusable. 

 The Federal budget should reflect our main priority, to defend the 

citizens of our country. To protect our children from those who would 

abuse them clearly falls into this area. 

 I look forward to hearing from law enforcement on their efforts to 

shut down this industry, and send a message to these despicable, 

despicable people that this country will not tolerate those who 

knowingly, who willingly, who seek to abuse our children. 

 Chairman Whitfield, I yield back my time. I thank you for looking 

into this delicate issue, and I hope to see some positive results from the 

hearing. 

 Thank you, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. At this time, I 

recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his opening 

statement. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 I have read through the testimony from our witnesses today, last 

night, and I will tell you, after sitting through the hearing last week, or 

earlier this week, I guess, and listening to what occurred there, I have got 

to tell you, my confidence is pretty shaken in the Justice Department, and 

I hope we will hear today that something is happening, more than what 

Mr. Berry indicated, and his attorney. 

 I want to know about the affidavit, why it was unsealed, why wasn’t 

it resealed. I think this case, to me, would send certainly, a chill across 

the land, that if you are caught up in one of these things, coming forward 

may not produce the results that you think it may. I mean, when Justin 

Berry sits here and says he wouldn’t necessarily recommend that others 

bring their cases forward, something is broken, and I realize you have got 
252

an open case, you may not be able to get into all the details of the case. 

My concern is looking at the system, and to figure out if it is working, 

how is it working that we don’t understand, and if it is not, how do we 

fix it? And I hope we hear that today. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. I think that concludes all the opening 

statements, so the first panel consists of one witness, and that is Mr. 

William Mercer, who is the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney 

General, and also, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana, of the U.S. 

Department of Justice, and we do welcome you, Mr. Mercer, and I guess 

it is clear to everyone now, you are not our first choice, but we know that 

you are a prominent prosecutor, and we do look forward to your 

testimony. 

 You are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing, 

and when doing so, we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. 

Do you have any objection to testifying under oath this morning? 

 MR. MERCER. No, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Under the rules of the House and rules of the 

committee, you are entitled to legal counsel, but I am assuming that you 

don’t need legal counsel. Is that correct? 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. If you would, then, raise your right hand. 

 [Witness sworn.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. You are now under oath, 

and you may proceed with 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. MERCER, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA, 

PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

 MR. MERCER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify before you today about the Department of Justice’s efforts to 

protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. 

 Unfortunately, the Internet can be used to facilitate the sexual 

exploitation of children. Accordingly, the Department of Justice is 

unequivocally committed to enforcing Federal laws in these areas, and 

particularly, the possession, production, and distribution of child 

pornography, and the use of the Internet to coerce and entice minors to-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure his microphone is on. 

 MR. MERCER. Oh, I am sorry. I don’t have--now I do. 
253

 Let me turn to child pornography. Unfortunately, the very term we 

commonly use to describe these awful images, child pornography, does 

not adequately convey the horrors these images depict. A more accurate 

term would be images of child sexual abuse, because the production of 

these images involves the sexual abuse of a child. These images are, 

thus, permanent visual records of child sexual abuse. In the past several 

years, the children we have seen in these images have been younger and 

younger, and very regrettably, the abuse depicted has been increasingly 

more severe, and is often sadistic. 

 As if the images themselves were not harmful enough, the sexual 

abuse inherent in child pornography is increasingly exacerbated by 

pedophiles who choose to disseminate these images to millions of people 

over the Internet with a few clicks of a computer mouse. Once on the 

Internet, the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender, and 

perhaps used to whet the appetite of another pedophile to act out the 

deviant fantasies of the image on yet another child, thereby continuing 

the cycle of abuse. 

 The Department of Justice is absolutely committed to obliterating 

this intolerable evil. We are equally concerned about the number of 

online predators who lurk in chat rooms in search of kids who they hope 

to meet in person, for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. 

 I would like to focus on what the Department of Justice has done to 

address this problem in the last 5 years. Prosecutors in the Criminal 

Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, in conjunction with 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys and FBI agents with our Federal partners in the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States 

Postal Inspection Service, and the Secret Service, and our partners in 

State and local law enforcement, work continuously to identify the 

vulnerabilities of the child pornography industry, and to attack them at 

every angle, both domestically and overseas. 

 We are focusing our efforts on everyone, from the consumer to the 

website operator to the facilitators, including those who provide credit 

card processing and the subscription services. For agents and Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys assigned to these cases, and for the prosecutors in the 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section who do this work every day, 

we do not take lightly the fact that their work revolves around review of 

the most troubling and graphic material, depicting children of all ages 

engaged in illegal sexual acts. They are engaged in this effort because 

they know, from their professional experience and a number of studies, 

that their efforts are essential to the prevention of future sexual abuse of 

children. The leaders in the Department of Justice are truly grateful for 

their efforts. 
254

 A concrete reflection of our intensified efforts is the fact that the 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section within the Department’s 

Criminal Division has generated a more than 445 percent increase in its 

caseload, including child pornography cases and investigations, over the 

past 4 years. In addition to increasing the sheer number of investigations 

and prosecutions brought by the Department’s prosecutors, the quality 

and import of the cases have increased substantially, with a focus on the 

producers, commercial distributors, and other high impact offenders. 

The Department’s prosecutors in the 94 United States Attorney’s offices 

are critical to the efforts to enforce Federal laws prohibiting crimes 

against children. According to the Executive Office of the U.S. 

Attorneys, total Federal prosecutions of child pornography and abuse 

cases rose from 344 cases in fiscal year 1995 to 1,576 cases in fiscal year 

2005, a 358 percent increase during that time period. The number of 

Federal investigations of crimes against children continues to increase at 

an exponential rate. 

 Since the late 1990s, through the Department of Justice’s Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Congress has funded 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. The ICACs have played 

a critical role in law enforcement’s efforts to stop Internet criminal 

activity which poses harm to children. In just the first 6 months of 

calendar year 2005, ICAC investigations resulted in 3,423 State charges 

and 563 Federal charges. Moreover, the Attorney General has made very 

clear his and the Department’s commitment to protecting children from 

sexual exploitation over the Internet. On March 15, he announced a new 

Department initiative, Project Safe Childhood, aimed at combating the 

growing threat of children being exploited online through child 

pornography and enticement offenses. 

 As this initiative is implemented in the coming months, it will 

provide for even better coordination by law enforcement at all levels in 

investigating and prosecuting child exploitation cases. It will enable us 

to bring even more Federal prosecutions in the area. It will make more 

training available for officers and prosecutors, and will further ongoing 

community education and awareness efforts. Through this 

comprehensive initiative, the Attorney General has made clear that this is 

an important priority for the Department. Project Safe Childhood is a 

true partnership. It involves the key entities in this battle, Federal law 

enforcement agencies and prosecutors, the ICACs, our other partners in 

State and local law enforcement, the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, and other nonprofit organizations dedicated to the 

protection of children. 

 As part of our strategy to focus on the most pervasive and 

detrimental forms of child pornography distribution, CEOS is currently 
255

coordinating 16 multidistrict operations involving child pornography 

offenders. These investigations of national impact have the potential for 

maximum deterrent effect on offenders. Nearly each one of the 16 

investigations involve hundreds or thousands, and in a few cases, tens of 

thousands of offenders. It is our hope and desire to use the Project Safe 

Childhood initiative to ensure that the number of leads created from 

these major investigations are coordinated, pursued, and prosecuted in 

State or Federal courts. 

 The Department of Justice is also working to identify and rescue 

victims depicted in child pornography. Seven of these previously 

unknown adult subjects appearing in child pornography images have 

been profiled by America’s Most Wanted and with the assistance of tips 

from viewers, six have been identified. More importantly, 35 victims so 

far, in Indiana, Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Canada, have been 

identified as a result of this initiative. All of the victims had been 

sexually abused over a period of years, some since infancy. The 

Department will continue to ensure that this program is utilized to its 

maximum potential. 

 Finally, at the end of successful prosecutions, it is essential that the 

purposes of punishment established by the Congress in the Sentencing 

Reform Act are met. Sentences in child pornography cases, and coercion 

and enticement of minors for sexual purposes cases, must deter others 

from committing these crimes. They must also protect the public, 

promote respect for the law, and incapacitate. 

 Early last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision in United States 

v. Booker, which altered Federal sentencing law. Before Booker, 

Federal judges were required to sentence pursuant to the sentencing 

guidelines. The guidelines are now merely advisory. Recently, I 

testified before the House Judiciary Committee on this subject, and noted 

the importance of making the guidelines binding again. In this area, 

child pornography and coercion and enticement, the Sentencing 

Commission reports the year after the Booker decision, Federal courts 

imposed sentences below the applicable guideline range in 26.3 percent 

of the cases involving possession of child pornography, and in 19.1 

percent of the cases involving trafficking in child pornography. We 

believe that these non-guideline sentences jeopardize the purposes of 

punishment established by the Congress. 

 I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. As you noted, Mr. 

Chairman, I have worn the hat of a U.S. Attorney for 5 years. I have 

been the Chief Deputy to the Deputy Attorney General of the United 

States now for about 10 months. I have been very involved in the 

development of the Project Safe Childhood initiative, both during my 

time as Chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, and 
256

now, as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and I am 

confident that I can be helpful to this committee, in terms of 

understanding what the Department has done, the tremendous efforts 

made on behalf of CEOS, and by a number of line prosecutors and 

agents, and certainly want to help the committee in its essential oversight 

function. 

 I thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

 [The prepared statement of William W. Mercer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. MERCER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF MONTANA, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today about the 

Department of Justice’s efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation on the 

Internet. While we recognize that the Internet can deeply enrich our lives by greatly 

increasing our access to all types of information, we also know that it can be exploited for 

criminal activity and can cause grave harm, including by facilitating the sexual 

exploitation of children. Accordingly, the Department of Justice is unequivocally 

committed to enforcing federal laws in these areas. 

The Attorney General himself has made very clear his and the Department’s 

commitment to protecting children from sexual exploitation over the Internet. On 

February 15th, he announced a new Department initiative, "Project Safe Childhood," 

aimed at combating the growing threat of children being exploited online through child 

pornography and enticement offenses. As this initiative begins to be implemented in the 

coming months, it will provide for even better coordination by law enforcement at all 

levels in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation cases; it will enable us to bring 

even more federal prosecutions in this area; it will make more training available for 

officers and prosecutors; and it will further ongoing community education and awareness 

efforts. Through this comprehensive initiative, the Attorney General has made clear that 

this is a priority for the Department. 

Federal law, codified at Chapters 1 10 and 11 7 of Title 18, United States Code, 

prohibits all aspects of the child pornography trade, including its production, receipt, 

transportation, distribution, advertising, and possession, as well as the enticement of 

children to engage in unlawful sexual activity. 

Unfortunately, the very term we commonly use to describe these awful images - 

child pornography -does not adequately convey the horrors these images depict. A more 

accurate term would be "images of child sexual abuse," because the production of these 

images involves the sexual abuse of a child. These images are thus permanent visual 

records of child sexual abuse. In the past several years, the children we have seen in 

these images have been younger and younger, and, very regrettably, the abuse depicted 

has been increasingly more severe and is often sadistic. 

As if the images themselves were not harmful enough, the sexual abuse inherent in 

child pornography is increasingly exacerbated by pedophiles who choose to disseminate 

these images to millions of people over the Internet with a few clicks of a computer 

mouse. Once on the Internet, the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender 

and perhaps used to whet the appetite of another pedophile to act out the deviant fantasies 

of the image on yet another child, thereby continuing the cycle of abuse. The Department 

of Justice is absolutely committed to obliterating this intolerable evil. 
257

The Department of Justice works continuously to identify the vulnerabilities of the 

child pornography industry and to attack them at every angle, both domestically and 

overseas. We are focusing our efforts on everyone, from the customer, to the website 

operator, to the facilitators - including those who provide credit card processing and 

subscription services. A concrete reflection of our intensified efforts is the fact that the 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) within the Department’s Criminal 

Division has generated a more than 445% increase in its caseload, including child 

pornography cases and investigations, handled in the past four years. In addition to 

increasing the sheer number of investigations and prosecutions brought by the 

Department’s prosecutors, the quality and import of the cases has increased substantially, 

with a focus on the producers, commercial distributors, and other high-impact offenders. 

The Department’s prosecutors in the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices are critical to the 

efforts to enforce federal laws prohibiting crimes against children. According to the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys, total federal prosecutions of child 

pornography and abuse cases rose from 344 cases in FY 1995 to 1,576 cases in I?Y 2005, 

a 358% increase. The number of federal investigations of crimes against children 

continues to increase at an exponential rate. 

Because child pornographers continue to find ways to employ the everevolving 

technology of the Internet and computers to commit their deviant crimes, we in law 

enforcement must respond to these technological advances in order effectively to combat 

these crimes. In order to ensure our ability to do so, the Criminal Division created the 

High Tech Investigative Unit (HTIU) within CEOS in August 2002. The HTIU consists 

of computer forensic specialists who team with expert prosecutors to ensure the 

Department of Justice’s capacity and capability to prosecute the most complex and 

advanced offenses against children committed online. HTIU computer forensic 

specialists render expert forensic assistance and testimony in districts across the country 

in the most complex child pornography prosecutions conducted by the Department. 

Additionally, the HTIU regularly receives and reviews tips from citizens and nongovernmental organizations, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, and initiates investigations from these tips. 

It is important to know that the Department’s specialized expertise in this area 

housed at CEOS and its HTIU is disseminated nationwide, greatly enhancing federal law 

enforcement’s fight against child pornography. CEOS conducts advanced training 

seminars on the investigation and prosecution of child exploitation cases attended by 

Assistant United States Attorneys and federal law enforcement agents from all over the 

country. CEOS also provides critical expert assistance to the field in a variety of other 

ways. CEOS attorneys are on call to answer questions from prosecutors in the field about 

how best to investigate or prosecute their cases. CEOS also keeps field agents and 

prosecutors abreast of current legal and technological developments through such 

mechanisms as its quarterly newsletter. Most importantly, CEOS’ expert resources are 

widely employed by the United States Attorncys’ Offices to resolve the most difficult 

issues presented in child exploitation cases and to ensure a successful prosecution. 

Child pornography is distributed over the Internet in a variety of ways, including: 

online groups or communities, file servers, Internet Relay Chat, e-mail, peer-to-peer 

networks, and commercial websites. The Department of Justice investigates and 

prosecutes offenses involving each of these technologies. Sophisticated investigative 

techniques, often involving undercover operations, are required to hold these offenders 

accountable for their crimes. For example, an investigation of a commercial child 

pornography website requires us not only to determine where the servers hosting the 

website are located and who are the persons responsible for operating the website, but 

also to follow the path of the financial transactions offenders use to purchase the child 

pornography, whether by credit card or other means. Such cases require detailed 

information about all aspects of the transaction in order to determine the identity and 
258

location of the offenders. Additionally, many of these cases require coordination with 

law enforcement from other countries. It is essential that these complex cases be handled 

by law enforcement agents and prosecutors with the necessary specialized expertise. 

To defeat the misuse of these various technologies, however, the Department must 

demonstrate equal innovation to that being shown by the online offenders. For example, 

CEOS’ HTIU has developed a file server investigative protocol and software programs 

designed to identify quickly and locate individuals distributing pornography using 

automated file-server technology and Internet Relay Chat. Because file servers, or "fserves,” provide a highly effective means to obtain and distribute enormous amounts of 

child pornography files, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, with complete automation 

and no human interaction, this trafficking mechanism is a premier tool for the most 

egregious child pornography offenders. The protocol recommends standards for 

identifying targets, gathering forensic evidence, drafting search warrants, and making 

charging decisions. It is designed for both agents and prosecutors to ensure that all 

aspects of these relatively complex investigations are understood by all members of the 

law enforcement team. The software program written by the HTIU automates the process 

of stripping from the computers used as file-servers all of the information necessary to 

make prosecutions against all of the individuals sharing child pornography with the fileserver computer. 

In addition, law enforcement has launched several national enforcement initiatives 

against the use of peer-to-peer networks to commit child pornography offenses. These 

initiatives encompass operations by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and state and local Internet Crimes 

Against Children Task Forces, which are funded through the Department’s Office of 

Justice Programs. To give you a sense of the scope and impact of federal law 

enforcement’s operations, FBI’s "Operation Peer Pressure," as of January 2006, has 

resulted in over 300 searches, 69 indictments, 63 arrests; and over 40 convictions. 

In addition, in recognition of the growing threat to children posed by the Internet, as 

part of the fiscal year 1998 Justice Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 105-1 19), the 

Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created a 

national network of state and local law enforcement cyber units to investigate cases of 

Internet crimes against children. The result is the Internet Crimes Against Children 

(ICAC) Task Forces. The ICAC Task Force program helps state and local law 

enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber enticement and child 

pornography cases. The help consists of forensic and investigative components, training 

and technical assistance, victim services, and community education. Forty-six task forces 

have been established throughout the nation. The ICAC program was developed to 

address the increasing number of children and teenagers using the Internet, the 

proliferation of child pornography, and heightened online activity by predators searching 

for unsupervised contact with underage victims. 

ICACs have played a critical role in law enforcement’s efforts to stop Internet 

criminal activity which poses harm to children. In FY 2003, ICACs received 3,741 

reports of Internet crimes against children, including but not limited to traveler. 

enticement and child pornography complaints. In FY 2004, that number rose to 24,138. I 

n FY 2005, ICACs received 198,883 complaints of Internet crimes against children. The 

largest number of complaints (1 54,545) were reports of child pornography distribution, 

and the second largest number (34,062) were complaints of child pornography 

manufacturing. The dramatic increase from FY 2004 to FY 2005 in the number of child 

pornography manufacturing and distribution complaints is linked to ICAC undercover 

operations in Internet based file sharing applications (i.e., peer-to-peer networks). ICAC 

Task Forces efforts are resulting in the prosecution of many cases. For example, in the 

first six months of calendar year 2005, ICAC investigations resulted in 3,423 state 

charges and 563 federal charges. 
259

Also, as part of our strategy to focus on the most pervasive and detrimental forms of 

child pornography distribution, CEOS is currently coordinating 16 multidistrict 

operations involving child pornography offenders. These investigations of national 

impact have the potential for maximum deterrent effect on offenders. Nearly each one of 

the sixteen investigations involves hundreds or thousands, and in a few cases tens of 

thousands, of offenders. The coordination of these operations is complex, but the results 

can be tremendous. By way of example, the FBI is currently investigating the 

distribution of child pornography on various Yahoo! Groups, which are "member-only" 

online bulletin boards. As of January 2006, the FBI indicated that the investigation has 

yielded over 180 search warrants, 89 arrests, 162 indictments, and over 100 convictions. 

The Department of Justice is also working to identify and rescue victims depicted in 

images of child pornography. One method for achieving this goal is already underway. 

The FBI Endangered Child Alert Program (ECAP) was launched on February 21, 2004, 

by the FBI’s Innocent Images Unit, and is conducted in partnership with CEOS. The 

purpose of ECAP is proactively to identify unknown offenders depicted in images of 

child pornography engaging in the sexual exploitation of children. Since ECAP’s 

inception, seven of these "John Doe" subjects have been profiled by America’s Most 

Wanted, and with the assistance of tips from viewers, six have been identified. More 

importantly, 35 victims (so far) in Indiana, Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Canada have 

been identified as a result of this initiative. All of the victims had been sexually abused 

over a period of years, some since infancy. The Department will continue to ensure that 

this program is utilized to its maximum potential. 

The Department recently has had significant success in destroying several major 

child pornography operations. Three examples are an operation announced by Attorney 

General Gonzales on March 15, 2006, in which 27 individuals in four countries have 

been charged with child pornography offenses, the case of United States v. Mariscal 

(S.D. Fla.), and the Regpay case, which was followed by Operation Falcon (D.N.J.). 

In the recent operation announced by the Attorney General, a private Internet chat 

room was used by offenders worldwide to facilitate the trading of thousands of images of 

child pornography - including streaming videos of live molestations. The chat room was 

known as "Kiddypics & Kiddyvids," and was hosted on the Internet through the WinMX 

software program that also allowed users to engage in peer-to-peer file sharing. The chat 

room was infiltrated in an undercover investigation, resulting in charges against 27 

individuals to date in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain (13 of these 

27 have been charged in the United States). One of the 27 charged defendants is a 

fugitive. Seven child victims of sexual molestation have been identified as a result of the 

investigation, and four alleged molesters are among the 27 defendants charged to date in 

the continuing investigation. This investigation underscores the tremendous scope of 

many child pornography offenses and the necessity of an international law enforcement 

response. Demonstrating our ability to work together effectively to fight these crimes, 

the Department of Justice, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, state and 

local authorities, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, and international law 

enforcement agencies have cooperated successfully in this investigation. 

In the Mariscal case, Angel Mariscal received a 100-year prison sentence on 

September 30. 2004 in the Southern District of Florida, after he was convicted on seven 

charges including conspiracy to produce, importation, distribution, advertising, and 

possession with intent to sell child pornography. Mariscal traveled repeatedly over a 

seven-year period to Cuba and Ecuador, where he produced and manufactured child 

pornography, including videotapes of Mariscal sexually abusing minors, some under the 

age of 12. As a result of Mariscal’s arrest, his customers across the country were targeted 

in Operation Lost Innocence, which was coordinated by the U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service and CEOS. To date, Operation Lost Innocence has resulted in 107 searches, 55 

arrests/indictments, and 44 convictions. 
260

The Regpay (D.N.J.) case, which led to Operation Falcon, is an example of how 

one child pornography investigation into the activities of individuals involved in a 

commercial website operation can lead to the apprehension of thousands of other 

offenders. Regpay was a Belarus-based company that provided credit card processing 

services to hundreds of commercial child pornography websites. Regpay contracted with 

a Florida company, Connections USA, to access a merchant bank in the United States. In 

February 2005, several Regpay defendants pled guilty to various conspiracy, child 

pornography, and money laundering offenses in the District of New Jersey. Connections 

USA and several of its employees also pled guilty in connection with this case. The 

Regpay investigation spawned the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

"Operation Falcon," an international child pornography trafficking investigation that, as 

of February 2006, has resulted in 372 open investigations, 579 search warrants, 341 

domestic and approximately 703 foreign arrests, and 254 indictments, generating 241 

convictions. 

In addition to these efforts to protect children from online sexual exploitation, the 

Department is also involved in two key efforts to protect children from commercial 

sexual exploitation. The first of these is the "Innocence Lost Initiative," which combats 

domestic child prostitution. The Innocence Lost Initiative is conducted by CEOS in 

partnership with the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section of FBI Headquarters 

and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and has so far resulted in at 

least 139 open investigations, 505 arrests, 60 complaints, 70 indictments, and 67 

convictions. The second is our initiative to protect children from child sex tourism. Since 

the passage of the PROTECT Act in April 2003, which facilitated the prosecution of 

these cases, there have been approximately 50 sex tourism indictments or complaints and 

at least 29 convictions. While investigations of these types of cases are harder to track, 

we believe the number of active sex tourism investigations is roughly 60. 

Conclusion 

In these brief comments, I hope to have given you a sense of the Department of 

Justice’s efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. We consider 

this a critically important task and will continue to do our utmost to protect children as 

well as society at large by enforcing these statutes. 

Mr. Chairman. I again thank you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak 

to you today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee might 

have. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

 Mr. Mercer, I want to get a better understanding of the layers of 

organizational supervision over the CEOS section in decision-making at 

the Department, and it is my understanding that Drew Oosterbaan is the 

head of the section. Is that correct? 

 MR. MERCER. He is the head of CEOS, yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And that section is part of the Criminal 

Division. Is that correct? 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And Mr. Oosterbaan reports to the Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. 

 MR. MERCER. That is also correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And her name is Laura Parksy. 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct. 
261

 MR. WHITFIELD. And Mrs. Parsky reports to the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Criminal Division, who is Alice Fisher, is that correct? 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And Alice Fisher reports to Paul McNulty, the 

Deputy Attorney General. 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct, and that is who I work for. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you work for McNulty. 

 MR. MERCER. Correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And McNulty reports to the Attorney General, Mr. 

Gonzalez. 

 MR. MERCER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And that is the line of review for any 

decisions made by the Chief of the CEOS section? 

 MR. MERCER. That is an accurate description of the hierarchy that 

the Department of Justice has for that section. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, could you explain what your role is as 

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, as it relates to the 

decision-making at CEOS, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity 

Section? 

 MR. MERCER. Yeah, and in fact, if I can give a little additional 

context, obviously, the Deputy Attorney General has general, as sort of a 

chief operating official for the Department of Justice. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation is part of the Department of Justice. Many other 

components are part of the Department of Justice. There are occasions 

where the Office of the Deputy Attorney General is asked to referee 

various conflicts, and in this area, our office would get involved, to the 

extent that there were different issues that needed to be resolved, where 

say, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, or a U.S. Attorney challenged the way a 

case was being worked, to the extent that there was a conflict with 

another section of the Department. 

 So, it is important, I think, for the committee to understand that 

CEOS plays a crucial role in coordinating cases, in leading these multijurisdictional investigations, providing advice, training, and counsel, but 

you also have within the United States, 93 U.S. Attorneys and 94 

districts, and you have a number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys around the 

country that are also responsible for prosecuting these cases. As is 

reflected in my statement, that is how we have been able to charge such a 

large number of cases. We have charged 1,500 cases involving child 

pornography and coercion and enticement just in fiscal year 2005. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. MERCER. So, that is the role that we play, and I mentioned this 

Project Safe Childhood initiative. The Deputy Attorney General has 

worked very closely with the Attorney General in shaping that initiative, 
262

which we believe is going to lead to even greater production in this area 

the committee is so interested in. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, today, one of the focuses of this hearing 

relates to information that came out of Justin Berry’s testimony, and that, 

particularly, relates to CEOS and their decisions, because he provided 

them with a lot of information regarding 1,500 people that were using his 

website, credit card numbers, whatever whatever. And so, I would like 

to ask you, do you have any decision-making authority over CEOS 

yourself? 

 MR. MERCER. No. CEOS reports to the Assistant Attorney General 

for the Criminal Division, but I think, given my role as a U.S. Attorney, 

what I have seen in the country, what I have seen in my work in the 

Deputy Attorney General’s Office, I can be helpful to the committee, not 

in terms of talking about this specific investigation, which the 

Department wouldn’t do. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. MERCER. If the committee had said we want to ask about why a 

person was charged, why a case was declined, why an investigation was 

pursued this way, that isn’t something we are going to do during the 

pendency of a case, but I think I can be helpful, in terms of 

understanding how these cases are made, and it would be of value to the 

committee. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, I do hope that you will report back to them 

that, since you don’t have any decision-making over CEOS at all, and 

you do have a broad background in criminal justice and prosecution, but 

we were specifically interested in the CEOS decision-making as it relates 

to this case, and I hope you would convey our disappointment about that. 

 Now, did you have any involvement in Justin Berry’s immunity 

agreement? 

 MR. MERCER. No. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. 

 MR. MERCER. But again, Mr. Chairman, it wouldn’t matter who the 

Department’s witness was. The Department doesn’t participate in 

ongoing discussions when we have a case that is pending. That is 

something that certainly would not advance the purpose-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Would the Chairman yield on that point? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. What is the appropriate title that I should call 

you, Mr. Deputy, or Mr. Attorney General, or Mr. Associate Principal 

Deputy? I mean, I am a little confused here. 

 MR. MERCER. I wear two hats. I am the U.S. Attorney in the 

District of Montana, and I am also the Principal Associate Deputy 

Attorney General, so-- 
263

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. What do you want me to call you? 

 MR. MERCER. Mr. Mercer is fine. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay, Mr. Mercer. Have you ever actually led 

an investigation or prosecuted a case? 

 MR. MERCER. Oh, yeah. I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 7 

years before I became a U.S. Attorney. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. All right. When you were leading this 

investigation or prosecuting this case, I assume that you wanted to talk to 

the witnesses, if possible, if you knew who they were, to the crimes that 

were committed. Is that true or not true? 

 MR. MERCER. Well, actually, the role of investigating cases is 

typically carried out by investigative agencies, so in the FBI-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, let us say the investigative agency that 

you were working with, you said this is the investigation. Here is who 

you need to go see. They went out and came back, said oh, those people 

don’t want to talk to us. But their best friends, or their boyfriend or their 

girlfriend, who they talked to the case about, will talk to us, how did you 

take that? 

 MR. MERCER. I am not sure I understand the question. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, let me be clear. We didn’t ask for you. 

Okay? We have asked for Laura Parsky, who is in the direct line of 

chain of command. We didn’t get her. We have asked her for Alice 

Fisher. We didn’t get her. We have asked for Drew Oosterbaan. We 

didn’t get him. We got you. Now, you are a fine gentleman, but you are 

not even in the line of command. You are staff. You have no control 

over this. You probably had to be briefed to come testify. Now, let me 

be straight. I am calling the Attorney General, my friend from Texas, 

who I know personally. We are going to get the people we want, one 

way or the other. Do you understand that? Not that I am not impressed 

with your background, but when you are conducting your investigations, 

you don’t talk to secondary people. You talk to the people you want to 

talk to. When the FBI is conducting an investigation, they talk to the 

people they want to talk to. They don’t talk to, well, we can’t talk to 

you, but go see the neighbor down the street. Mr. Whitfield is much 

more polite than I am, but I am fed up with this. I had to call the 

Attorney General to get you here, and it is not that we are not impressed 

with you, don’t misunderstand me, but you are not the people that are 

doing this. We want to work with you, but in order to do that, we have 

got to get the people that are actually doing the work. We could have 

picked somebody at random in the audience, and gave them a 30-minute 

brief, and they could have testified to what you testified to. 

 MR. MERCER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that I can be 

helpful to the committee. 
264

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, you had better start. 

 MR. MERCER. Not only because I have done this work as an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then a U.S. Attorney, and then as Chair of 

the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Your credentials are not at risk. We are not 

questioning your credentials as an admirable citizen, but we are 

questioning the judgment of the Justice Department of the United States 

of America, who seems to think they can thumb its nose at the Congress 

of the United States. 

 MR. MERCER. Well, we-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And that will not happen. I am going to tell 

the Attorney General straight, but you go back and tell him for me, or 

report to the Deputy Attorney General, who will report to the Attorney 

General, that we are going to hold another hearing, and these people are 

going to be here. Now, if you want to sit out in the audience, that is fine. 

If you want to stand up beside him and hold their hand, that is fine. They 

are going to be here, and hopefully, the cameras will be here, and the 

committee will be here, and we will finally get this investigation going. 

 I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think Mr. 

Mercer gets a clear understanding of how we feel about this issue, and 

there is a lot of cynicism about the Congress in a lot of different areas, 

but in this area of child pornography, when we do request certain people 

from the Justice Department, who are involved in the investigations, they 

can talk to us specifically about issues, and then they just thumb their 

nose and do not attend the hearing, it does upset all of us, and it 

particularly upsets us that in the Justin Berry case, when 1,500 names 

were given to the Justice Department, to the CEOS section, and 

individual names and pictures of young children being molested, in 

danger, given to the Department, and still no action has been taken, it is 

something that we find particularly upsetting 

 And let us see, my time has expired as well now, so I will recognize 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in light of not having the witnesses we 

need, why don’t we just adjourn this hearing until we get the witnesses 

we need? We have subpoena power on this committee. I urge that we 

use our subpoena power. And we have next panel, one, two, three, four, 

five, six, seven people, that I don’t think are going to able to provide us 

any information. I mentioned two other people in my opening statement 

I would like to see here. They are not here. 

 You went through a list of people you requested. They are not here. 

I think on this side, on both sides of the aisle here, we are frustrated with 

not having the people who can answer questions. 
265

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Will the gentleman yield? 

 MR. STUPAK. Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. We may want to release Mr. Mercer, but some 

of the other witnesses that are here on the second panel, from the Postal 

Service and the Immigration Service have been working with the 

committee, and I think we need to give them a chance to testify. I am not 

at all opposed, if it is the will of the committee, to-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Then I would move we let Mr. Mercer go until we get 

the people from Justice we need, and then, let us bring the other 

witnesses up and do their opening statements. We will have votes here 

in a few minutes, and let them do their openings, and let us go move on, 

because we don’t want to waste everyone’s time with a witness that can’t 

answer questions. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Is there any objection to releasing Mr. Mercer? 

Well, then, Mr. Mercer, you are released, and thank you for being here 

today. 

 At this time, I will call the second panel: Mr. William Kezer, who is 

the Deputy Chief Inspector for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Mr. 

Raymond C. Smith, Assistant Inspector in Charge for Child Pornography 

and Adult Obscenity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Mr. John Clark, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. James Plitt, 

Director, Cyber Crimes Center, Office of Investigations, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at the Department of Homeland 

Security; Mr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department, 

Project Director for the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task 

Force; Mr. Flint Waters, Lead Special Agent of the Wyoming Division 

of Criminal Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force; 

and Mr. Chris Swecker, who is the Acting Assistant Executive Director 

for the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice. 

 I want to thank all of you gentlemen for being with us here today, 

and as you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations hearing, and it 

is our practice to take testimony under oath. Do any of you object to 

testifying under oath, and do any of you have a need for an attorney 

today? 

 Then, if you would please stand, and I would like to swear you in. 

Raise your right hand. 

 [Witnesses sworn.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. All of you are now under 

oath, and Mr. Swecker, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 
266

STATEMENTS OF CHRIS SWECKER, ACTING ASSISTANT 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; JAMES PLITT, DIRECTOR, CYBER CRIMES 

CENTER, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES 

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DR. 

FRANK KARDASZ, SERGEANT, PHOENIX POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, PROJECT DIRECTOR, ARIZONA 

INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FLINT 

WATERS, LEAD SPECIAL AGENT, WYOMING DIVISION 

OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNET CRIMES 

AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE TECHNOLOGY 

CENTER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

JOHN P. CLARK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; WILLIAM E. KEZER, DEPUTY 

CHIEF INSPECTOR, UNITED STATES POSTAL 

INSPECTION SERVICE; AND RAYMOND C. SMITH, 

ASSISTANT INSPECTOR IN CHARGE, CHILD 

PORNOGRAPHY AND ADULT OBSCENITY, UNITED 

STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE 

 MR. SWECKER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate 

the opportunity to come here today to talk to the committee. 

 Let me talk a little bit about our Innocent Images Initiative, and 

define the scope of the problem, as you already know. As the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported, one in five 

children will be solicited while online. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of 

these children will ever report it. In its 8 years of operation, the Cyber 

TipLine has generated over 385,000 leads, and reports of online 

enticement have increased by 400 percent. 

 The FBI’s Innocent Images Initiative, formed in 1993, is comprised 

of 36 undercover operations nationwide. These operations involve FBI 

agents working online in an undercover capacity to seek child predators 

and individuals responsible for the production, dissemination, and 

possession of child abuse images. This is accomplished by using a 

variety of techniques, including purchasing child abuse images from 

commercial websites, creating online personas to chat in predicated chat 

rooms, and co-opting predators’ email accounts. Our primary focus is 

addressing child pornography or documented child abuse websites, 
267

where predators are featured abusing children and profit from these 

terrible crimes. These investigations always span multiple jurisdictions, 

and usually expand beyond the borders of the United States. The FBI 

has taken a global approach in addressing this problem, by closely 

partnering with several countries, who work side by side with FBI agents 

in a task force setting. As I sit here today, officers from Norway, 

Thailand, the Philippines, and Belarus are working with our agents just a 

few miles from where we are here. Additionally, task force membership 

includes officers from 11 other countries and Europol. 

 Other priorities include persons or groups who engage in production 

of child abuse images, as the production of this material signifies the 

violent rape or sexual abuse of a child. 

 We also investigate sexual predators who travel from one jurisdiction 

to another to engage in sex with minors. These persons are particularly 

dangerous, as they have gone beyond merely looking at images, and have 

now engaged in activity to make contact with a child. However, these 

predators often find a cadre of agents and task force officers on the other 

end. Persons with large collections of child abuse images also represent 

a danger, as we find a large percentage of those we arrest for possession 

are also committing contact offenses with minors. 

 Over the past 10 years, the Innocent Images program has grown 

exponentially. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2005, there has been a 

2050 percent increase in cases opened, from 113 to 2,500. During this 

10-year period, the program has recorded over 15,556 cases opened, over 

4,700 criminals charged, over 6,100 subjects arrested, over 4,800 

convictions obtained. These cases, which led to these statistics, were 

multi-jurisdictional with no geographical boundaries, and both national 

and international in scope. 

 We have come a long way from the early electronic bulletin boards 

that predated the Internet. Today, an estimated 21 million teenagers use 

the Internet, with 50 percent online daily. As these children use the 

computer more and more, online predators take advantage of emerging 

technologies to facilitate their unimaginable criminal activities. 

 Today, this program is an intelligence-driven, proactive, multiagency initiative that pursues offenders who utilize websites, chat rooms, 

peer-to-peer networks, instant messaging programs, eGroups, 

newsgroups, fileservers, and other online services. To address all of our 

priorities, this program readily draws on the resources of State, local, and 

Federal, and now international law enforcement partners. 

 While conducting these investigations, agents have found 

documented child abuse to be readily available using the most basic of 

search terms. As an example, child abuse images were easily available 
268

when innocuous search terms, such as “Britney Spears” or the word 

“young” were used. 

 Through the use of covert techniques and administrative subpoenas, 

agents can determine which individual users possess and distribute these 

images over the Internet. Using search warrants, interviews, and 

computer forensic tools, our agents can strengthen their cases to 

eventually arrest and prosecute the criminals. 

 As you may have noticed, I have not used the word “child 

pornography,” because it does not adequately describe the type of crime 

that we are talking about today. To some people, pornography may 

imply adult models posing for the camera. “Child pornography” does 

not describe the reality of the crime problem we are facing today. This 

crime deals with the violent rape and sexual exploitation of young 

children, some as young as a few months old. Therefore, each image 

represents evidence of the criminal reality of a violent rape or sexual 

abuse. 

 The FBI has partnered with the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children in a significant and meaningful way. Currently, there 

are two Special Agents and four FBI analysts assigned full time at the 

Center, and in March of 2005, we merged our database, the Child Victim 

Identification Program, with that housed at the Center. The merger has 

drastically increased the number of known victims in the database, and 

has made the data available to all other law enforcement agencies that 

investigate these violations. Ultimately, this partnership benefits both 

the FBI and the Center, but more importantly, it benefits the public and 

the children we serve. 

 I am not sure about time here, sir. How much time do I have? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. You are about 10 seconds over. 

 MR. SWECKER. Okay. All right. Well, I would just rest on the rest 

of the data in my opening statement. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. SWECKER. And I would just say that I am, first and foremost, I 

am a Special Agent. I have come through the ranks. I have supervised 

investigations of this nature. I hope I can help you today. 

 [The prepared statement of Chris Swecker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER, ACTING ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Good Morning Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and other members 

of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to address the FBI’s role in combating the sexual exploitation of children 

through the use of the Internet. 

As the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has reported, 

one in five children will be solicited while online. Unfortunately, only ten percent of 
269

these children will report it. In its eight years of operation, the Cyber tipline has 

generated over 385,000 leads and reports of online enticement have increased by four 

hundred percent. 

The FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative is comprised of thirty six under-cover 

operations nationwide. These operations involve FBI Agents working on-line in an 

undercover capacity to seek child predators and individuals responsible for the 

production, dissemination, and possession of child abuse images. This is accomplished 

by using a variety of techniques, including purchasing child abuse images from 

commercial web sites, creating on-line personas to chat in predicated chat rooms, and coopting predators’ e-mail accounts. Our primary focus is addressing commercial child 

abuse image websites where predators are featured abusing children and which profit 

from their terrible crimes. These investigations always span multiple jurisdictions and 

usually expand beyond the borders of the United States. The FBI has taken a global 

approach in addressing this problem by closely partnering with several countries who 

work side by side with FBI agents in a task-force setting. As I sit before the 

Subcommittee today, officers from Norway, Thailand, the Philippines, and Belarus are 

working with our agents just a few miles from here. Additionally, task force membership 

includes officers from 11 other countries and Europol. 

 Other priorities include persons or groups who engage in the production of child 

abuse images, as the production of this material signifies the violent rape or sexual abuse 

of a child. 

We also investigate sexual predators who travel from one jurisdiction to another to 

engage in sex with minors. These persons are particularly dangerous as they have gone 

beyond merely looking at images and have now engaged in activity to make contact with 

a child. However, these predators often find a cadre of FBI agents and task force officers 

on the other end of their travel. Persons with large collections of child abuse images also 

represent a danger as we find a large percentage of those we arrest for possession, are 

also committing contact offenses with minors. 

 Over the past 10 years, the Innocent Images program has grown exponentially. 

Between fiscal year 1996 and 2005, there has been a 2050% increase in cases opened 

(113 to 2500). During this ten-year period, the program has recorded over 15,556 cases 

opened; 4,784 criminals being charged; 6,145 subjects being arrested; and 4,822 

convictions obtained. The cases which led to these statistics were multi-jurisdictional 

with no geographical boundaries, and both national and international in scope. 

We have come a long way from the early electronic bulletin boards that pre-dated 

the Internet. Today an estimated 21 million teenagers use the Internet, with 51 percent 

online daily. As children use computers more and more, online child predators take 

advantage of emerging technologies to facilitate their unimaginable criminal activities. 

 Today, this program is an intelligence-driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative 

effort, that pursues offenders who utilize websites, chat rooms, peer-to-peer networks, 

Instant Messaging programs, eGroups, NewsGroups, File Servers, and other online 

services to sexually exploit children. To address all of our priorities, this program 

readily draws on the resources of its federal, state, local, and now international law 

enforcement partners. 

While conducting these investigations, FBI agents have found child sexual abuse 

images to be readily available using the most basic of search terms. As an example, child 

abuse images were easily available when innocuous search terms were used, such as 

"Brittney Spears" or the word "young." 

 Through the use of covert investigative techniques and administrative subpoenas, 

FBI agents can determine which individual users possess and distribute child abuse 

images over the Internet. Furthermore, utilizing search warrants, interviews, and 

computer forensic tools, our agents can strengthen their cases to eventually arrest and 

prosecute these dangerous criminals. 
270

As you may have noticed throughout my presentation, I have not used the phrase 

"child pornography," because it does not adequately describe the type of crime we are 

talking about today. To some people, pornography may imply adult models posing for 

the camera. Child pornography does not describe the reality of the crime problem we are 

facing today. This crime deals with the violent rape and sexual exploitation of young 

children, some as young as a few months old. Therefore, each image represents evidence 

of the criminal reality of a violent rape, or sexual abuse of a child. 

The FBI has partnered with NCMEC in a significant and meaningful way. Currently 

there are two FBI Special Agents and four FBI support personnel assigned full time at the 

Center. Further, in March of 2005, the FBI merged its Child Victim Identification 

Program (CVIP) Database with that housed at the National Center. This merger has 

drastically increased the number of known victims in the CVIP database and has made 

FBI data available to all other law enforcement agencies that investigate these violations. 

Ultimately this partnership benefits both the FBI and the National Center, but more 

importantly it benefits the children we serve. 

In June of 2003, the FBI, along with our partners in the Department of Justice, Child 

Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and NCMEC implemented the “Innocence Lost 

National Initiative” to address the growing problem of child prostitution. Initially, the 

FBI identified 14 field offices with a high incidence of child prostitution. In FY 2005 

and through the first quarter of FY 2006, an additional ten field offices were identified as 

areas in which these criminal enterprises were operating. These criminal enterprises use 

the Internet to advertise the children they have forced or tricked into prostitution, often 

masquerading as escort services, which leads to further victimization of the children. 

These investigations are manpower intensive, intelligence driven and make use of 

sophisticated investigative techniques such as Title III wiretaps. To date, five FBI field 

offices have utilized Title III wiretaps in these investigations. As a result, since FY 2004, 

166 cases were opened, 28 criminal enterprises disrupted, 16 enterprises dismantled, 101 

individuals indicted, 75 subjects convicted and 80 seizures claimed. Since the inception 

of Innocence Lost, over 300 children have been recovered. 

According to NCMEC, in FY 2005 there were 7,000 reports of endangered 

runaways and 774 reports of children involved in or suspected of being involved in child 

prostitution. FBI personnel assigned to the NCMEC review these intake reports daily and 

disseminate the information to the appropriate FBI field office for investigation. 

Conclusion 

In closing, the FBI looks forward to working with other Law Enforcement agencies, 

private industry, and the Department of Justice’s prosecutors in continuing to combat this 

heinous crime problem. The protection of our children requires the combined efforts of 

all sectors of our society. I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee 

for addressing this very serious problem, and I would also like to thank Chairman 

Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and the Subcommittee for the privilege of appearing 

before you today. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. And Mr. Plitt, you are 

recognized for your 5 minutes, and you are Director of the Cyber Crimes 

Center at the Homeland Security. 

MR. PLITT. Yes, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to present 

some additional information about the Cyber Crimes Center today, its 

responsibilities with respect to investigating child exploitation. 

 Our Cyber Crime Center is C3, recognized nationally and 

internationally as a leader in the investigation of international criminal 
271

activities conducted or facilitated by the Internet. Created in 1997, C3 

brings the full range of ICE’s technical services, such as digital media 

forensics, and cyber investigative services together in a single location to 

investigate the cyber aspects of violations of immigration and customs 

law. Contrary to general perceptions, C3 does not currently investigate 

what would be termed as more traditional cyber crimes, as hacking, 

denial of service, or phishing. In addition to trans-border child 

exploitation crime, C3 investigates other trans-border crimes, such as 

international money laundering, illegal cyber banking, illegal arms 

trafficking, derivative pharmaceuticals sold over the Internet, intellectual 

property rights violations. 

 C3 essentially serves as the mission control for ICE’s Internet-related 

investigations by refining investigative leads generated by domestic and 

international sources, validating those leads, that constitute immigration 

and customs violations, and working in partnership with the ICE field 

offices to implement the various investigations through national training, 

best practices. Meeting with our foreign counterparts and more than 50 

attaché locations, C3 builds strong international partnerships that are 

crucial to the trans-border category of investigations. 

 ICE derives its trans-border child exploitation investigative 

authorities from its customs responsibility to prevent the smuggling of 

contraband, such as child pornography, and its immigration 

responsibility, to investigate and administratively remove foreign 

nationals guilty of crimes of moral turpitude. As a result, ICE limits its 

child exploitation investigations to two situations: one, when there is a 

reasonable nexus to the U.S. border; and when, as a second situation, 

when ICE’s assistance is specifically requested by international, Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement prosecutors. Currently, ICE participates 

in approximately 60 of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces 

across the country, to assist their State and local law enforcement officers 

with the trans-border component of their investigations. 

 Through this trans-border specialization, ICE is able to focus its 

resources to achieve better resource efficiency and develop investigative 

projects that maximize the international partnerships. C3’s Child 

Exploitation Section coordinates their responsibilities through Operation 

PREDATOR, the program that organizes trans-border child exploitation 

investigations, including those of criminal alien child predators, 

international child sex tourists, international smugglers and traffickers of 

children for sexual purposes, and Internet child pornographers. 

 ICE, through the Crimes of Exploitation Section, has achieved 

notable operational efficiencies. For example, with less than 3 percent of 

ICE’s worldwide investigative resources, ICE manages more than 1,000 
272

investigations annually, concerning international child sex tourism, and 

international Internet child pornography cases alone. 

 Previous testimony from Mr. Clark is going to detail some of those 

accomplishments. C3’s Child Exploitation Section is also responsible 

for managing and implementing all phases of the systems development 

life cycle for the National Child Victim Identification System. Mr. Clark 

will go into more detail about that, as well. 

 And C3 is responsible for maintaining partnerships with nongovernment organizations. Some of the non-government organizations 

would include the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 

ECPAT, i-SAFE, and World Vision. With respect to the Internet portion 

of ICE’s international child exploitation investigations, C3 supports the 

ICE offices, and upon request, foreign law enforcement operations, by 

providing training and investigative support. While prudence 

recommends that the details of C3’s technical investigative methods 

perhaps not be communicated in a public forum, some appropriate 

examples would include the development of undercover websites, 

making undercover purchases of websites, and communicating through 

undercover methods with investigative targets. C3 provides these 

services on investigations involving all Internet technologies, including 

commercial and noncommercial websites, peer-to-peer groups, 

newsgroups, and Internet Relay Chat channels. 

 C3 will continue patrols on all these Internet environments for the 

trans-border aspect of individual illegal downloads, criminal 

conspiracies, and illegal commercial operations, through its presence in 

public areas and court-ordered intercepts. C3 draws on ICE’s renowned 

international money laundering prowess to trace associated financial 

transactions, including the new e-currency methods, and of course, to 

seize instrumentalities and proceeds. 

 C3’s latest endeavor involves the development and implementation 

of systems, telecommunications, and operational processes that directly 

link to the international Internet child exploitation investigative 

organizations of other countries. The end result is innovative, 

collaborative project, maybe the implementation of the first noninvestigation-specific virtual, worldwide law enforcement task force on 

trans-border child exploitation. 

 In summary, ICE investigations focus on the trans-border aspect of 

child exploitation over the Internet. These investigations are organized 

under Operation PREDATOR, and coordinated by ICE C3. ICE is 

honored to work with any individual or organization that is interested in 

protecting children, making the Internet a safe and enjoyable place. ICE 

C3 knows that it cannot alone substantially impact the macro problem of 

Internet child safety. 
273

 A coordinated, cooperative approach between all the aforementioned 

participants is vital, and the most important participants on these teams 

are parents. Parents are physically and emotionally closer to teach and 

guard the potential victims, the children. Parents, in addition to the 

children, are also the most impacted by the offline consequences of 

online behavior. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Dr. Kardasz, you are recognized for 5 

minutes, and you are Project Director of the Arizona Internet Crimes 

Against Children Task Force, and we welcome you. 

MR. KARDASZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for permitting me to speak today. 

 Arizona joined the ICAC, you will also hear it called ICAC, Task 

Force Program in the year 2000. We work cooperatively with our law 

enforcement colleagues from the FBI, ICE, Postal Inspection Service, 

and the Secret Service. Although the names of our agencies differ, we 

share the common goal of trying to keep children safe from Internet 

sexual predators and child pornographers. 

 The Arizona ICAC Task Force has recorded over 2,000 

investigations and over 200 arrests. Although Arizona has the toughest 

laws in the Nation against child pornography, this has not stopped the 

trafficking of unlawful images, and like all of our colleagues nationwide, 

we have many more solvable case files at the ready than we have 

personnel and resources to bring in the offenders. Sadly, while these 

cases await investigation, children and teens continue to suffer at the 

hands of Internet sex offenders. 

 I have had the opportunity to speak with many citizen groups about 

Internet crime, and at the end of each presentation, there is often some 

senior individual in the group who raises his hand and says: “Why don’t 

they just shut that dang Internet thing off?” As if we have a control 

panel somewhere with a dial that we can turn, and it will regulate 

Internet misconduct. 

 Your legislation is the closest thing we have to an Internet control 

dial, and although opponents of controls argue that regulations are costly, 

imperfect, and violations of Constitutional freedoms, I sometimes 

wonder what the framers of the Constitution would have thought if they 

had known what we know now about computers and the Internet. Would 

they have permitted the Internet crimes against children that we are 

witnessing today? 

 I would like to talk about two things today, the threat from those 

predators who are using social networking sites, and the legal help we 

need regarding data retention by Internet service providers. 
274

 The luring of minors for sexual exploitation remains a continuing 

threat to our youth. Beyond the chat rooms that predators have always 

frequented, social networking sites are now wildly popular, and there are 

dozens of such free sites, including MySpace, Xanga, Friendster, 

Facebook, and others. Curious young people visit the sites every day, 

and post images and personal information about themselves. They can 

browse and search for others, according to age, sexual preference, zip 

code, and school name. They can communicate with one another, and 

then arrange to meet in person, and as you might imagine, the sites are 

also popular among sexual predators. 

 We received a phone call a few months ago from an Arizona woman 

who said that her young daughter, while using a social networking site, 

was contacted by a man from their neighborhood who she knew as a 

registered sex offender. We found the man’s webpage, where he 

described himself as a kindly lover of poetry, plants, and flowers, who 

was seeking female friendship for dating. Fourteen other young people 

were listed on his profile as friends, with whom he had networked 

through the site. There was no mention, of course, in his profile that he 

is a high risk registered sex offender in Arizona. Now, since that time, 

the original webpage is no longer available at the site, but there is 

nothing stopping him from re-subscribing to the same site, or one of the 

many other sites, under another assumed name. The use of the sites by 

sexual predators remains a serious threat to our safety and the safety of 

our children. 

 Now, this problem will likely get worse before it gets better, as kids 

flock to the sites and more communities, schools, libraries, and 

businesses provide unrestricted Internet access through wireless access 

points that sometimes leave law enforcement investigations at a dead 

end. My written attachments contain some suggestions for improving 

the social networking site environment, but in the interest of time, I don’t 

want to review them all now. 

 I would like to talk about an item of great importance to my 

investigative colleagues nationwide. Last week, I sent a survey to 

Internet crimes against children investigators at all of our nationwide 

affiliates throughout the United States. The survey asked one question: 

what law could be created or revised to assist investigators who work 

cases involving Internet crimes against children, and the most frequent 

response involved data storage by Internet service providers, and the 

retrieval of data from Internet service providers. What our people are 

telling us is that investigators need ISPs to retain subscriber and content 

information so that when legal process, in the form of a subpoena or 

search warrant, are served, there is data remaining with the ISP that the 

investigator can use to find the offender. 
275

 Now, most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and 

professional business people who are equally horrified, as are we all, by 

Internet crimes against children. Some ISPs have graciously extended 

themselves to help investigators. Some reluctant ISPs will only assist to 

the extent that the law mandates them to assist. 

 Mandating that ISPs retain data is not a privacy violation. Law 

enforcement only needs the data preserved, but not disclosed to us, 

except in response to legal process. 

 Internet industry professionals may cite the financial burden of data 

storage, but consider the potential cost of not retaining data. For 

example, when law enforcement is seeking a predator identifiable only 

by the information associated with a screen name, but the responsible 

ISP did not preserve the information, the investigation ends, while the 

predator roams free. 

 Based on the requests of my colleagues, I respectfully ask for two 

improvements to the law: one, that Internet service providers be 

mandated to retain information about subscribers for at least 1 year, with 

penalties for noncompliance; and two, that Internet service providers be 

mandated to respond to subpoenas involving crimes against children 

investigations within 1 week of receiving a subpoena, and more quickly 

under exigent circumstances, where a child is missing. 

 I will conclude by saying that investigators need your help in order 

to navigate those dark alleys of the Internet, where they work diligently 

to help protect children. I recognize that turning the Internet control dial 

comes with a cost, but failing to turn the dial carries a greater human cost 

to our young people. 

 Thank you, sir. 

 [The prepared statement of Dr. Frank Kardasz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK KARDASZ, SERGEANT, PHOENIX POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, PROJECT DIRECTOR, ARIZONA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK 

FORCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the sub-committee, thank you 

for permitting me to speak today. Arizona joined the Internet Crimes Against Children 

(ICAC) Task Force Program in 2000. We work cooperatively with our law enforcement 

colleagues from the FBI, ICE, Postal Inspection Service and the Secret Service. Although 

the names of our agencies differ, we all share the common goal of trying to keep children 

safe from Internet sexual predators and child pornographers. 

 The AZ ICAC Task Force has recorded over 2,000 investigations, with over 200 

arrests. Although Arizona has the toughest laws in the nation against child pornography, 

this has not stopped the trafficking of unlawful images, and like all of our colleagues 

nationwide, we have many more solvable case files at the ready than we have personnel 

and resources to bring in the offenders. Sadly, while these cases await investigation, 

children and teens continue to suffer at the hands of sex offenders. 

 I have had the opportunity to speak with many citizen groups about Internet crime, 

and at the end of each presentation there is often some senior individual in the group who 
276

raises a hand and asks: "Why don’t they just switch that whole dang Internet thing 

off!"...as if we have a control panel somewhere with a dial that we can turn and it will 

regulate Internet misconduct. 

 Legislation is the closest thing we have to an Internet control dial. Although 

opponents of controls argue that regulations are costly, imperfect and violations of 

constitutional freedoms, I sometimes wonder what the framers of the Constitution would 

have thought if they had known what we now know about computers and the Internet. 

Would they have permitted the Internet crimes against children that we are witnessing 

today? 

 I would like to talk about two things today: the threat from those predators who use 

social networking sites, and the legal help we need regarding data retention by Internet 

service providers. 

 The luring of minors for sexual exploitation remains a continuing threat to our 

youth. Beyond the chat rooms that predators have always frequented, social networking 

sites are now wildly popular. There are dozens of such free sites, including MySpace, 

Xanga, Friendster, Facebook, and others. Curious young people visit the sites every day 

and post images and personal information about themselves. They can browse and search 

for others according to age, sexual preference, zip code or school name. They can 

communicate with one another and then arrange to meet in person. And as you might 

imagine, the sites are also popular among sexual predators. 

 We received a phone call a few months ago from an Arizona woman who said that 

her young daughter, while using a social networking site, was contacted by a man from 

their neighborhood who was know to her as a registered sex offender. We found the mans 

web page where he described himself as a kindly lover of poetry, plants and flowers who 

was seeking female friendship for dating. Fourteen other young people were listed on his 

profile as friends with whom he had networked through the site. There was no mention 

on his profile that he is a high-risk registered sex offender in Arizona. Since that time the 

mans original web page is no longer available at the site, but there is nothing stopping 

him from re-subscribing to the same site or one of the many other sites under another 

assumed name. The use of the sites by sexual predators remains a serious threat to the 

safety of our children. 

 The problem will likely get worse before it gets better as kids flock to the sites and 

more communities, schools, libraries and businesses provide unrestricted Internet access 

through wireless access points that sometimes leave law enforcement investigations at a 

dead end. My written attachments contain some suggestions for improving the social 

networking site environment, but in the interest of saving time I do not wish to review 

them all now. 

 I would like to talk about an item of importance to my investigative colleagues 

nationwide. Last week I sent a survey to Internet crimes against children (ICAC) 

investigators at all of our nationwide affiliates throughout the United States. The survey 

asked one question: What law could be created or revised to best assist the investigators 

who work cases involving Internet crimes against children? The most frequent response 

involved data storage by Internet service providers and the retrieval of data from Internet 

service providers. What our people are telling us is that investigators need ISP’s to retain 

subscriber and content information so that when legal process in the form of a subpoena 

or search warrant are served, there is data remaining with the ISP that will help the 

investigator find the offender. 

 Most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and professional business 

people who are horrified by Internet crimes against children. Some ISP’s have graciously 

extended themselves to help investigators. Some reluctant ISP’s will only assist to the 

extent that the law mandates them to assist. 

 Mandating that ISP’s retain data is not a privacy violation. Law enforcement only 

needs the data preserved but not disclosed to us, except in response to legal process. 
277

 Internet industry professionals may cite the financial burden of data storage, but 

consider the potential human cost of not retaining data. For example, when law 

enforcement is seeking a predator identifiable only by the information associated with his 

screen name, but the responsible ISP did not preserve the information, the investigation 

ends while the predator roams free. 

Based on the requests of my colleagues I respectfully ask for two improvements to 

the law: 

1. That Internet service providers be mandated to retain information about 

subscribers for at least one year, with penalties for non-compliance. 

2. That Internet service providers be mandated to respond to subpoenas 

involving crimes against children investigations within one week of 

receiving a subpoena, and more quickly under exigent circumstances 

where a child is missing. 

 I will conclude by saying that investigators need your help in order to navigate those 

dark alleys of the Internet where they work diligently to help protect children. I recognize 

that turning the Internet control dial comes with a cost, but failing to turn the dial carries 

a greater human cost to our young people. 

Thank you again. 

Supplemental Materials to the Testimony of Dr. Kardasz 

Internet Social Networking Sites 

Recent disturbing incidents involving Internet crimes against children have been 

prominent in the media. In some incidents, the crimes have involved suspects and victims 

who met each other via Internet social networking sites. Social networking sites are 

places on the Internet where people can meet one another, communicate and interact. 

Social networking and communication are normal parts of the human experience. 

The Internet has become an important venue for people to network and interact. Young 

people are naturally curious about themselves, about others, and about the world. The 

sites permit them to reach out to others from around the globe, sometimes with tragic 

results. 

There are many social networking sites. Some of them are listed below: 

• Myspace.com • Livejournal.com 

• Facebook.com • Friendsfusion.com 

• Friendster.com • Intellectconnect.com 

• Dittytalk.com • Prisonpenpals.com 

• Cozydating.com • Zogo.com 

• Interracialsingles.net 

Why are the sites popular? 

Most of the social networking sites are free and supported by advertisers who hope 

users will buy products or services advertised on the sites. Young people who are curious 

and seeking relationships and new experiences visit the sites to find others. 
278

How do the sites work? 

Any computer with Internet access can be used to permit someone to join a site. 

Some sites require only that the registrant provide an email address and often there is no 

verification process to check the truthfulness of any of the information that a registrant 

provides. Most sites require that users abide by conditions and terms of use meant to 

thwart improper conduct, but enforcement is often lax. Once a registrant becomes a 

member, he or she can post personal information, images or other information depending 

upon the features available at the site. Unless a user chooses to enable privacy options, all 

the information posted may be visible to all other users of a site. 

What are the dangers? 

Those who misuse the sites may do so in many ways including: 

• Luring / enticement – Internet sexual predators and know sex offenders have 

used social networking sites to locate and lure victims. 

• Identity theft – Criminals steal the identities of those who post personal 

information. 

• Cyberbullying / harassment – Agitators post derogatory, hurtful or threatening 

information about others. 

• Stalking – Stalkers can use personal information posted to the sites to locate 

and pursue victims. 

• Fraud schemes – Criminals who wish to defraud others of money or property 

can locate victims, gain their trust, and then take advantage of that trust for 

criminal purposes. 

• Inappropriate sexual content – Some users post sexually explicit information 

that is inappropriate for young computer users. 

Prevention 

What can you do to protect yourself from those who misuse social networking sites? 

Do’s and Don’ts 

Don’t - 

• post personal images 

• post your true full name 

• post your home or cellular phone number 

• post your true age or date of birth 

• post your true home or business address 

• post your school name or the grad that you are in 

• post your calendar of upcoming events or information about your future 

whereabouts. 

Do 

• discuss Internet risks with your child 

• enter into a safe-computing contract with your child 

• enable computer Internet filtering features if they are available from your 

Internet service 

• consider installing monitoring software or keystroke capture devices on your 

family computer that will help monitor your child’s Internet activity 

• know each of your child’s passwords, screen names and all account information 

• put the computer in a family area of the household and do not permit private 

usage 
279

• report all inappropriate non-criminal behavior to the site through their reporting 

procedures 

• report criminal behavior to the appropriate law enforcement agency including 

the NCMEC Cybertip line or the Internet Fraud Complaint Center 

• contact your legislators and request stronger laws against Internet crime 

• contact the corporations who place advertisements on the sites and let them 

know that their advertising is helping to support inappropriate Internet 

behavior. Also, let the corporations know that you intend to boycott or 

discontinue using their product or services because of the behavior they are 

supporting. 

• visit the NCMEC Netsmartz Workshop at http://www.netsmartz.org for more 

information 

• remember that every day is Halloween on the Internet. People on the Internet 

are not always as they first appear.

Making Social Networking Sites Safer 

The following suggestions would make social networking sites safer for users and 

more law-enforcement friendly. 

1. On every social networking site web page, display a clearly visible hyperlink 

permitting users to easily report misconduct. 

2. For new users, make the default settings for viewing and sharing all account 

information ‘private’. This means that new accounts would be automatically set 

to exclude others and to not share information. The new subscriber would have 

to actively choose to share account information by checking the appropriate 

boxes in the account settings section. 

3. On every web page, display a link to the national sex offender registry. 

4. Proprietors of social networking sites should install filtering software to 

eliminate users from posting obscene words. 

5. Require that all new users enter verifiable credit card information when first 

subscribing. 

6. Require that all subscribers pay a nominal monthly fee. 

7. Include a provision in the social networking sites terms of use that notifies 

users that they have no expectation of privacy with regards to any of the 

content they post and that law enforcement may obtain any and all of their 

postings through the use of a subpoena only - without a search warrant. 

8. Retain profile information for deleted accounts for 90 days. 

9. Remove the browse and search functions that permit users to locate one 

another. 

10. On every social networking site page, display a link to the Internet Crime 

Complaint Center for incidents of theft or fraud. Their link is www.ic3.gov 

11. Include an admonition on social networking sites profile pages advising users 

that revealing personal information could lead to identity theft or victimization 

by offenders who are intent upon harassment, stalking, fraud or identity theft. 

12. Preserve changes to user’s pages and the Internet protocol address associated 

with the changes for 90 days. 

Selected ICAC Case Studies – Arizona ICAC Task Force 

Milwaukee Boy Found in Phoenix Home of Sex Offender

From the Arizona Republic, Aug. 23, 2005, Reported by William Hermann 

Phoenix police say the experience of the 13-year-old Milwaukee boy they found 

Monday night in the company of a man they suspect of using the Internet to lure the child 

to town is one that parents need to take to heart. Phoenix Police Sergeant Kardasz said 
280

Milwaukee police on Aug. 17 had received a missing persons report from the boy’s 

mother. Investigators went into her son’s computer and found that he had been 

communicating regularly with a person using a Phoenix wireless Internet site. "We went 

to the address of the wireless user and pretty quickly found he was an innocent person 

whose wireless service was being used by someone else," Kardasz said. "Through 

investigative work my staff established who was using the wireless connection, we 

watched his house, and soon the man drove up with the boy in his car." 

At about 11:30 p.m. police arrested Vernon Monk, 31."The suspect had no ID and 

was using a false name and a fictitious license plate and pretending to be the boy’s father 

to people in the neighborhood," Kardasz said. Monk was arrested for custodial 

interference and booked into a Maricopa County Jail. Police also learned that there is an 

outstanding arrest warrant on Monk from Seminole County, Okla., for a sexual offense 

against a minor. The boy was taken to the county’s Juvenile Court Center to stay until his 

mother could arrange for his return home. 

Internet Sexual Predator / Traveler Arrested and Imprisoned

Offender: David Jackson Donan, w/m, age 61 

In September 2003, an investigation began involving an unidentified person using 

the Internet screen name "Brasshatter." Investigators learned that "Brasshatter" intended 

to travel via commercial aircraft from Austin, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose 

of meeting a minor to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. "Brasshatter" was later 

identified as David Jackson Donan, age 61, with residences in both California and Texas. 

On October 20, 2003 Donan boarded a commercial aircraft and traveled from Texas to 

Arizona. To groom and entice his intended victim, he brought several packages of the 

candy - Skittles. To aid in his intended unlawful sexual acts he brought nine sexual aide 

devices, KY Jelly, a male sexual enhancement drug, a prescription for Viagra, and a 

digital camera - all in his carry-on baggage. Donan was arrested without incident upon 

his arrival at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. He made no statements and was booked. 

Arizona ICAC investigators and FBI agents in Arizona, California, and Texas 

worked cooperatively in the subsequent investigation and search of Donan’s residences 

for evidence. They uncovered computer evidence, firearms and other sexual aid devices 

belonging to Donan. Later forensics examinations of his computer also revealed a 

collection of child pornography. Computer evidence indicated that Donan had bragged 

during Internet chat conversations about having victimized children while he had visited 

Thailand many years ago. Donan waived his right to trial plead guilty to one count of the 

Federal offense: Travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile (Title 18, Part 

I, Chapter 117, 2423b). Donans’ presentence report was not favorable with indications 

that he had prior "hands-on" offenses with as-yet unidentified victims. 

On September 29, 2004, he plead guilty in U.S. Federal District Court (Phoenix). 

Honorable Earl H. Carroll presided. Judge Carroll sentenced Donan to 7 years, 3 months 

prison, followed by one year residence in a transitional facility, $25,000 fine and lifetime 

supervised release. 

International Cooperation Leads to Child Pornography Trafficker

Offender: Lee McCulloch, w/m, age 26, resident of Gwent, South Wales, U.K. 

Occupation: Factory worker, Marital status: single 

Arrest Location: Abertillery, Gwent - South Wales, United Kingdom 

Charge: Distributing Indecent Photographs of Children (United Kingdom) 

Sentence: Eight months prison, Sex offender registration for five years. 

Agencies involved: Arizona ICAC Task Force, Phoenix P.D., Phoenix F.B.I., Heddlu 

Gwent P.D. South Wales, U.K. 

 In April 2003, an investigator from the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children 

Task Force / Phoenix P.D. initiated an investigation into an unidentified child 
281

pornography trafficker. the investigation led to an unknown suspect in the United 

Kingdom. Working with the FBI and the Heddlu Gwent (UK) Police Department, 

investigators assembled a case that led to the identification and arrest of 26 year old Lee 

McCulloch in South Wales, UK. McCulloch, a factory worker, used computers at his 

home in the United Kingdom to collect and traffic images of child pornography with 

other nefarious Internet associates. 

McCulloch, who is unmarried, was arrested on November 28, 2003. Investigators in 

the UK developed further information leading to twenty (20) other suspects there with 

whom McCulloch traded unlawful images of child pornography. On August 26, 2004, 

McCulloch was sentenced to 8 months in prison in the UK and five years of sex offender 

registration status. 

David Mojica Santos -Internet Sexual Predator

Arrest Date/Time: October 8, 2003, 1530 hours. 

Offense: Luring a Minor for Sexual Exploitation 

On October 8, 2003, David Mojica Santos, age 65, was arrested for luring a minor 

for sexual exploitation in northwest Phoenix. Santos first came to the attention of law 

enforcement in July 2003, when he used the Internet to solicit sexual conduct with a 

minor. Santos traveled from his residence in Mesa to a location in Northwest Phoenix 

where he intended to meet a minor for sex. He was arrested, booked, and subsequently 

released on bond. He later plead guilty to the court. 

SENTENCING HEARING – STATEMENT OF SGT. KARDASZ 

(The recent trend among judges in Maricopa County is to sometimes sentence such 

offenders to probation only, with no jail time. Anticipating this, we prepared a detailed 

statement to the sentencing judge. Here is an excerpt): 

...Your Honor, the innocent children we struggle to protect are unable to appear here 

today. They are children whose innocence was stolen by Internet sexual predators like 

this defendant. Most of those children will never come forward due to fear or a misplaced 

sense of guilt. A few of them, like 13 year old Kasie Woody of Arkansas, and 13 year old 

Christina Long of Connecticut, were forever silenced by Internet sexual predators. 

According to reports from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, one in 

five girls and one in ten boys will be sexually victimized before they reach adulthood, 

and less than 35% of these crimes will ever be reported. 

The Internet provides an unparalleled opportunity for criminals to unearth 

themselves and victimize unwary young people. Research indicates that of the estimated 

24 million child Internet users, one in five received a unwanted sexual solicitation, but 

only one in four told a parent. Curious and innocent youngsters are flocking to the 

Internet seeking friendship and information but are instead finding sexual deviants and 

predators. My undercover investigators and I have witnessed no shortage of adults 

chatting on the Internet with the stated intention of sexually victimizing minors. 

Over the past few years our caseload has skyrocketed while our resources have not. 

Our investigation of this defendant revealed that his Internet chat was not an isolated 

incident but part of a series of ongoing offenses occurring against multiple victims over 

an extended period of time. He was not the unfortunate victim of a "sting" caught at the 

wrong place at the wrong time. He is a practiced Internet sexual predator. Forensics 

analysis of his computer revealed that he did not spend his idle time enjoying normal 

retirement hobbies or mentoring his family or community. This former missionary spent 

his day prowling cyberspace in search of young sexual prey. 

We discovered Internet chat conversations he had with four as yet unidentified girls 

aged fifteen, fourteen and eleven. In each of the chats he quickly turned the conversation 

to sex and began to manipulate each girl towards meeting him for sex. I am going to read 
282

brief excerpts of the chat conversations the defendant had with various young girls he 

contacted on the Internet. Much of the language is so sexually graphic that I will not 

repeat it verbatim. 

"Do you like older guys?" 

"Have you had sex yet?" 

"Are you curious about having sex?" 

"Do you think you would like to have sex sometime soon?" 

"I wish I was next door to you....and then maybe not. I might rape you." "What city 

do you live in....I was just wondering if there is a large 

airport nearby." "You just don’t know how badly I want to (expletive deleted) you 

right now." 

And I will stop there your Honor because the conversations deteriorate graphically 

from there. Your Honor, I have watched defendants in similar circumstances appear in 

these courtrooms arguing that everything they did was fantasy role-playing and that they 

were the unfortunate victims of zealous police operations. That’s hogwash. Was it fantasy 

when this defendant drove over 20 miles from Mesa to Northeast Phoenix for the 

expressed purpose of meeting a minor for sex? Was it fantasy when the defendant 

brought condoms with him to the meeting? Condoms that he admitted that he does not 

use with his wife. 

Apologists for this defendant may look at his age and surmise that he has little 

capacity for future offenses - I disagree. This defendant had the physical capacity to 

proudly display on the Internet, graphic sexual images of himself, captured with a 

computer web camera and in a variety of poses. In similar cases my colleagues and I have 

watched defendants receive minimal sentencing by other courts, only to re-offend later. 

In one recent case the defendant mocked the court by continuing to solicit minors for 

sex while the defendant was out on bond only days after his original arrest. In another of 

our cases, the convicted defendant, while free on probation, immediately began 

producing, acting in, and trafficking child pornography, including images of himself 

sexually abusing three young children under shocking and horrifying circumstances. 

The Arizona law as it stands permits the court to exercise wide discretion in 

sentencing this offense. We trust that this court will act in the best interest of our 

community and send a strong message to this and all other Internet sexual predators. 

Finally your honor, we request that this court’s judgment provide a message of 

reassurance to the children unable to appear in your courtroom today that their rights are 

being defended at this, the highest level of County justice. 

SENTENCE - 

On June 18, 2004, Santos was sentenced before Judge Hotham of the Maricopa County 

Superior Court. He received ten months jail and lifetime probation. 

Contact: 

Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant / Project Director 

Phoenix P.D. / Arizona ICAC Task Force 

620 W. Washington 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

Desk: 602 256 3404 

Email: frank.kardasz@phoenix.gov 

http://www.kardasz.org 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Our next witness is the 

Lead Special Agent of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, 
283

and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Mr. Waters, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

MR. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and 

the distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

 I welcome this opportunity to appear before you, and discuss how 

the Internet is being used to commit crimes against children, and how the 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is responding to that threat. 

 First, I would like to speak to the issue of child pornography. Now, 

in Wyoming, I am one of four investigators that are handling this. We 

are the cops on the beat doing this. This isn’t about a movie or a picture. 

This is ongoing sexual abuse of a child. This is not about pornography. 

These are not baby in the bathtub movies. These are not consenting 

adults. Let us be clear, these are images that are crime scenes depicting 

the sexual abuse of children, starting as young as infants. These are not 

innocent images. These are images depicting the complete destruction of 

innocence. 

 I would like to provide you with a little background information 

about the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The ICAC 

includes 46 regional task forces, State and local police officers, sheriff’s 

deputies, spending time at the computers, doing the chat, working the 

crime scenes. Through funding from the Office of the Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, we are 

able to bring these together with a common goal, and we are able to have 

contacts in each jurisdiction, as these investigations cross boundaries. 

 We have a strong relationship with our Federal colleagues, and we 

collectively strive to bring to bear the strengths of each entity, in our 

mutual goal to protect children. In fact, in Wyoming, the ICAC that I 

represent, we have been active for 5 years. We work very closely under 

the authority of the Attorney General, and we present frequently to the 

United States Attorney for prosecution. 

 I heard a citation earlier that 25 percent of these cases are being 

prosecuted federally, 75 percent of these cases were taken to our State 

prosecutors, our DAs, and we are getting some support. We are getting 

outstanding support, in fact. We work very closely with them to try and 

assure that we bring the best tools to bear. We are facing quite a few 

new challenges. 

 The ICAC Task Force Program designed a methodology to 

investigate peer-to-peer file sharing environment. We were seeing a lot 

of these images showing up during our forensic examinations of 

computers, originating from peer-to-peer. Five years ago, we were 

working a lot of paid websites. Now, coming from the peer-to-peer, I 

started to write software to try and find out how bad this problem was, 

and we were amazed. In under 24 months, our investigators, there are 
284

about 400 around the world using this software, have identified over 4.4 

million transactions involving the trafficking of movies and images 

depicting the sexual abuse of very young children. I focused on images 8 

years old and younger when I designed the system. By country, 

Germany, 262,000 transactions; Canada, 294,000; the United Kingdom, 

305,000; and the United States, 1.9 million transactions in under 24 

months. Over a million IP addresses. 

 These file sharing networks have created an efficiency level 

unprecedented in previous distribution technologies. In Wyoming, the 

smallest state by population, we have over 250 search warrants that we 

could request if manpower permitted. Our investigators are averaging 

over 70 hours a week very frequently working on these investigations. 

We are hitting as hard and as fast as we can. 

 In addition to the ICAC investigative efforts in the peer-to-peer 

environment, we are proactively working to put ourselves between child 

predators and the children in our care. We sit in the chat rooms. We 

pose as little boys, little girls, maybe adults. These are my two youngest. 

In 2001, my wife sent this to me to work, to put on the wall. I was 

having a little bit of trouble dealing with some of the bad guys we were 

facing, and I kept this on the wall. This was our Christmas card, 2001. 

Next please. On December 31, while I was online posing as a 13-yearold girl, I was contacted by a man who requested to meet me at a nearby 

mall for sexual acts. He was very descript. I received this picture of 

him. Look at his eyes. Go back. It is the same man. A week after 

Christmas, we walked the mall, and watched this individual for two and a 

half hours, waiting for him, so that we could arrest him in a safe manner, 

and eventually, we placed him into custody. This is one of two times 

where my undercover operations have revealed an offender who had 

exposed contact to my own children. 

 The investigators in Wyoming are in these rooms, were speaking to 

these individuals, and were pursuing arrests. Through our undercover 

chat operations and file trading investigations, the ICAC investigators are 

executing arrests and search warrants throughout the Nation. These 

investigations often lead us to homes where children are being physically 

and sexually abused, often starting at an early age. The most recent one 

in Wyoming, the abuse was an act of abuse of a four year old, and we 

had no other leads. The individual had no criminal history, no priors, no 

other indication until his trafficking of images on the peer-to-peer 

networks took us into his home, and fortunately, in that case, we were 

able to rescue the child. 

 I would like to speak again briefly about the images that we are 

running into, and this speaks to what Dr. Kardasz spoke. During 

undercover operations, an ICAC investigator in Florida received a movie 
285

depicting the rape of a 2-year-old child. In accordance with our policy, 

the movie was sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children. The abuse was so horrific it even shocked the seasoned 

analysts at the Center. The ICAC investigator received this movie in 

August of 2005. Drawing on our efforts on the peer-to-peer 

environment, we were able to look back and trace this movie to a 

computer in Colorado, where it had been made available for distribution 

in April of 2005, several months prior to any other known existence on 

the Internet. 

 Just as the ICAC investigators thought they were getting close to the 

potential origin of this movie, all hope was destroyed. The Internet 

service provider responded to us that they did not maintain records 

related to this account. Efforts to find this child fell short, and there was 

nothing that we could do about it. The safety of our children cries out for 

each of us to take all steps necessary to eliminate this problem. 

Technology has allowed us to more accurately gauge the scope of the 

societal problem of child sexual abuse. The Internet is serving as the 

great connector for people who seek to harm children and take pleasure 

in watching children being sexually abused. Better cooperation from the 

Internet service providers would result in us being able to take more 

children out of the hands of the predators. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Conclude, Mr. Waters. Your statement has been 

fascinating. 

 MR. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to 

speak, and I will be happy to answer any questions now, or in the future, 

later. 

 [The prepared statement of Flint Waters follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FLINT WATERS, LEAD SPECIAL AGENT, WYOMING DIVISION OF 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE 

TECHNOLOGY CENTER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the sub-committee, I welcome 

this opportunity to appear before you to discuss how the Internet is used to commit 

crimes against children and how the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is 

responding to that threat. Congressman Stupak, you are clearly an advocate for child 

protection and I commend you and your colleagues for your leadership and initiative. 

The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) shares your concern for 

the safety of our children and we thank you for bringing attention to this issue. 

Child Pornography

This isn’t about a movie or picture. This is about the ongoing sexual abuse of a 

child. This isn’t about pornography. These are not images of consenting adults. These 

are not “baby in the bathtub” movies. Let’s be clear, these images are crime scene photos 

depicting the sexual abuse of children starting as young as infants. These are not 

innocent images. These are images depicting the complete destruction of innocence. 
286

Who are these children?

The majority of the children depicted in these pictures are sexually abused by 

someone they should be able to trust, such as a parent or another adult who has legitimate 

access to the child. And, contrary to popular belief, the majority of children identified in 

child pornography have been identified by the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children (NCMEC) as American children. 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force

I would like to provide you with some background information about the Internet 

Crimes Against Children Task Force. ICAC includes forty-six (46) regional Task Forces 

working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. These Task Forces are composed of state and local law 

enforcement agencies throughout the United States focused on investigation, education 

and prevention related to the exploitation of children by means of the Internet. The 

National Task Force has a strong relationship with our federal colleagues and we 

collectively strive to bring to bear the strengths of each entity in our mutual goal to 

protect children. 

 The Wyoming ICAC, which I represent, has been an active participant in the 

national Task Force program for five years. Our Task Force consists of three state agents 

operating under the authority of the Attorney General. In Wyoming, we have a close 

working relationship with the United States Attorney and our Federal partners. 

We Are Facing New Challenges

In the last three years we have witnessed a monumental change in the trafficking of 

material related to the sexual abuse of children. 

Three years ago our national efforts identified over 2600 transactions where people 

were trading images of child sexual abuse via peer-to-peer networks. At that time, the 

operation was one of the largest proactive Internet investigations ever. We thought we 

had made a significant impact in the networks used to trade this material. We were 

mistaken. 

Advances in Peer-to-peer file trading has generated a completely new barter system, 

encouraging people to move from using sexual abuse images to validate their own 

interests in harming children to spreading the material to as many other people as 

possible. 

The ICAC Task Force program has designed a methodology to investigate the Peerto-Peer (P2P) file-sharing environment. 

In under 24 months, our efforts have identified over 4.4 million transactions 

involving the trafficking of movies and images depicting the sexual abuse of very young 

children. 

By Country

• Germany 262,000 

• Canada 294,000 

• United Kingdom 305,000 

• United States 1,900,000 

These file-sharing networks have created an efficiency level unprecedented in 

previous distribution technologies. Utilizing high speed Internet access, millions of 

computers are linked together allowing fast and easy distribution of child pornography. It 

should not be surprising to us that child predators in the United States have found a way 

to leverage the technology to their benefit. 
287

In Wyoming, our small team has over 250 search warrants we could request if 

manpower were not an issue. Often our investigators average 70 hours a week working 

these investigations. 

In addition to the ICAC investigative efforts in the peer-to-peer environment, we are 

proactively working to put ourselves between child predators and the children in our care. 

Highly-trained ICAC investigators across the country are patrolling areas of the Internet 

where predators are known to lurk and children are vulnerable. Each week, ICAC 

investigators identify and apprehend criminals who solicit sexual acts with undercover 

officers posing as children. 

Through undercover chat operations and file trading investigations ICAC 

investigators are executing arrest and search warrants throughout the Nation. 

These investigations often lead ICAC investigators to homes where children are being 

physically and sexually abused. These efforts allow ICAC investigators to disrupt the 

pattern of abuse at an early stage, sometimes before the child is even old enough to reach 

out for help. 

Sadly, this is not always the case. During undercover operations an ICAC 

investigator in Florida was sent a movie depicting the rape of a two-year-old child. In 

accordance with ICAC policy the movie was sent to the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited children. The abuse was so horrific it even shocked the seasoned analysts at 

the center. The ICAC investigator received the movie in August 2005. Drawing on the 

previous coordinated efforts of the ICAC investigators we were able to trace the movie to 

a computer in Colorado where it had been made available for distribution as early as 

April 2005. This was several months prior to any other known existence on the Internet. 

Just as ICAC investigators thought they were getting close to the potential origin of the 

movie all hope was destroyed. The Internet service provider used to trade this movie did 

not maintain any records related to the use of the account. Efforts to find this child fell 

short and there was nothing law enforcement could do about it. 

The safety of our children cries out for each of us to take all steps necessary to 

eliminate this problem. Technology has allowed us to more accurately gauge the scope 

of the societal problem of child sexual abuse. The Internet is serving as the "great 

connector" for people who seek to harm children and take pleasure in watching children 

be sexually abused. Better cooperation from ISP’s would result in us being able to save 

more children from the hands of those who want to harm them. 

The ICAC experience shows us that technology can allow us to proactively protect 

our children and identify predators. The ICAC Task Force Program is critical to the 

overall efforts to protect children and we’ll continue to place ourselves between our 

nation’s children and Internet predators. We thank you for your continued support of the 

ICAC Task Force Program and appreciate your interest in this important issue. 

I will be happy to answer any questions related to this issue now or in the future. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark is 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs, and 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

MR. CLARK. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member 

Stupak, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

 I had spent quite some time over the last few days writing up an oral 

statement off my written statement to sort of summarize some of the 

work and accomplishments ICE has done in the field of child predators 

Internet investigations. I wanted to talk about why U.S. Customs 

originally, and ICE now are involved in these investigations, starting 
288

with our traditional and long history working hand in hand with the U.S. 

Postal Service, when much of the foreign material came into the United 

States through the mail, how in the ‘90s we began working these cases 

through the Internet. I know I was an ASAC out in San Francisco when 

we did one of the first significant international child predator 

investigations, and back then, it involved a chat room in which 

individuals were sharing pictures, videos, and there was, at that time, on 

demand molestation among the members of the groups. 

 Just in March of this year in Chicago, Attorney General Gonzalez 

and Assistant Secretary Myers from ICE conducted a press conference 

heralding the case we had taken down in Chicago. The technology had 

improved, but the situation is the same. It was on demand molestations 

of children by an international group, actually started with the Edmonton 

Police Service. Toronto Police Service had done some undercover work 

on it, turned it over to ICE to continue in an undercover capacity, and 

when all was said and done, we arrested individuals in the United States, 

Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. Same types of work, just more 

significant or sophisticated technology. 

 I wanted to talk about how ICE is using its unique border authorities 

to actually attack this problem from a transnational, trans-border 

perspective. There are many good law enforcement agencies here in the 

United States working it domestically, the ICACs, who we work with 

very often, my colleagues on the board here, State, Federal, local, across 

the board, working it domestically, so in an effort to more efficiently use 

our limited expertise, resources, we focus on the transnational, transborder violations, in which there are persons or materials in a foreign 

country coming across to those in the United States. 

 I also wanted to recognize the excellent work by the nongovernmental organizations. From the international perspective, World 

Vision, whom we work with often. Here, in the United States, the 

excellent work done by the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, NCMEC, on which I am a board member, and who we have 

investigators assigned to their office to help coordinate a lot of the 

domestic investigations between the ICACs, state and local agencies, and 

the Federal agencies. 

 I wanted to highlight that this is a global problem. It is not a U.S. 

problem. One of the things we are finding in ICE, in working with our 

foreign colleagues, is how widespread this is, and on a good note, how 

the attention and the interest of our foreign law enforcement colleagues 

is on the rise. We are developing better and better relationships with our 

56 overseas offices in developing these investigations, and one in 

particular, Operation Falcon, that we took down a few years ago, but 

continues to follow up on a number of leads. While in the United States, 
289

we arrested 236 individuals, outside of the United States, over a thousand 

individuals were arrested based on leads from Operation Falcon, and I 

believe the government of Australia had its attention raised such that it is 

beginning to look at changes in its child protection laws as a result of that 

case. 

 There were a number of other things about ICE I wanted to talk 

about, but I changed my oral testimony, because I think it needs to 

address very briefly the incident that just happened a couple of days ago, 

in which the Public Affairs Officer of the Department of Homeland 

Security was arrested, Brian Doyle. That case just happened. I can’t 

comment on the specifics of the incident, but I think it has bearing on 

this hearing today, and why we are here. The title of today’s hearing is 

“What Parents, Kids, and Congress Need to Know About Child 

Predators,” and I think the allegations in that case are significant. 

 I think what we need to know is that there is no profile, no 

profession, no size and shape, age, color, of an individual, no scarlet 

letter that they wear in public surroundings that indicate who child 

predators are. It is very unfortunate, teachers, clergymen, law 

enforcement. It doesn’t seem to matter. There is no profession that we 

could say if they are doing X, you can be assured that they are child 

predators, or if they are doing Y, you can be assured they won’t be child 

predators. It is an unfortunate situation. We have thousands of law 

enforcement officers here in the United States dedicated to these types of 

investigations, and thousands more internationally doing the same. 

 I think it is important for the public to realize, though, that there will 

never be enough law enforcement officers to attack this successfully 

unless families, parents, communities, and the public at large weigh in, 

and start paying attention to our kids. We can only do so much in law 

enforcement to attack it from a criminal perspective, but the public and 

the families and the parents need to listen to their kids. They don’t have 

to tether their kids to their belts. They don’t have to follow them in minicams. They don’t have to lock them away in houses. They shouldn’t get 

paranoid, but they should listen to their children. They should pay 

attention to what they are doing. They should pay attention to where 

they are going, whether it is around the block, in the mall, or on the 

Internet. That is very, very significant, and that is a message that has to 

be out to the public. We can do a lot. We are doing more, but we can’t 

be everywhere, in terms of law enforcement, and the public, the families, 

the communities have to pay attention to this very, very significant 

problem. 

 I will pass along on my time. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, 

and would be pleased to answer any questions. 

 [The prepared statement of John P. Clark follows:] 
290

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN P. CLARK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, UNITED 

STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak and distinguished Members of the 

Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, my name is John 

Clark and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE). I appreciate the opportunity to share with you today how ICE is 

applying its expertise and authorities to protect our children from Internet sexual 

exploitation. 

I am joined here today by my colleague James Plitt, the head of the ICE Cyber 

Crimes Center. Jim’s unit leads our agency’s efforts to combat the sexual exploitation of 

children on the Internet. 

THE ICE MISSION 

Among the Department of Homeland Security law enforcement agencies, ICE has 

the most expansive investigative authorities and the largest number of investigators. ICE 

is the nation’s principal investigative agency for violations related to our borders. Our 

mission is to protect the American people by combating terrorists and other criminals 

who seek to cross our borders and threaten us here at home. The men and women of ICE 

accomplish this by investigating and enforcing the nation’s immigration and customs 

laws. Working overseas, along the nation’s borders and throughout the nation’s interior, 

ICE agents and officers are demonstrating that our unified immigration and customs 

authorities are a powerful tool for identifying, disrupting and dismantling criminal 

organizations that violate our Nation’s borders. 

Our agents and officers make it harder for potential terrorists and transnational 

criminal groups to move themselves, their supporters or their weapons across the 

Nation’s borders through traditional human, drug, contraband or financial smuggling 

networks, routes and methods. Since its creation in March 2003, ICE has employed our 

authorities and capabilities against threats to our border, homeland and national security 

within our broad jurisdiction, including the cross border Internet sexual exploitation of 

our children. 

PROTECTING CHILDREN

By virtue of our robust authorities and capabilities for investigating crimes with a 

border nexus, ICE makes major contributions in the fight against the sexual exploitation 

of children worldwide, including over the Internet and the importation of physical or 

electronic representations of child pornography. We focus these ICE efforts under 

Operation PREDATOR. 

Launched by ICE on July 9, 2003, Operation PREDATOR is currently managed and 

administered by the Cyber Crimes Center, a headquarters unit of ICE’s Office of 

Investigations, which coordinates enforcement efforts against child sex offenders both 

nationally and internationally. To date, ICE has successfully arrested more than 7,500 

child predators. Of these, more than 6,600 (88%) of the arrestees have been non-U.S. 

citizens, and of those, more than 3,900 (59%) have been deported from the United States. 

ICE’s Operation PREDATOR endeavors to apprehend and ultimately prosecute a 

variety of violators including individuals who: 

 Engage in the receipt, transfer, distribution, trafficking, sale, facilitation, and 

production of child pornography in foreign commerce, including use of the 

Internet; 

 Travel internationally for child sex tourism or who facilitate such travel; 
291

 Engage in the human smuggling and trafficking of minors into the United 

States for illicit sexual purposes (sexual exploitation and/or prostitution) or 

worksite exploitation, and/or commit any crimes resulting in the harm, injury or 

death of a minor – not including the smuggling of children by parents for 

family unity reasons; 

 Are foreign nationals/aliens who have been convicted of local, state, or federal 

offenses against minors and are now eligible for removal from the United 

States; and 

 Are criminal aliens who have been previously deported from the United States 

for such offenses but have re-entered the country illegally. 

These five enforcement objectives/goals are integral components of ICE’s border 

security responsibilities and mission, since these criminal activities involving child 

exploitation often transcend this country’s physical borders. The global Internet 

constitutes a powerful tool for those who prey upon children or profit from that predation. 

Far more child pornography is now being transmitted globally in an instant in electronic 

format than ever was distributed in physical form by couriers or packages arriving at 

international ports of entry or mail facilities. 

Operation PREDATOR is a critical element of ICE’s strategy for identifying and 

defeating threats to public safety that arise from our borders. These threats often include 

foreign nationals who enter or remain in this country illegally and become administrative 

fugitives or absconders and who may also be child sex offenders. Other threats include 

criminal business enterprises with business models based upon the smuggling of alien 

children into this country for sex exploitation or prostitution. Additional threats include 

U.S. citizens and/or lawful permanent resident aliens who travel to other countries with 

the intent to engage in “sex tourism” with children. In multiple cases we have seen these 

individuals actually return to the United States with trophy pictures and videos of their 

illicit exploits. 

To illustrate for the subcommittee our work, I would like to share with you some 

powerful examples from ICE case files. 

OPERATION FALCON

ICE initiated Operation FALCON in response to the threat to public safety posed by 

REGPAY, a criminal businesses activity based in Minsk, Belarus which provided thirdparty billing and credit card aggregating services to Internet child pornography websites. 

A task force comprised of agents from ICE, IRS, FBI, Postal Inspection Service, and the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, New Jersey, launched investigations into individuals 

and corporations involved in the production and distribution of child pornography via the 

Internet. Conducted under the auspices of Operation PREDATOR, this revolutionary 

investigation employed the latest technology to not only target the purchases, but also 

identify, track, and apprehend the producers and webmasters leading to the seizure of 

proceeds from this multi-million dollar criminal enterprise. Operation FALCON has 

yielded approximately 300 arrests in the United States and more than 1,000 arrests 

overseas. Operation FALCON is a continuing investigation. 

Another ICE investigation that illustrates the enormity of the threat to public safety 

that can be posed by a single individual involved in Internet child pornography is that of a 

Louisville resident. This individual was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Western 

District of Kentucky on February 22, 2006, for receiving and possessing child 

pornography on his computer. Previously, this individual was indicted by a federal grand 

jury in the Eastern District of Virginia in December 2001, for similar charges involving 

possession and transportation of child pornography. This prior indictment was based on 

an investigation conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), and led 

to the issuance of an arrest warrant for the individual. He had remained a fugitive until 
292

January 31, 2006, when agents from our Resident Agent in Charge Office in Louisville, 

assisted by NCIS agents and U.S. Marshals, arrested him at his residence. At the time of 

his arrest, our agents executed a federal search warrant resulting in the seizure of 14 

desktop computers, 4 laptop computers, numerous removable hard drives, and computer 

storage media. Subsequent forensic analysis of the seized items revealed numerous 

images of child pornography. This violator admitted that his collection of Internet child 

pornography, which he stored on his computers, approached more than 200,000 still 

images and hundreds of video files. He also stated that he was “addicted” to child 

pornography and had a sexual interest in children. 

COOPERATIVE EFFORTS

Because the Internet allows for the instantaneous transmission of massive amounts 

of child pornography, including live video of real-time molestations, cooperation with 

our international partners is vital. 

ICE has received excellent cooperation from the Danish and Norwegian National 

Police agencies. Together, we identify and target suspects who receive and transmit child 

pornography via the Internet using “peer-to-peer” software applications that operate on 

worldwide file-sharing networks. Examples include the use of the “LimeWire” program 

on the GNEUTELLA network and the “KaZaA” program on the FASTTRACK network. 

ICE has a similar ongoing enforcement initiative with the German National Police, which 

also attempts to identify and target suspects who distribute child pornography on the 

Internet. Additionally, ICE works closely with INTERPOL and EUROPOL to identify, 

arrest, and prosecute international violators with a nexus to the United States, in an effort 

to combat the international distribution of child pornography and the use of the Internet to 

facilitate child sex tourism. 

ICE has partnered with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC) to investigate tips received from the NCMEC Cybertipline. The Cybertipline 

receives leads from persons reporting the sexual exploitation of children. I am a member 

of the board of this unique organization, which has terrific outreach program for parents 

and their children on its “Netsmartz” Internet website. There, families can review 

numerous safety tips to help protect children from online child predators. 

In addition, ICE works closely with the DOJ-funded Internet Crimes Against 

Children (ICAC) Task Forces around the country on major child exploitation initiatives 

involving illicit computer-related child pornography. 

One of the major “high tech” tools we are using to assist us with the investigation of 

child pornography crimes via the Internet is known as the National Child Victim 

Identification System (NCVIS), which is a cooperative effort among federal, state, local, 

and foreign law enforcement agencies and civilian entities. The program is managed and 

administered by our Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax, Virginia. The primary focus of 

NCVIS is to help all law enforcement agencies identify victims of child sexual 

exploitation and to track the transmission and circulation of digital images via Internet 

websites, Email, Instant Messenger, Newsgroups, and Chat Rooms. NCVIS is a secure 

computer-based initiative that was conceived as an investigative tool to assist in child 

exploitation investigations and allows us to analyze specific child pornography images, 

which have been seized as evidence or otherwise, to determine whether they match 

already identified child victims or actual child victims depicted in known child 

pornography magazines. To date, the ICE Cyber Crimes Center has analyzed more than 

150,000 images utilizing NCVIS, resulting in the authentication of more than 2,065 

images used to facilitate the criminal prosecutions and/or sentencing of child predators. 

In addition, since its creation, we have enrolled more than 110,000 images of child 

pornography into NCVIS of which more than 32,000 are of known child victims. 

It is also important to note that our Cyber Crimes Center provides extensive 

technical training in the areas of online investigations and computer forensic analysis to 
293

local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies, as well as foreign police 

agencies. Due to the potentially harmful effects of viewing child pornography and, often 

times, dealing with its young victims, ICE has launched a proactive assessment program 

in an effort to prevent adverse emotional and psychological effects that may impact an 

ICE agent’s emotional health. 

INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY TRENDS

No matter how successful our efforts are against these terrible crimes and those who 

commit them, the continuing advance of technology gives potential offenders new 

opportunities to prey upon children. In fact, these offenders often are at the forefront of 

technological efforts to trade, share and transmit illicit images in the hope of evading law 

enforcement detection and capture. 

Chief among these avenues are the lesser known peer-to-peer software applications 

and programs that operate on worldwide file-sharing networks that can be employed to 

support the transmission of child pornography images and videos. In fact, investigative 

efforts by ICE and Canadian authorities recently identified a peer-to-peer network that 

was developed and operated by an organized group of child predators to transmit alleged 

live video feed of children alleged to be as young as 18 months being sexually molested 

by members of the group. Other examples of technologies that have been misused by 

child predators include instant messaging and Internet Relay Chat programs, which 

facilitate real-time conversations and the exchange of child pornography. Predators can 

also use these programs to make real-time contact with unwitting child victims. In 

response to these threats to public safety, ICE has launched several undercover operations 

designed to identify and apprehend predators before they are able to make contact with 

our children. 

CONCLUSION

As the Department of Homeland Security’s largest investigative agency with unique 

authorities to protect the American people from threats that arise from our borders, ICE is 

uniquely equipped to enforce our nation’s laws against the threats posed by child 

predators who employ the Internet as a tool to advance their crimes. 

While ICE is a new agency, with newly unified immigration and customs 

authorities, we continue to aggressively apply our investigative authorities and 

capabilities to identify and close vulnerabilities in our border and homeland security. At 

the same time, we are bringing to bear the best of our former agencies’ expertise, 

cultures, and techniques, while building a new federal law enforcement agency that is 

more effective and efficient than the sum of its parts. In case after case, ICE Special 

Agents are putting into practice the powerful advantages that flow from our unified 

authorities, and are putting them to great use on behalf of the American people. The net 

result is a greater contribution to the Nation’s border security, which is a critical element 

of national security and public safety. 

My colleagues at ICE are grateful for the chance to serve the American people and, 

on their behalf, I thank this subcommittee, its’ distinguished members and Congress for 

the continued support of ICE investigative endeavors. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Mr. William Kezer is the 

Deputy Chief Inspector, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and we 

recognize you for 5 minutes. 

MR. KEZER. Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Mr. 

Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 

United States Postal Inspection Service, I want to thank you for holding 
294

this hearing, and giving me the opportunity to discuss the subject of child 

sexual exploitation, and the important role postal inspectors play in 

combating it. 

 As one of America’s oldest Federal law enforcement agencies, the 

Postal Inspection Service, founded by Benjamin Franklin, has a long, 

proud, and successful history of arresting criminals who attacked the 

Nation’s postal system. Approximately 1,900 postal inspectors are 

stationed throughout the United States, and enforce more than 200 

Federal laws regarding crimes that involve the U.S. mail and the postal 

system. 

 The Postal Inspection Service has a longstanding reputation as a true 

leader in the battle against child exploitation. Postal inspectors began 

investigating child pornography offenses in 1977, long before any other 

Federal agency addressed this problem. Thousands of offenders have 

been arrested and convicted under the new Federal laws. In fact, more 

than 4,800 child molesters and pornographers have been arrested by 

postal inspectors since the enactment of the Federal Child Protection Act 

of 1984. In 1997, the Postal Inspection Service began tracking the 

number of child molesters identified and children rescued in our 

investigations. 

 Since 1997, of the more than 2,400 arrests made by postal inspectors, 

over 800 were child molesters. That is one out of three. Additionally, 

more than 1,000 children were rescued from further sexual abuse and 

exploitation. And I might add that 75 percent of our cases are prosecuted 

at the Federal level. 

 In carrying out its objective to combat child exploitation, the Postal 

Inspection Service is fortunate to work closely with the U.S. Department 

of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Interpol, the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children, where we have a postal inspector 

assigned, and the Federally-funded Internet Crimes Against Children 

Task Forces. postal inspectors play a significant role, not just through 

the investigations they perform, but in their efforts to raise public 

awareness about child sexual exploitation. 

 In May of 2001, the Postal Inspection Service launched a national 

crime prevention initiative with the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children. The goal of this initiative was to raise public 

awareness of the online victimization of children. As part of this 

initiative, a Postal Inspection Service employee designed an eye-catching 

poster with a powerful message urging all citizens to report suspected 

child exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children’s Cyber TipLine. This poster was displayed in 40,000 post 
295

offices nationwide, and was viewed by as many as eight million postal 

customers on any given day. This poster is displayed here today. 

 Postal inspectors make presentations and conduct training on child 

pornography and child exploitation at local, national, and international 

conferences. Inspectors also make presentations to civic organizations 

and school associations on topics related to Internet safety. For a small 

Federal law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service delivers a 

powerful punch when it comes to investigating those who produce, 

traffic, and possess child pornography, or otherwise sexually exploit 

children. 

 For the past 7 years, postal inspectors were recipients of the National 

Missing and Exploited Children’s Award. The awards ceremony and 

Congressional breakfast was held right here on Capitol Hill. In 4 of the 

past 7 years, postal inspectors were awarded top honors by being named 

Officers of the Year. Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the Postal 

Inspection Service has been a law enforcement leader in the investigation 

of child sexual exploitation. The American public can count on our 

continued commitment to protect our most precious asset, our children. 

Again, thank you for bringing this important issue forward. 

 [The prepared statement of William E. Kezer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. KEZER, DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR, UNITED STATES 

POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 

United States Postal Inspection Service, thank you for holding this hearing and giving me 

the opportunity to discuss the subject of child pornography on the Internet and the 

significant role Postal Inspectors play in combating it. 

 I’m William Kezer, Deputy Chief Inspector, for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. 

The sexual exploitation of children spans all social and economic classes, and the 

perpetrators have no regard for the enduring grief and trauma they bring to their victims. 

The dangers of child pornography and other forms of child sexual exploitation should 

never be minimized. Through public awareness, vigorous investigations, certain 

prosecution, and just sentencing, the incidence of this horrible crime can be reduced. 

Lawmakers and law enforcers, as well as all members of society, have an obligation to 

help protect children and their families. 

 

The United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) 

As one of America’s oldest federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service founded by Benjamin Franklin, has a long, proud, and successful 

history of fighting criminals who attack the nation’s postal system and misuse it to 

defraud, endanger, or otherwise threaten the American public. As the primary law 

enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service, the USPIS is a specialized, professional 

organization performing investigative and security functions essential to a stable and 

sound postal system. As fact-finding and investigative agents, Postal Inspectors are 

federal law enforcement officers who carry firearms, make arrests, execute federal search 

warrants, and serve subpoenas. Postal Inspectors work closely with U.S. attorneys, other 

federal law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies, and local prosecutors 
296

to investigate cases and prepare them for court. Approximately 1900 Postal Inspectors are 

stationed throughout the United States and enforce more than 200 federal laws regarding 

crimes that involve the U.S. Mail and postal system. 

Early Enforcement Efforts: Obscenity Investigations 

For more than a century, the USPIS has had specific responsibility for investigating 

the mailing of obscene matter. In the 1860s and 1870s, Special Agents (as Postal 

Inspectors were called then) had to contend with obscene material exported to the United 

Sates by European producers. Special Agent Anthony Comstock, or “Mad Anthony,” as 

he was known, waged a relentless battle against anyone who used the U.S. Mail in an 

attempt to corrupt the morals of young people. In 1873 Congress passed the Comstock 

Act, a forerunner to the existing postal obscenity statute (18 USC Section 1461). In a 

letter dated June 11, 1875, now in the USPIS archives, Comstock wrote to his superior 

reporting on an investigation:

I have the honor to report that yesterday in the city of New York I caused the arrest 

of one Zephir M. Caille, of 261 West 27th St., and doing business opposite 602 

Broadway. He is charged with selling obscene pictures, and today waived 

examination at Tombs Police Court and was committed in default of $1,000—for 

trial in Special Sessions court. I seized about 175 pictures in his possession. I have 

found I had a good case in State court and therefore I took him there instead of 

waiting to work up a case in United States Court. He is a Frenchman, and I am 

informed owned a set of 37 different negatives for printing obscene photographs 

and supplied the trade throughout the country, although ostensibly keeping a stand 

on Broadway. 

I have the honor to be 

Very Respectfully Sir: 

Your Obedient Servant 

Anthony Comstock 

P.S. this fellow had a clasp knife sharpened as a dirk, but he did not get a chance to 

use it as I ironed him. 

Protecting Children From Sexual Exploitation: A National Priority 

Through the years, child pornography has been investigated along with obscenity 

matters; however, it was not until the late 1970s that Congress took action to create 

federal legislation protecting children from sexual exploitation. 

Prior to the late 1970s, most Americans were unaware of the proliferation and 

commercial distribution of magazines, films, and photographs depicting children in 

explicit sexual acts. Fortunately, we have begun to come to grips with the horrors of child 

pornography and to view it as it truly is, a manifestation of aberrant behavior resulting in 

the sexual abuse and victimization of children. 

In 1977 the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act became law (18 

USC Section 2251-2253). This was the first federal law specifically designed to protect 

children from commercialized sexual exploitation. It was the culmination of years of 

effort by Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), concerned members of the 

public, and the law enforcement community to take action against the pernicious effects 

of pornography and the sexual exploitation of children. Under this law, a child, or minor, 

was defined as a person younger than age 16. In the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court 

case, New York v. Ferber (1982), the Court found that child pornography is “intrinsically 

related to the sexual abuse of children. First, the materials produced are a permanent 

record of circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be 

closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is 
297

to be effectively controlled.” The Court ruled that the standards used to determine 

obscenity in adult pornography case are not applicable to child pornography, and child 

pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. 

On May 21, 1984, seven years after the first federal child pornography statutes were 

enacted, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Child Protection Act of 1984. This 

act amended the original act and created some new statutes, making the federal laws 

against child pornography even more substantial. 

Postal Inspectors began investigating child pornography offenses in 1977, long 

before any other federal agency addressed the problem. Recognizing that child molesters 

and pornographers often seek to communicate with one another through what they 

perceive as the security and anonymity provided by the U.S. Mail, Postal Inspectors 

quickly established themselves as leaders in the battle against child pornography using 

“undercover operations” to flush out child pornography dealers who used the mail. Since 

that time, thousands of offenders have been arrested and convicted under the new federal 

laws. More than 4,800 child molesters and child pornographers have been arrested by 

Postal Inspectors since the enactment of the Federal Child Protection Act of 1984. 

Advent of the Internet 

Since the advent of publicly available Internet services, the opportunity for exchange 

and barter involving sexually explicit materials has dramatically increased the amount of 

child pornography available on line. Child molesters and pornographers frequently 

communicate in select online newsgroups and facilitate through technology videographic and still images of child sexual abuse, both from existing collections as well as in 

response to requests for new materials. The increase in the number of victims, as 

manifested by newer child pornographic images and bolder production techniques, has 

necessitated an equally innovative investigative response. The Postal Inspection Service 

has risen to this challenge and continues to ferret out, identify, and arrest offenders who 

traffick in child pornography videotapes and computer disks, or who otherwise sexually 

exploit children, through the U.S. Mail. Today, almost all of the child exploitation 

investigations conducted by Postal Inspectors have a common nexus with the Internet and 

the U.S. Mail. 

Postal Inspectors have established a nationwide network of intelligence 

incorporating a wide variety of undercover programs designed to identify suspects and 

develop prosecutable cases. These undercover operations recognize the clandestine nature 

of their targets and capitalize on the inherent need of offenders to validate their behavior 

through contact with individuals like themselves. The investigative techniques used in 

these operations include the placement of contact advertisements in sexually oriented 

publications; the infiltration of Internet newsgroups and chat rooms; and the use of 

confidential sources. The computer has proven itself to be an invaluable investigative tool 

in identifying individuals who are using the mail to traffick in child pornography or 

otherwise sexually exploit children. 

A technique employed by Postal Inspectors as part of conducting their undercover 

operations is to control the delivery of child pornography to the requestor’s address. 

Following its delivery, an anticipatory federal search warrant is immediately executed on 

the suspect’s property. The item just delivered, along with any other relevant evidence, is 

then seized. On March 21, 2006, in U.S. v. Grubbs, the Supreme Court reported its 

unanimous decision, ruling that anticipatory search warrants are lawful as long as 

sufficient probable cause exists when the warrant and supporting affidavit are presented 

to a magistrate. 

The Connection between Child Pornography and Child Molestation 

During fiscal year 1997, the USPIS began compiling statistical information on the 

number of child pornography suspects that were also child molesters. Additionally, the 
298

USPIS began to collect data on the number of child victims identified and rescued from 

further sexual abuse as a result of investigations conducted by Postal Inspectors. Since 

1997, 802 child molesters were identified and stopped, and 1,048 victimized children 

were rescued. Of the 2,433 individuals arrested by Postal Inspectors since 1997 for using 

the U.S. Mail and the Internet to sexually exploit children, actual child molesters were 

identified in one out of three cases.

Interagency Cooperation

In carrying out its mission to combat child pornography, the USPIS works closely 

with the DOJ, particularly, DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

INTERPOL, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and other domestic 

and international law enforcement agencies. Postal Inspectors across the country have 

formed working partnerships with the federally funded Internet Crimes Against Children 

(ICAC) task forces. 

The USPIS is an active member of the Attorney General’s Federal Agency Task 

Force on Missing and Exploited Children. A Postal Inspector is assigned full time to the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, also known as the NCMEC, in 

Alexandria, Virginia. The National Center’s Cyber Tipline reports are regularly reviewed 

and forwarded to USPIS child pornography specialists in the field for follow-up 

investigation or referral to another law enforcement agency, as appropriate. 

Raising Public Awareness and Other Outreach Initiatives 

Postal Inspectors play a special role not just through the investigations they perform, 

but in their efforts to raise public awareness about child sexual exploitation. In May 2001 

the USPIS launched a national crime prevention initiative with the NCMEC to raise 

public awareness of the online victimization of children. As part of the initiative, a USPIS 

employee designed an eye-catching poster with a powerful message urging all citizens to 

report suspected child exploitation to the NCMEC’s Cyber Tip line. It was printed and 

displayed in 40,000 post offices nationwide where it was viewed by as many as 8 million 

postal customers on any given day. 

The USPIS has co-sponsored, exhibited, and presented at the National Symposium 

on Child Sexual Abuse, held in Huntsville, Alabama, home of the nation’s first Child 

Advocacy Center founded by U.S. Representative Bud Cramer. In addition, Postal 

Inspectors have made presentations and conducted training on child exploitation at local, 

national, and international conferences and through DOJ and NCMEC sponsored training 

programs. Postal Inspectors regularly make presentations to civic groups and school 

associations on topics related to Internet safety. 

Internationally, the USPIS has played an important role in INTERPOL’s Specialist 

Group on Crimes Against Children since the group’s founding in 1991. Postal Inspectors 

have made presentations and provided training on child exploitation to delegates from 

countries around the world. In August 1996 the USPIS delegate to the Specialist Group 

on Crimes Against Children conducted work shops for delegates from more than 120 

countries at the first World Congress on the Commercial Exploitation of Children, held in 

Stockholm, Sweden. 

Postal Inspectors are so recognized for their expertise on the subject of child 

pornography and child exploitation that their views and experience have been published. 

Much of this testimony, in fact, derives from a treatment written by Postal Inspector 

Raymond Smith, in the soon to be published book Medical, Legal, & Social Science 
299

Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation --- A Comprehensive Review of Pornography, 

Prostitution and Internet Crimes.1

Commercial Child Pornography Distributors 

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service was the first federal law enforcement agency to 

begin aggressively identifying, targeting, and arresting commercial child pornography 

distributors. Under the 1977 Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act, only 

the commercial distribution of child pornography was against the law. 

Operation Special Delivery 

In May 1996 the U.S. Postal Inspection Service announced the results of Operation 

Special Delivery, a highly successful, pro-active undercover operation. The operation 

shut down the largest known commercial child pornography business ever encountered 

by authorities in the United States up to that time. 

The ring-leader of the criminal enterprise, Troy Anthony Frank, doing business as 

Overseas Male, produced child pornography using young Mexican males, some as young 

as 7-years of age, in Mexico City and Acapulco, Mexico. The original videotapes were 

then smuggled into the United States and distributed by mail from San Diego, California, 

to customers throughout the country. Business records seized during the investigation 

revealed the company made as much as $500,000 per year. Before the investigation into 

the ring-leader Troy Frank concluded, he committed suicide. 

As a result of Operation Special Delivery, Postal Inspectors identified a large 

number of mail-order customers who knowingly purchased child pornography from Troy 

Frank. Over 130 searches in 36 states in the United States were conducted, leading to the 

identification of numerous child molesters, pornographers, and the rescue of child 

victims. Vast quantities of child pornography material were found and destroyed. One 

hundred offenders were ultimately arrested and prosecuted, among which were members 

of the clergy, youth leaders, school teachers, police officers, an attorney, a history 

professor, a medical doctor, and a school counselor. 

The Landslide Investigation and Operation Avalanche 

There has been no investigation in the history of child pornography comparable to 

the Landslide investigation and Operation Avalanche. This landmark case was conducted 

under the direction of the USPIS and illustrates the success that can be achieved when 

domestic and international law enforcement work together. 

In 1999 an alert Postal Inspector in St. Paul, Minnesota, discovered an advertisement 

on the Internet that had been placed by Landslide Productions, Inc. Further investigation 

revealed that Landslide Productions based in Ft. Worth, Texas, sold subscriptions to child 

pornography Web sites. The investigation was assigned to Postal Inspector Robert 

Adams, now retired, in the Ft Worth USPIS office. Inspector Adams teamed up with 

Detective Steven Nelson, also now retired, of the Dallas Police Department’s Internet 

Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, and they launched an undercover 

investigation into the activities of Landslide Productions. Their work was the beginning 

of an investigation of such unprecedented magnitude that, even early on in the case, 

Postal Inspector Adams reported to his higher-ups he “had a lion by the tail.” 

Owned and operated by Thomas and Janice Reedy, Landslide Productions was a 

multi-million-dollar child pornography enterprise. Using the screen names of “Houdini” 

 

1

 Chapter 24, “The Work of the United States Postal Inspection Service; Combating Child Sexual 

Exploitation,” by Raymond C. Smith, reported in Medical, Legal & Social Science Aspects of Child 

Sexual Exploitation – A Comprehensive Review of Pornography, Prostitution and Internet Crimes, 

by Richard Estes, Victor Vieth, Sharon Cooper, Angelo Giardino and Nancy Kellogg (St Louis MO: 

GW Publishing Inc, 2006) 
300

and “Money,” the Reedys used their business to advertise and sell prepaid subscriptions 

to adult and child pornography Web sites to customers from around the world. Landslide 

Productions was, in fact, a gatekeeper for a number of international Web masters, 

advertising and marketing child pornography from countries such as Indonesia and 

Russia. 

Initially, the Reedys were bold in their online marketing, using banners such as 

“Child Porn-Click Here” and “CHILD R@PE.” They eventually changed their 

advertisements to more covert suggestions of the content of the Web site. For $29.95, an 

individual could purchase a 1-month subscription to any number of graphic child 

pornography Web sites. Most customers used credit cards for their purchase; some 

customers mailed checks, cash, or money orders to Landslide’s post office box address in 

Ft. Worth. The cash flow for Landslide Productions was significant at times, amounting 

to as much as $1.4 million per month. Not surprisingly, the Reedys enjoyed the fruits of 

their labors, living in an upscale community in Fort Worth and driving top-end Mercedes 

Benzes. The Reedys were living a grand lifestyle at the expense of sexually abused and 

exploited children. 

In September 1999 the investigation conducted in concert with the U.S. Attorney’s 

office for the Northern District of Texas, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

(CEOS) of the DOJ, and USPIS National Headquarters, gathered sufficient probable 

cause to obtain federal search warrants. On September 8 six federal and state agencies 

executed a series of federal search warrants on the primary business location of Landslide 

Production, a secondary Landslide office in Dallas, Texas, and the Reedys’ personal 

residence. The simultaneous raids, led by the USPIS, took more than 18 hours to 

complete. Under the direction of the USPIS’s Forensic and Technical Services Division, 

Digital Evidence Section, careful efforts were taken to seize, secure, and protect the 

numerous computer systems located within the properties searched. The data extracted 

from the computer servers would later be known as the “Holy Grail.” Among the 

evidence seized under the scope of the warrants were financial records. One of the 

operation’s Web masters received more than $98,000 in one month alone for providing 

child pornography Web sites to its customers. 

Through Landslide Productions’ network of computer systems and the World Wide 

Web, the Reedys provided child pornography to thousands of paying customers 

throughout the world. The success of their endeavor was based on supply and demand. 

Customer demand escalated, promoting further production as well as demands for newer 

and more novel material. Real children were sexually abused and their abuse 

photographed or videotaped to satisfy the needs of a specific clientele. 

In April 2000 the Reedys were charged in a Forth Worth U.S. District Court. A 

federal grand jury returned an 89-count indictment against them, charging conspiracy to 

advertise and distribute child pornography and possession of child pornography. Plea 

offers by the prosecutors were declined and the case went to trial. Defense attorneys 

argued that the Reedys were not aware of the actual content of the various Web sites they 

advertised; however, evidence obtained from the Reedys’ computers revealed otherwise. 

During the trial, a detective from the United Kingdom’s National Crime Squad 

summarized the inescapable bottom line issue with regard to child pornography. The 

detective, by way of illustration, told the story of two children who are well known in the 

world of child pornography. Helen and Gavin are British children who were sexually 

abused and exploited by their stepfather. As the detective explained, the children are 

victimized again and again whenever their pictures are reproduced, sold and further 

disseminated. 

 At the conclusion of the case, the jury found the defendants guilty as charged on all 

counts of the indictment. On August 6, 2001, Thomas Reedy was sentenced to 15 years in 

federal prison on each of the 89 counts charged. The judge ordered that each 15-year term 

run consecutive to the previous term for a total of 1335 years. Janice Reedy was 
301

sentenced to a 14-year term. On August 8 Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Chief 

Postal Inspector held a press event and publicly announced the investigation and results. 

The sentences were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On 

appeal, Thomas Reedy’s sentence was reduced to 180 years—in essence, a life 

sentence—and Janice’s remained the same. 

Using intelligence gained from the Landslide investigation, Postal Inspectors 

launched Operation Avalanche in collaboration with the federally funded ICAC Task 

Forces, resulting in the arrest of hundreds of offenders here in the United States. 

Internationally, Postal Inspectors worked with INTERPOL and other law enforcement 

agencies around the world tracking down more Landslide customers and suppliers. More 

than 8,000 search warrants to date have been carried out, making this the largest global 

operation ever undertaken. 

No single offender profile could be created for those individuals who purchased 

child pornography from Landslide’s criminal business. Occupations of the offenders 

included, but were not limited to, attorneys, physicians, firefighters, professional 

counselors for children, teachers, clergy, and law enforcement officers. 

Through Operation Avalanche, vast quantities of child pornography were seized, 

scores of individuals arrested, and many children rescued from further sexual abuse and 

exploitation. 

On October 23, 2002, President George W. Bush was personally briefed by 

representatives of the USPIS on the Landslide investigation and Operation Avalanche. 

Following the briefing, the President addressed a group of law enforcement personnel 

and child protection advocates gathered at the White House. In his statement, the 

President made a commitment to the American people: “Anyone who targets a child for 

harm will be a primary target of law enforcement. That’s our commitment. Anyone who 

takes the life or innocence of a child will be punished to the full extent of the law” (Bush, 

2002). The President used Operation Avalanche and the work of the Postal Inspectors as 

an example of the government’s aggressive efforts to combat the sexual exploitation of 

children. 

Operation Lost Innocence 

In September 2002 Angel Mariscal, an Ecuadorian national was arrested by the 

Postal Inspection Service in Miami, Florida. He was charged with distributing child 

pornography by mail and indicted on conspiracy charges to produce and ship child 

pornography. The investigation that ensued revealed a horrifying case of sexual abuse, 

rape, and commercial exploitation of more than 150 child victims, unraveling an 

international child pornography ring of shocking proportions. 

 In 1989 Angel Mariscal began conducting a mail order child pornography business. 

He produced the child pornography outside of the United States, imported it into the 

United States, and then mailed it to customers who had previously placed orders in 

response to advertisements or catalogs. The majority of the victims were Cuban and 

Ecuadorian children between the ages of 9 and 16. The child pornography was personally 

produced by Mariscal and his accomplices, featuring Mariscal himself as the one who 

raped and molested the children. When his business dissolved in September 2002, the 

videotapes he produced sold for as much as $975. It was later learned that Mariscal was 

HIV positive. 

 In December 2002 Mariscal was indicted in the Southern District of Florida on 

charges of Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography, Advertising Child Pornography, 

and Importation of Child Pornography. Based on information provided by Postal 

Inspectors, law enforcement authorities in Cuba and Ecuador arrested five coconspirators and identified a number of child victims. Postal Inspectors participated in 

Mariscal’s arrest in Ecuador. He was tried and convicted in April 2004 and sentenced to 

100 years in federal prison – in essence, a life sentence. 
302

Although cases like these involving the commercial distribution of child 

pornography frequently get the most public attention, they are not as common as 

investigations into non-commercial traffickers. Non-commercial cases involve 

perpetrators who exchange child pornography with others – unlawfully receiving, 

distributing, and possessing child pornography for their own personal use and sexual 

gratification. However, the investigation of non-commercial traffickers often leads Postal 

Inspectors to the very people who produce child pornography, and ultimately to the 

identification and recovery of children who have been victimized. Following are 

significant investigations conducted by Postal Inspectors into non-commercial traffickers 

of child pornography. 

Non-Commercial Traffickers

Covington, Kentucky - In March 2006 Postal Inspectors were notified about a 

package in the mail that was believed to contain child pornography. The package was 

addressed to a Covington, Kentucky man. Working with the Covington Police, Postal 

Inspectors searched the intended recipient’s residence and uncovered hundreds of 

sexually explicit magazines, videos and DVDs of minor males. The man used the U.S. 

Mail to receive and distribute child pornography, including pictures taken by the subject 

himself. He was immediately arrested on state charges of disseminating child 

pornography. Efforts are underway to identify the children depicted in the photographs. 

Federal prosecution is pending. 

Slinger, Wisconsin - In February 2006 first-degree homicide charges were filed 

against a subject who, in a murder-for-hire scheme, conspired to have murdered his 16-

year old stepdaughter, whom he allegedly sexually abused for ten years, as well as two 

others who had witnessed the abuse. The subject came to the attention of Postal 

Inspectors in June 2005 when he attempted to purchase child pornography from an 

undercover operation run by Postal Inspectors. His abuse of his stepdaughter came to 

light in the course of the investigation. The case was worked jointly with the Washington, 

Wisconsin County Sheriff’s Department and Wisconsin Department of Justice (ICAC). 

The subject faces 60 years imprisonment on each conspiracy charge if convicted. A cash 

bond of $500,000 was set. 

Meridian, Mississippi - In January 2006 a resident of Meridian, Mississippi, was 

arrested after he traveled to Birmingham, Alabama, intending to have sexual intercourse 

with what he believed to be an 11-year old girl. The “girl” was actually an undercover 

Birmingham, Alabama Police Officer working with Postal Inspectors and FBI Special 

Agents in an online sting operation. The subject corresponded with the undercover 

officers via the U.S. Mail, sending order forms and payment to the “escort service.” The 

subject was interviewed and subsequently admitted to secretly videotaping children from 

his church where he was actively involved in youth programs. The children were filmed 

changing clothes. The investigation is continuing with federal prosecution pending in 

Alabama and Mississippi.

 Memphis, Tennessee – In May 2005 a suspect and his “on-line girlfriend” were 

sentenced in federal court for using the mail and Internet to distribute and receive child 

pornography. The suspect was sentenced to 15 years in prison and five years’ supervised 

release; his girlfriend received five years in prison and two years’ supervised release. 

Postal Inspectors initiated the investigation when the suspect’s wife discovered CDs 

containing child pornography in their bedroom and a mailing envelope bearing the 

suspect’s name and address. A search warrant was executed on the residence and tens of 

thousands of child pornography images were discovered on his computer. Several 

pornographic images of his neighbor’s granddaughter were also recovered. The suspect 

later pled guilty to producing the images and to using the mail and the Internet to 

distribute and receive child pornography. 
303

 Brimfield, Ohio – In December 2005 a suspect pled guilty in state court and was 

sentenced to life in prison for the rape of a child. The suspect was arrested six months 

earlier on charges of gross sexual imposition and felony rape following an investigation 

conducted by Postal Inspectors. Evidence seized during a search of the suspect’s 

residence revealed he had received child pornography via the U.S. Mail. The suspect later 

admitted to three separate instances of sexual conduct with minors. Follow-up 

investigation led to the identification and interview of one of the victims, a 14-year-old 

girl who was only 8 years old at the time the molestation began, and the daughter of one 

of the suspect’s co-workers. 

Kirkwood, Illinois - In January 2006 a Kirkwood, Illinois, man pleaded guilty to a 

4-count federal indictment for production of child pornography and receipt of child 

pornography. The man came to the attention of Postal Inspectors during the course of an 

undercover investigation. Inspectors determined that the suspect, a 31-year-old, married, 

father of a pre-school aged son, regularly contacted young girls on the Internet and 

convinced them to meet him in local parks where they would engage in sexual activity. 

He also convinced the girls to take sexually explicit photographs of themselves and mail 

the pictures to him. Three child victims were identified through this investigation. The 

man is scheduled for sentencing in April 2006 

 Redwood City, California - Postal Inspectors arrested a 41-year-old man in July 

2005 for violating federal child pornography laws. The previous January, Customs and 

Border Protection personnel assigned to the international mail facility in Los Angeles 

intercepted a number of DVDs containing child pornography that were addressed to the 

suspect. The DVDs were coming from Thailand. Postal Inspectors obtained and served a 

federal search warrant on the suspect’s home, seizing additional evidence consisting of 

CD-ROMs, ZIP disks, and his computer. Following a comprehensive review of the 

evidence, it was determined the suspect possessed in excess of 127,000 child 

pornography pictures and videos. The National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children has positively identified over 400 of the children depicted in the images. The 

suspect is free on $100,000 bond pending trial. 

The Mighty Efforts of a Small Agency 

For a small federal law enforcement agency, the USPIS deals a mighty blow to those 

who would use the mail to produce, transmit, or possess child pornography, and who 

would otherwise sexually exploit children. The expertise of Postal Inspectors is 

demonstrated by the number of times prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies 

turn to the Postal Inspection Service for assistance with particularly difficult cases. 

In August 2000 a Postal Inspector in Tampa, Florida, was called upon by local law 

enforcement to assist in a missing child case when it was suspected the child may have 

been lured away from her home by an individual she met on the Internet. The parents 

found evidence of correspondence with the suspect in their daughter’s bedroom. A 

forensic examination of the child’s computer and other evidence obtained by Postal 

Inspectors resulted in the identification of the suspect who was believed to be living in 

Greece. Through coordination with the NCMEC, INTERPOL, the U.S. and Greek 

embassies, and with the assistance of the FBI in Greece, the suspect was arrested in 

Athens on February 1, 2001. The 14-year old girl, having been traumatically sexually 

abused by the suspect, was recovered and reunited with her family. Postal Inspector April 

Hindin, the lead agent, was recognized for her tremendous work in this case when she 

was presented the following year on Capitol Hill with the National Missing and Exploited 

Children’s Award. 

In addition to Postal Inspector April Hindin’s recognition, other Postal Inspectors 

have received the prestigious National Missing and Exploited Children’s Awards for the 

past seven consecutive years. The awards are given at a Congressional Breakfast and 

Awards Ceremony in cooperation with the NCMEC, here in Washington D.C. to 
304

investigators who have conducted outstanding investigations in the cases of missing and 

exploited children. Singled out in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2004 Postal Inspectors were 

given top honors by being named Officers of the Year. No other agency has achieved 

such acclaim. 

More than any award or other recognition, however, there is no greater satisfaction 

for a Postal Inspector than the knowledge they have helped the very people in this world 

least able to defend themselves. For one Postal Inspector that moment came in 2003 

when a former victim wrote: 

When I was a little girl, when I was being photographed and raped, I used to try 

and send messages with my eyes down the lens, in the hope that one day a “good 

person” might see and come and help us. It took years for me to realise (sic) that no 

one was looking at my face. You saw our face. We want you to know, that we know, 

how hard this must have been for you all and we thank you from the bottom of our 

hearts for your courage and fortitude. Your actions have changed our lives and 

changed the future lives of thousands of innocent children who were yet to come. 

Thank you Thank you Thank you. 

We have come a long way since the first federal child exploitation laws were 

enacted in 1977, but we still have much further to go. Only through our continuing 

efforts, both individually and collectively, at all levels of government and private 

enterprise, can we ensure that children are protected from this type of victimization, and 

if victimized, that they receive the services and assistance they need, and that their 

offenders are caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share with you the very special contribution that U.S. Postal Inspectors 

make in the fight against the sexual exploitation of children through the Internet. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Kezer, and our next witness is 

Raymond Smith, who is the Assistant Inspector in Charge for Child 

Pornography and Adult Obscenity, at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, 

and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

MR. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And 

members of the subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today on 

this particular topic, because I have devoted a great deal of my career to 

investigating these types of crimes. I investigated my first child 

pornography case in 1982, and now I am able to manage our programs at 

the national level. 

 People unfamiliar with the work of the Postal Inspection Service 

often ask why are postal inspectors involved in these things that, today, 

seem to involve so much of the Internet? The answer is, because along 

with the Internet, the bad guys are still using the mail. In fact, 98 percent 

of the cases investigated by postal inspectors today involve the mail as 

well as the Internet. We have developed a great deal of expertise using 

the computer and the Internet as an investigative tool to ferret out and 

identify the offenders who are trafficking in child pornography 

videotapes, computer disks, or otherwise sexually exploiting children 

through the mail. 
305

 We know how these offenders think, how they operate, and what 

their psychological needs are. The worst of these offenders exhibit 

highly compulsive and predictable patterns of behavior. They have a 

need to validate their behavior with like-minded individuals through 

communication, not only on the Internet, but also in the mail. Postal 

inspectors use a wide variety of proactive undercover operations to 

identify suspects, and develop strong cases for prosecution. In many 

cases, we employ the use of controlled deliveries by mail, something 

only postal inspectors can do. Following the controlled delivery, an 

anticipatory Federal search warrant is executed on the suspect’s property, 

and the child pornography that was just delivered under controlled 

circumstances is recovered, along with any other relevant evidence 

associated with the underlying criminal activity. 

 Coincidentally, on March 21 of this year, in U.S. v. Grubbs, a 

Supreme Court case, it was also a Postal Inspection Service case, the 

Court came back unanimously upholding the lawfulness and use of 

anticipatory search warrants. Commercial child pornography dealers 

have long been targeted by postal inspectors. In 1996, Operation Special 

Delivery shut down the largest commercial distributor at that time, 

grossing upwards of $500,000 a year. After dismantling the business, 

postal inspectors took it over in an undercover capacity, and targeted 

their customers across the country, resulting in over 100 successful 

prosecutions. Many of these individuals had been sexually abusing 

children. 

 Perhaps the most celebrated commercial child pornography business 

operating on the Internet was Landslide Productions, owned and operated 

by Thomas and Janice Reedy out of Fort Worth, Texas. This company 

took in upwards of $1.4 million a month. They were advertising and 

selling child pornography websites to subscribers around the world. 

Later to become known as Operation Avalanche, this landmark case was 

conducted under the direction of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, in 

close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section, along with the Dallas Texas Police Department 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. In the end, Thomas Reedy 

received 180 years in Federal prison, in essence, a life sentence. His 

wife received 14 years. Postal inspectors then worked with the various 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces across the country, and 

arrested hundreds of paying subscribers in the United States, then 

working through Interpol and with our international partners, over 8,000 

searches were conducted around the world, making this the largest global 

operation ever undertaken. Huge amounts of child pornography were 

seized, scores of individuals were arrested, and many children were 

rescued from further sexual abuse. 
306

 Although commercial cases like these get the most public attention, 

it is oftentimes the most typical noncommercial case that identifies child 

molesters, the producers of this material, and their child victims. Just a 

couple weeks ago, in Covington, Kentucky, postal inspectors working 

with Covington PD arrested a man after a package containing DVDs of 

nude minor males was delivered in error to the Cincinnati Reds ballpark. 

During a search of the man’s home, hundreds of vintage child 

pornography magazines, videotapes, and DVDs were discovered, along 

with packaging material for receiving and distributing child pornography 

through the mail, including pictures apparently taken by himself of kids. 

Efforts are underway to identify these children, and Federal prosecution 

has been authorized. 

 In another case last week, a 15-year veteran of the Huntsville, 

Alabama Police Department was arrested by postal inspectors on a 

Federal charge of production of child pornography. This offender, 

discovered after he traveled to Titus, Texas, to sexually abuse a 14-yearold girl that he met on the Internet, continued to keep her in his 

confidence, and convinced this girl, after mailing her a package of a 

sexual aid and a digital camera, to take pictures of herself. The digital 

memory card from that camera was then mailed back to the police officer 

in Texas. Over 300 such images were produced by this young child. He 

is in custody. 

 Deputy Chief Kezer mentioned the national awards received by 

postal inspectors, but I must tell you this, more than any other award or 

recognition, there is nothing greater than knowing that you have helped 

one of the many, very many people in this world least able to defend 

themselves. For me, one of those occasions came in 2003, when a 

former victim learned of our Operation Avalanche, and wrote to me. I 

would like to read one paragraph from her correspondence: “When I was 

a little girl, and when I was being photographed and raped, I used to try 

to send messages with my eyes down the lens, and hope that one day, a 

good person might see and come to help us. It took years for me to 

realize no one was looking at my face. You saw our face, and we want 

you to know that we know how hard this must have been for all of you, 

and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your courage and 

your fortitude. Your actions have changed the future lives of thousands 

of innocent children who are yet to come. Thank you, thank you, thank 

you.” 

 In closing, we have come a long way over the years, but we have still 

got much further to go. Only through our continuing efforts, both 

individually and collectively, at all levels of government service, and 

through private enterprise, can we help ensure that victims and their 

families get the services and assistance they need and deserve, and that 
307

their offenders will face the swift and righteous justice that we, as a 

society, demand. 

 We all have the need here, and the obligation, to make this world a 

safer place for our kids. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you, and thank all of you 

for your testimony. You have provided some tremendous suggestions 

for us to consider. You have provided some tremendous insights. 

 We have two votes on the House floor right this minute, and so what 

we are going to do is we are going to recess this hearing until 12:15. So, 

if you all wouldn’t mind coming back in at 12:15, we have questions for 

you. 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let us see, the full chairman is 

here, Chairman Barton, I see that the Attorney General, Mr. Gonzalez, 

testified this morning 9:00. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I have already been down there. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Good. Just wanted to make sure you are aware 

of it, because on page 6 and 7 of his testimony, he talks about child 

pornography on the Internet. It would be great if we could get him up 

here. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I have already been down there, and I have a 

scout down there, so when he gets ready to leave, he has agreed to talk to 

me. We are going to have a little visit. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. We are ahead of you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. We will recess until 12:15. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The hearing will reconvene, and I apologize we are 

5 minutes late, but thank you for your patience. 

 Dr. Kardasz, in your testimony, you talked quite a bit about retaining 

data on subscriber and content information. You are the one that 

mentioned that, aren’t you? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. As one of the possible solutions or helpful 

solutions, would you elaborate on that just a little bit more, and also, 

what would you anticipate would be the objections to doing that? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Every computer connected to the Internet is 

identifiable by what is called an Internet Protocol address, and it is a 

series of numbers. It is similar to the numbers you have connected to 

your cell phone. You have got a cell phone number. So, through 

subpoena powers, we can start to trace that back, and in the cell phone 

industry, they keep those records for long periods of time, but that is not 

always the case in the Internet service provider industry. Some providers 

keep those records, so that we can chase back the offender for longer 
308

periods of time than others. So, as in a case that Special Agent Waters 

described, if we are trying to track back on an offender, and the 

subscriber information that is connected to that Internet Protocol address 

is not available, then we are at a dead end, and I think the objections 

would be the cost. Now, they are going to say, and I don’t disagree with 

it, that that is a lot of data that they are going to have to retain, and then, 

the subsequent searches they have to do in response to our subpoenas is 

going to cost them some manpower, so I think that is what an IP address, 

and that is the data storage that we need, and I think that is the issue, the 

cost. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And what would be the suggestion on the length of 

time to retain the data? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Well, when we get an investigation in, it is not like 

we always get it in the next day. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. KARDASZ. So, sometimes, there is a long period of time that 

passes before we get it in, it gets up to the investigator’s queue, and he is 

able to work it, and then he is able to get a subpoena out. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. KARDASZ. So, I have heard my colleagues bounce around 90 

days would be nice, a year would be great, but the longer period of time 

that it has to be kept, then, the more data overall has to be stored by that 

Internet service provider, so the more storage capacity they need, the 

more that might cost them. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, I assume the entire panel would agree that 

that would be an invaluable tool, and it would be a positive development. 

Is that true? So, no one would object to some statutory language, or 

action to that effect. 

 What about applying this data retention to cell phone companies that 

are also providing the ability of a person to exchange images? 

 MR. KARDASZ. I am not familiar enough with the data retention 

schedules that cell phone companies have now. I get the sense that they 

already retain some data, but it would be very applicable to them. Some 

of those cell phones now, as you know, can also capture pictures. We 

have had some child pornography cases attached to those folks that are 

running around with cell phones capturing child pornography on their 

cell phone cameras. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Is there anyone on the panel that would want to 

make any comment about the cell phone? Okay. 

 Mr. Waters, in your testimony, I know you showed the slide of the 

two children with the Santa Claus, and make sure I understand, those 

children were your children? 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. My two youngest. 
309

 MR. WHITFIELD. And they went to a local mall, and he was the 

Santa Claus, and then, you set yourself in a sort of a sting operation, and 

this is the same fellow. Is that correct? 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. My wife took them to 

the mall shortly after Thanksgiving, got the photos taken, and then, 

towards the end of December, I was online in a Wyoming chat room, just 

sitting around, and I was contacted by this same person. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Was he convicted, or-- 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, he was. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Dr. Kardasz, you also mentioned something 

about responding to subpoenas within a certain period of time. 

 MR. KARDASZ. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Would you elaborate on that? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, depending on which Internet 

service provider we are working with when we send a subpoena, they 

respond various lengths of time later. Ideally, we would like to get a 

response as soon as we can, particularly, in the case where we are 

working an active Internet sexual predator, for example, we are online, 

pretending to be a child. All we have is a screen name, so we do a little 

research on that screen name, and find out which Internet service 

provider sponsors that screen name. Now, we can subpoena that Internet 

service provider to say who is this person, Joe Smith at Yahoo!, at AOL, 

we can subpoena Yahoo! or AOL, and say who is this person? What is 

the background information behind that subscriber? So, then, depending 

on which Internet service provider is involved, it takes them different 

periods of time. If we could get that within--the quicker, the better, 

obviously, particularly if it is a missing child case that we are working. 

But if we can turn those subpoenas around within 2 weeks, that would be 

a beautiful thing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So, would all of you agree that one of the most 

difficult parts of your job is just trying to determine who the person is on 

the other line, right, or with the, as the website, or whatever. And so, the 

data retrieval would be important, the expedited response to subpoenas 

would be important. Do any of you have any other suggestions of some 

mechanisms that could be used to help you do your job better? Yes, sir. 

 MR. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we have no statutory authority or 

otherwise authority to get administrative subpoenas. When we enter into 

an investigation now, and we have an individual’s screen name, we must 

get a Federal grand jury subpoena to serve on that Internet service 

provider in order to get the account information. A number of years ago, 

under the last Administration, beginning with Attorney General Janet 

Reno and it was concluded by Attorney General Ashcroft, the FBI was 

delegated administrative subpoena authority by the Attorney General. 
310

The authority went to the Attorney General, it was delegated to each 

individual U.S. Attorney’s Office, and they in turn delegated it to the 

Bureau. Bureau agents can now write the administrative subpoena out 

quickly, get it out without going for a grand jury subpoena, and get that 

information back a lot quicker. 

 The Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they use a tool which I 

believe is called a customs summons, which is not necessarily designed 

as an administrative subpoena, but it serves the same purpose lawfully, 

and they are able to get that information. Postal Inspection Service 

cannot. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So, Postal Inspection is the only agency in law 

enforcement that would not have the administrative-- 

 MR. SMITH. No, at the Federal level, and I am not sure about Secret 

Service. I can’t comment on that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, what is the difference in an administrative 

subpoena and-- 

 MR. SMITH. It expedites things. Typically, we would have to go and 

make a phone call to an Assistant United States Attorney. Oftentimes, 

we get multiple, multiple names or screen names in an investigation. 

Give you an example. I am going to use the Justin Berry case, and I 

don’t know all the intimate details with that case, but if there were 1,500 

names, you have 1,500 screen names that came forward, we might want 

to know who those people are. What does that screen name resolve back 

to on the actual account information? Who holds the account, where do 

they live, et cetera, et cetera. We could conceivably go to a U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, say I need 1,500 grand jury subpoenas, or maybe one, 

and list out 1,500 names. It just is cumbersome if we have to keep going 

back and bugging the U.S. Attorney’s Office every day of the week to 

get another grand jury subpoena. With the administrative subpoena, it is 

a tool that the investigative agency can use to serve. Of course, it is all 

tracked and recorded, and they have to account for that information to 

the Justice Department. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. Well, Mr. Swecker would be available to 

the FBI, correct? 

 MR. SWECKER. It is available at the supervisory level. It has been 

delegated down, and he is correct, it gives you the ability to move much 

faster, you are much more mobile and agile, because probable cause 

evaporates very quickly in these cases, and you really need to be able to 

move very quickly and able to get to either the customers or the abusers 

themselves, so this gives the ability to do that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you know if that tool was used in the Justin 

Berry case, or can you talk about it? 
311

 MR. SWECKER. Sir, I would love to talk to you about the case, but I 

cannot. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. All right. How many FBI field agents are devoted 

full time to child pornography, or child molestation cases? 

 MR. SWECKER. We are funded for 127. We actually have close to 

250 agents working just Innocent Images, child abusers on the Internet. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. 250? 

 MR. SWECKER. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, we are told that there are six FBI special 

agents working at the Innocent Images National Initiative, that in fact, 

two slots are not filled. Even with having eight special agents devoted to 

this work full-time, given the magnitude, do you think that--well, he said 

250, but we are told that there are six FBI special agents working on the 

Innocent Images National Initiative. 

 MR. SWECKER. There are six at NCMEC, at the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children. It is two agents, four analysts. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. But we are told that two slots are not filled. 

Is that correct? 

 MR. SWECKER. They are in the process of being filled. There is 

normal rotation in and out. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Okay. Now, do you all feel that the 

financial services industry could do more to assist law enforcement in 

these cases, and if so, how do you think they could be more effective in 

what they are doing? How could they assist you more? Mr. Swecker. 

 MR. SWECKER. I watched Ernie Allen’s testimony yesterday, and I 

think those types of initiatives, where you get cooperation from these 

PayPals and credit card companies and financial clearinghouses that 

enable the payments, some of them, right now, it is voluntary 

cooperation, if there is some method of ensuring that they will be 

cooperative. Some are more cooperative than others. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. Mr. Plitt, do you have any comment on 

that? 

 MR. PLITT. We agree. We assist with those cases, and of course, our 

concern is that much of the money flows overseas. We are looking at the 

trans-border side of it. So, any international cooperation from the credit 

card companies, financial services companies in other countries, is what 

we target, and we also invite. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And what about digital currencies? 

 MR. PLITT. Digital currencies. In the past, I would say eighteen 

months, digital currencies have started to appear in these cases, and they 

are absolutely important. They allow the free, unmonitored movement of 

money between countries, and to various Internet services. The currency 
312

area is something we have been looking at for a while now, and they are 

occurring in these child exploitation cases. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. It seems to me the one impediment to effective 

prosecution in these cases is we have so many agencies across so many 

jurisdictions, and it must require a lot of coordination, and working with 

each other, and teamwork. You must all be frustrated by the complexity 

of prosecuting. Would that be accurate? 

 MR. SWECKER. If I may. There is plenty of work for everybody. 

And I worked drugs for a good part of my career, saw a lot of overlap 

and duplication. We are not seeing that in this area. I think everybody 

recognizes the importance of it, and I think it is better to have a good 

number of agencies working it. The National Center has been a very 

good clearinghouse for this type of activity. NCMEC has been very 

effective in that area, because we all have analysts out there. We all have 

investigators out there. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, I know that many law enforcement agencies 

have jurisdictional disputes, but hopefully, this is one area, as you said, 

where there can be more cooperation and less concern about 

jurisdictional protections. I am assuming that is the way you all feel 

about it. 

 All right. My time has expired, so I will recognize Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. Swecker, back in ‘99, Congress passed a law that required 

Internet service providers to report any knowledge the ISPs may have of 

child pornography to the Cyber TipLine, which is run by the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and then, they must forward 

that report to law enforcement agencies, and that is 42 USC § 13032, and 

we have fines in there for failing to report and all this. But this law did 

not require the service providers to monitor, to actively monitor their 

networks, but still, if they came across it, they were supposed to report it. 

 Tuesday, we learned from Mr. Allen that this law has never been 

implemented, because the Justice Department said they refused to issue 

the guidelines, or take any steps to implement it. The guidelines were 

drafted, we understand, in late 2000 under the Clinton Administration. 

Attorney General Ashcroft, for some reason, did not want to implement 

it. Any reason why? 

 MR. SWECKER. Sir, I am not sure. It would be a great tool. We see 

that success in the bank secrecy area, with the banks making referrals 

through the SAR process. This would certainly be a help to us. 

 MR. STUPAK. Were you aware of the law? 

 MR. SWECKER. I am aware of it, but I-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Have you attempted to use it? 
313

 MR. SWECKER. Well, we don’t have any guidelines or regs to 

implement it yet, so we haven’t been able to use it. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. If I may interrupt. Mr. Swecker, would you talk to 

the appropriate people at Justice, and ask them to give a formal response 

to Mr. Stupak’s question on that issue? 

 MR. STUPAK. Because it has been almost 7 years? 

 MR. SWECKER. Yes. 

 MR. STUPAK. And I think you mentioned, Doctor, about the ISPs, 

how important they could be to Internet service providers to helping us, 

here is a law that Congress did in ‘99, it is not even implemented. 

 MR. KARDASZ. Well, Congressman, one important thing that 

happened as a result of that law is that we got a flood of child 

pornography investigations that overwhelmed us, that came from some 

of the responsible ISPs that, when they were finding child pornography 

on their servers, they were reporting those to us, and we are still getting 

those investigations in today. So, part of that law is being implemented 

by those ISPs who have chosen to abide by it. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. Mr. Swecker, you mentioned--oh, Mr. Smith, 

you had a comment? I am sorry. 

 MR. SMITH. Just to follow up on that, with that law that requires 

ISPs to report violations to the National Center, that is the Cyber TipLine 

II part of the National Center, the I being the public. And as I understand 

it, the larger ISPs do, in fact, report the information, but hundreds and 

hundreds of small ones, if not thousands, do not, and then, there is no 

enforcement provision. There is no penalty associated with nonreporting. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, there is a civil penalty up to $100,000. 

 MR. SMITH. Okay. I don’t know is it has ever been pursued. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, testimony is showing that there are like 215 of 

the ISPs voluntarily report this stuff, but there are thousands upon 

thousands of thousands out there, and that is not even counting the 

wireless that we are starting to see more and more of now. So, I mean, it 

has got to be a phenomenal problem, but we are trying to design laws 

that will help you out, but when they sit for 7 years, and no, the first we 

learned about it was Tuesday, that there was a problem with it, according 

to the Attorney General, so that is why the full Chairman and everyone 

else wanted someone here to answer his questions. 

 Mr. Swecker, you mentioned the Justin Berry case. Is Justice in lead 

on that case? Who is the lead agency? 

 MR. SWECKER. We are the investigators, and we are the lead 

investigative agency on that. 

 MR. STUPAK. Who would be the lead person in charge of that? 
314

 MR. SWECKER. Within our agency, there are case agents around the 

country. Arnold Bell coordinates the investigation from our 

headquarters. He is the Unit Chief of the Innocent Images Unit. 

 MR. STUPAK. Right, Mr. Bell, who we asked for today. 

 MR. SWECKER. I would say, sir, that we are trying very hard not to 

jeopardize any future prosecution. I think there is logic in not 

commenting. 

 MR. STUPAK. And I don’t think this committee has ever jeopardized 

one of your investigations, but I know Justin Berry and everyone else 

would just like to know what the heck you are doing. You got a very big 

black eye here Tuesday, and it is getting bigger by the minute, but you 

just keep saying well, we can’t answer these questions. No one has 

asked any inappropriate questions, and I am sure if it was an 

inappropriate question which would jeopardize the investigation, the 

person, Mr. Bell or others, would say I can’t answer that. We will 

answer in closed session. So don’t give us that line. 

 You indicated there were 250 agents that work on child pornography 

in Justice? 

 MR. SWECKER. Within the FBI. 

 MR. STUPAK. Within the FBI. So you have 250 agents assigned to 

doing child pornography, or do you just have agents who, from time to 

time, may work on child pornography. 

 MR. SWECKER. That is actual agents working the system. 

 MR. STUPAK. Which their main emphasis would be child 

pornography. 

 MR. SWECKER. Sole emphasis. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Mr. Swecker, how about forfeiture statutes. I 

think ICE has used them. Has Justice ever used forfeiture statutes to get 

the assets of these individuals? Have you ever used that mechanism? 

 MR. SWECKER. We have. I don’t have any numbers for you. 

 MR. STUPAK. You are familiar with them with drug cases, then, 

right? 

 MR. SWECKER. Absolutely, and white collar cases as well. 

 MR. STUPAK. Any reason why they could not be used here? Is there 

anything we have to do to change the law to make sure you could use 

them in child pornography? 

 MR. SWECKER. I think we have the forfeiture tools available to us. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 MR. SWECKER. That was one of the things that came into being very 

early on. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Let me go back to the Berry case for a minute. 

If the FBI has an agreement, there is an understanding out there, it is my 

understanding, to provide all images to the National Center for Missing 
315

and Exploited Children, but Missing and Exploited Children said they 

have never received anything. So, CEOS, then, probably has nothing 

from the Berry case. And the Berry case has been sitting for over, I 

think, 71 days now, if I count. So, what is going with that, then? I mean, 

if National Center has not received the information, then CEOS wouldn’t 

have received the information. It seems like it is bottled up in Justice. Is 

that right? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, again, let me just talk generically, if I may. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MR. SWECKER. When we get this volume of images in any case, we 

have to review it, each one of them, and filter out regular pornography, 

as opposed to child pornography. What we forward over, it has to be 

viewed, and some agent has to get on the screen, or print it out, and look 

at the images, and then, it goes over. 

 MR. STUPAK. Right. 

 MR. SWECKER. That is as far as I can go with that response. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Well, if you have got 250 agents exclusively 

doing it, I think someone could get to it in 71 days, I would think. Seven 

months, I am sorry, 7 months. I said--can’t read my own writing--7 

months. So, there is no reason for it. And I can understand why Mr. 

Berry is frustrated. 

 In our testimony Tuesday, I think it was, the reporter from the New 

York Times indicated that credit cards are really the center of this, sort of 

money. Have you done anything to try to crack down on credit cards, 

transactions that are used in child pornography? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, we can only address these credit card cases in 

the context of a case. I mean, if we go beyond that, we are not 

regulators, as we know, but we do find quite, I mean, this is a chokepoint 

for these types of cases. It is a good place to get your leads, and it is 

good place to center, but I will say that we get thousands and thousands 

and thousands of these credit card companies. The volume is 

overwhelming. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, with credit cards, we see with the Internet 

pharmacy illegal sales. We see it with drug masking chemicals and 

devices for drug testing, and we see it with child pornography. Do you 

have any recommendations on what Congress should be doing to try to 

crack down on credit cards being used in an illegal manner like this? 

 MR. SWECKER. Sir, I would have to defer to main Justice on any of 

those legislative solutions. 

 MR. STUPAK. Mr. Plitt, if I may, you testified that ICE, your main 

areas are border, and then, of course, international, to help. 

 MR. PLITT. Yes, trans-border. 
316

 MR. STUPAK. So, like on the Berry case, did you assist there, since 

there is a tie in to Mexico? 

 MR. PLITT. No, I believe that, if I recall correctly, the ICE link to the 

Berry case came through the back door, if you will. Another ICE arrest 

occurred, and the individual indicated that he had purchased, I believe, 

access to Mr. Berry’s site, so once that had occurred, we stepped back, 

because another agency was handling this case, the Bureau. There was 

one arrest, led to a second arrest. The second arrest was linked to Mr. 

Berry. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. So, all right. Dr. Kardasz, if I can, this law we 

have been talking about a little bit, 13032, where Internet providers, have 

you tried to access or use that law much? The Federal law, the one I 

have been speaking 42 USC § 13032, which Internet providers are 

supposed to contact you? 

 MR. KARDASZ. No. 

 MR. STUPAK. I am sorry, they contact National Center. 

 MR. KARDASZ. No, the way that that law has come to me is just that 

the images-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Comes-- 

 MR. KARDASZ. --that law have come back to me, and I don’t work 

to enforce that law in any way. 

 MR. STUPAK. So, you are asking that these ISPs retain their 

information for 1 year? 

 MR. KARDASZ. That would be ideal, sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. And then, do you have anything like--in 

Arizona, is that where you are working, right? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Yes, sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. Do you have anything like an administrative subpoena 

that Mr. Smith spoke of, that allows you to move rapidly? 

 MR. KARDASZ. We do. It is very helpful. 

 MR. STUPAK. What do they call it out there? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Administrative subpoena, I believe. But what it 

allows my investigators to do is to write up a subpoena at their desk. The 

county attorney has authorized them to phone him, or contact him by 

email, tell the county attorney that they have an ongoing felony 

investigation, give them a little bit of background on what is going on, 

and then the investigator can fax the subpoena off to the Internet service 

provider, receive the information back from the Internet service provider, 

which saves the investigator from having to go find a grand jury, or some 

other legal authority, to get the subpoena authorized. So, that is the 

manner in which it speeds up our work. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, I guess in the bill we are marking up, what we 

call a markup, I did an amendment to try to get the phone companies and 
317

cables and others to develop new technologies to try to prevent child 

pornography. Hopefully, that will help you in your work. Technology 

as a free market system can come up with, hopefully, that will assist you. 

 And one more, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Plitt, you indicated that 

ICE was familiar with the Justin Berry case because of the arrest that was 

made. Did CEOS ask ICE about Justin Berry at all? 

 MR. PLITT. I don’t believe they did. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. At this time, we 

recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. When Members of Congress from Kentucky look to the 

Northeast, they see New England as one State. I actually represent New 

Hampshire, but it is the same to you, sir. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you for reminding me. 

 MR. BASS. Mr. Waters, I was struck by your testimony, in which 

you said there were 4.4 million images worldwide, and 1.9 million 

images which appear to be domestic, and I am assuming that is because 

the source is a domestic address. 

 Do you have a way of telling how many hits are occurring on these 

websites? And this isn’t a question just for you, but for anybody. Let us 

assume the data here is that you have two million images, in the United 

States. That is your testimony. I would appreciate comment from 

anybody here. 

 Anybody have any idea how many hits there are on these--first of all, 

how many websites are there, and how many hits are there on them? So, 

what is the size of the community? 

 MR. WATERS. Representative, the images that I spoke about, those 

are 1.9 million transactions, where people were offering to traffic in 

those images. Now, the 1.9 million, I can trace to IP addresses in the 

United States. 

 MR. BASS. So, the 1.9 million are the hits. 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct. 

 MR. BASS. Okay. I am just trying to get--transaction means that you 

ask for something on the Internet, or receive something on the Internet, 

and so, there were 1.9 million individual requests or receipts for 

information involving a picture of some child on the Internet, or a 

message, or something, right? 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct. This deals with, and this particular 

investigation, a very small set of movies depicting very young victims, 

very horrendous activity, when the investigator types in, using the 

software and searches for those, that is the number of download 

candidates that have been identified over that 24-month period. We have 

turned a corner somewhat in this area. It is now easier to download, and 
318

faster to download 20 minute, 30 minute movies depicting these 

activities from these file sharing networks than from the websites. 

 MR. BASS. Peer-to-peer you are talking about now. 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct. 

 MR. BASS. And you have developed software to do what? 

 MR. WATERS. The software allows the investigators to regionalize 

their efforts, while contributing to the global network. So, the way it is 

set up, an investigator types in a search term consistent with these 

hardcore movies. He receives a list of download candidates for those 

movies, seven or eight thousand at a time. By submitting that list to 

servers in Wyoming, ICAC servers, he is given back a list that says of 

those, these nine are in your State, and then, he can focus his 

investigative efforts on those nine. But in the background, all of those 

are submitted to the central server, so from every other State, the 

investigators, be it FBI, ICE, ICAC, can connect to that server and 

receive the list of who saw what where. 

 MR. BASS. Can you just review, how many sites are there, 

domestically, that provide Internet for child pornography, roughly? Do 

you know? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, these move beyond the typical definition of a 

website. These are actually computers in people’s homes, and there are 

millions. We have identified in this case, just using that series, over a 

million, 1.4 million unique IP addresses. 

 MR. BASS. What do you mean series? You are talking about a 

specific movie or something like that? 

 MR. WATERS. A subset of movies related to these victims. 

 MR. BASS. So, it doesn’t even start to address the whole breadth of 

all the pictures that may exist. This isn’t the whole scheme. This is just 

one program, so to speak. 

 MR. WATERS. Correct. This is just a subset, where I picked very 

young and very typically violent images of young males and young 

females. Like I said, these are typically under 8 years old, just in that set. 

We started out with about two hundred images and movies. 

 MR. BASS. And you got 1.9 million individuals that accessed that. 

How many pornographic, child pornography websites are there 

domestically? Did you answer that question, or does anybody know? 

Nobody has any idea, do they? 

 MR. WATERS. I don’t think we know, sir. One characteristic you 

will see is that oftentimes, these websites will come up very quickly, go 

down very quickly. The site managers tend to do that, simply because it 

hides the ownership of the site. So, it is oftentimes difficult to estimate 

exactly how many there are. 
319

 MR. BASS. That leads me to another question. Is there technology 

being developed on the other side of this to deter you? Is that a 

sophisticated, active industry in itself, to deter your investigation? 

 MR. WATERS. It is. Of course, they seek to hide their identities. 

 MR. BASS. Nothing new there. 

 MR. WATERS. Yeah. Right. And the technology that they are going 

to employ is technology that is already out there. They very probably 

don’t have any research and development activities to develop their own 

technology. They are using what is available. And peer-to-peer is a 

great example, because peer-to-peer is now more frequently used. It is 

easier to use, and of course, the users are becoming more sophisticated, 

as generations go on. 

 MR. BASS. How many rescues do you achieve in a given period? 

 MR. PLITT. Rescues are-- 

 MR. BASS. Use your mic, please. Your mic is off. 

 MR. PLITT. ICE tries to specialize in the trans-border cases. The 

rescues occur at the local level, so I would refer to the ICACs on those. 

 MR. BASS. You two gentlemen from the Postal Inspection Service, 

how many of your child pornography cases involve the Internet? 

 MR. SMITH. Today, about 98 percent. 

 MR. BASS. Ninety eight percent? Give me an example-- 

 MR. SMITH. One aspect of the Internet or the other. Let me give you 

an example. 

 MR. BASS. Okay. 

 MR. SMITH. This case that I just referenced, where the child was 

victimized in Texas. That started on the Internet, because the bad guy, 

the police officer in Alabama, contacted the child in Texas over the 

Internet, traveled to Texas, sexually abused her, and then returned to 

Alabama. They then communicated through the mail after that. He 

mailed her a package, which the mother discovered. That is how this 

case came to light. In the package was a vibrator, a digital camera, and a 

seven page, handwritten letter giving her specific instructions what to do. 

That is a violation of Federal law. It is a 15-year felony, just the mailing 

of the camera, if you--any communication facility to induce, coerce, or 

entice a minor to engage in that type of behavior. It is a 15-year hit. 

That is one example. 

 In chat rooms, targets hook up with the children, bad guys start 

talking to the kids, and then, they want to go to the telephone. They will 

mail the kids calling cards. Let us talk dirty on the telephone. 

Oftentimes, we will have a commercial site, which may distribute 

product through the mail. You have the newsgroups out there, where the 

bad guys all hook up with each other, or in the chat rooms, and then, they 
320

end up mailing disks, DVDs, things of that nature, back and forth, 

although the initial contact is on the Internet. 

 MR. BASS. So, it is safe to say that the Internet has changed the 

nature of your investigations dramatically. 

 MR. SMITH. Dramatically. 

 MR. BASS. Yes, sir. 

 MR. KEZER. What you have to understand is the reason that 

percentage is so high is because those are the cases that we are targeting. 

Although we are working on the Internet, we are trying to identify cases 

that have the mail involved. That is our mission. 

 MR. BASS. One last question. Hypothetically, if there was one thing 

that Congress could do that is not financial, because we don’t have 

jurisdiction over financial services, it is not judicial, because we can’t 

deal with subpoenas here, but it had to do with interstate commerce and 

telecommunications, to assist you A, in conducting your, doing your job, 

or B, suppressing the problem, what would you suggest we do? 

 Anybody can comment. And we have got 1 minute and 20 seconds, 

so there is no rush. 

 MR. KEZER. Sir. I don’t know who would be responsible for it, but 

someone had made the comment earlier that law enforcement can’t do it 

all. It is absolutely essential that a comprehensive public education 

prevention initiative be developed, long term, nationally, and if at all 

possible, internationally. It is absolutely essential to curb this tide. 

 MR. BASS. Anybody else? 

 MR. PLITT. Yeah, I would like to second that. We see so many good 

initiatives, NGOs, that are trying to do the right thing, it is just that it is 

difficult for the person at the center of the problem, the child of the 

parent, to know where to go. So, a coordinated effort, which is 

education, which is outreach, even victim assistance, would be absolutely 

fantastic. 

 MR. BASS. Well, education is also not within our jurisdiction. The 

only suggestion I have heard all morning has been mandating that ISPs 

store their addresses longer. Any other suggestions besides that? 

Because if this hearing is going to lead to anything, it is going to have to 

lead to some sort of, if there is a legislative initiative necessary, what role 

would the Internet and telecommunications play in that solution? Any of 

you gentlemen follow that? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, I think one other area that might be valuable to 

us is if we can work more with industry, if there is some way that we can 

facilitate the corporations being able to come forward with solutions for 

us. There is a lot of-- 

 MR. BASS. Corporations--what do you mean by that? 
321

 MR. WATERS. Like Microsoft, for example. As a good example, we 

have been working with them on tools to establish de-confliction 

mechanisms, to allow us to share this information, and get data faster to 

other law enforcement agencies. We need a serious partnership with 

business, as well, if that helps. 

 MR. BASS. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Bass. Mr. Smith, there is just one 

question, and we will go on to Ms. DeGette. In this Texas case, what 

was the age of the victim in that case? 

 MR. SMITH. Fourteen years old. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Fourteen, okay. 

 MR. BASS. One more thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Waters, 

the slide that you showed us, Santa Claus and all that, could you provide 

that for the record? 

 MR. WATERS. I have, sir, yes. 

 MR. BASS. Okay, good. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 10 minutes. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I want to try to get a sense of the scope of this issue. As I understand 

it, the U.S. Postal Service has 35 agents working specifically on this 

issue. Is that correct? 

 MR. KEZER. Thirty-five. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And what about, Mr. Clark, what about ICE? How 

many agents are working from your agency? 

 MR. CLARK. I would have to defer to Mr. Plitt, who runs our Cyber 

Center, and basically, coordinates our national program. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Plitt. 

 MR. PLITT. Yes, the total would be about 140. That is about 90 

agents in the field. On top of that would be another, let us say 30 or so 

doing the actual technical forensics, on computers, who are not 

necessarily the case agents. And then, between 10 to 12 at Cyber 

Headquarters. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Okay. And Mr. Swecker, the FBI, I think, has about 

250 agents working on this. Is that right? 

 MR. SWECKER. That number fluctuates. It is 250 on the street 

working the cases. There is another group at headquarters in the Cyber 

Division, you might add 20 or 30 agents to that, and those that are at the 

Center. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And Dr. Kardasz, ICAC, how many agents from 

your agency are working on this issue? 

 MR. KARDASZ. We have four in the Phoenix Police Department, but 

we are networked through memorandums of understanding with about 
322

44, 45 other local, State, and county agencies throughout the State of 

Arizona. 

 MS. DEGETTE. So, you are mainly working with local law 

enforcement agencies. 

 MR. KARDASZ. No--yes, ma’am, but we also work nationwide with 

the other 46 regional task forces throughout the United States. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Okay. 

 MR. KARDASZ. Each of them has groups like mine. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Representatives from all these agencies, do you all 

think that you have enough people working on this issue? 

 MR. KARDASZ. No, ma’am. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Do you, Mr. Swecker? 

 MR. SWECKER. We can always use more. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. Mr. Plitt. 

 MR. PLITT. If we tripled our staff, we would still have significant 

leads. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. And Mr. Smith, or Mr. Kezer, whoever. 

 MR. KEZER. I don’t know if there is a law enforcement agency that 

doesn’t believe that they could use more resources. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, I mean, the reason I am asking the--I know my 

Denver Police Department, they want more agents, too. They always 

want me to get Federal money for them, but the thing is, in this situation 

with this type of cybercrime that is going on, it has exploded, it seems to 

me. No one would disagree, would you? So, we have got, I heard today, 

4.4 million images, 1.4 million users, according to someone’s testimony. 

These other countries around the world have maybe 300,000 or 

something like that. If someone can tell me, how many pending Federal 

cases do we have right now, involving exploitation of kids on the 

Internet, sexual exploitation? Does anyone know? Mr. Swecker. 

 MR. SWECKER. I know we have an inventory of about 2,500, and 

then you have heard of thousands of other investigations on the part of 

the Task Forces. 

 MS. DEGETTE. How many cases are pending? How many criminal 

investigations have been filed? 

 MR. SWECKER. You would have to aggregate them all up with all 

the agencies-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thousands? 

 MR. SWECKER. Thousands. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Okay. But we could potentially have many more 

thousands, if we had enough investigators, right? It seems to me that--I 

know this isn’t in the purview of our committee, and that has stymied 

you guys a little bit, but it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we should really 

work with the appropriators and the agencies, just to try to get them more 
323

resources to fight this, because I started my life out as a criminal defense 

lawyer, and for crimes like this, and we saw it happen in this country, 

when child porn was going out through the mail. When you started 

enforcing it, child porn went down, right? I don’t know who can answer 

that. Mr. Swecker. 

 MR. SWECKER. It did go down. 

 MS. DEGETTE. It did go down. These are the types of crimes, if you 

said to these perpetrators, you are going to go to jail for 15 years, it 

wouldn’t deter all of them. There are still criminals out there. But if 

they knew that they would be caught and prosecuted, it would sure help, 

wouldn’t it? 

 MR. KEZER. Certainly. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. I have a couple questions for Dr. Kardasz, 

and you testified, I thought, very helpfully about some actual proposed 

solutions. You said that the ISPs should retain the information on the 

subscribers for a year, and that they should have to respond to subpoenas 

within a week or faster, if it is an emergency, correct? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Yes, ma’am. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, my question is what is happening right now? 

Can you give me some examples where failure to maintain data has hurt 

or killed investigations? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Yes, and I think Flint Waters talked about-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. He did give an example. 

 MR. KARDASZ. There are other cases like that out there, that because 

the particular Internet service provider didn’t retain the data, the 

investigation just dead ends. 

 MS. DEGETTE. How often would you say that happens? 

 MR. KARDASZ. Well, it is hard to put a number on that, and I don’t 

want to give you a bad number. 

 MS. DEGETTE. No. 

 MR. KARDASZ. Periodically. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Okay. And do you have an opinion why these ISPs 

fail to maintain this information? 

 MR. KARDASZ. My sense is that it costs them money to do that. It is 

not that they are evil. It is not that they are trying to protect these folks. 

But data storage takes a box with storage capacity in it, and it starts to fill 

up, and that costs money. Retrieving that data takes somebody to go in, 

takes their time to go in and type in the information that they need, and 

return that information to law enforcement. So, it is a tie-up of their 

personnel and their resources. It is a cost issue for them, I think. 

 MS. DEGETTE. How often do we have these ISPs refusing to 

respond to subpoenas in a timely fashion? 
324

 MR. KARDASZ. I can’t respond to well from Arizona, because it 

really hasn’t been an issue there with-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Has it been-- 

 MR. KARDASZ. --the ISPs that we have worked with. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Anyone else have an opinion on that? Yes, Mr. 

Waters. 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, ma’am. In some jurisdictions, it is as high as 40 

percent. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Wow. 

 MR. WATERS. Where they either don’t respond, or they say they do 

not have the records. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And have there been efforts made to make these 

folks voluntarily comply? 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, there have. We have met with ISPs. We have 

also had some meetings facilitated by the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children to help, and some ISPs are becoming very 

cooperative and helping us. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Can you tell me which ISPs are particularly 

uncooperative? Look, these people are enabling the raping of our 

children in this country. I don’t have any sympathy for them. 

 MR. WATERS. The ISP that would not respond in the case in 

Colorado, where we were trying to track down that 2-year-old child was 

Comcast. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Comcast. Okay. And what about some other ones 

that are uncooperative? 

 MR. WATERS. In Wyoming, we are actually having excellent 

support. I mean, Bresnan, AOL, they are all working very hard for us. 

So, that is the only one that comes to mind. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Anyone else have some particular offenders you 

want to identify? And if people would like to do this privately, we need 

to know, because we talk to these folks. Yeah, so if you could 

supplement the record on that, that would be swell. 

 Let me ask all of you, just one last question. We have over 2 

minutes, so we have more than ample time for even what Mr. Bass was 

asking. What can be done to improve cooperation on these issues 

between law enforcement agencies? Let us start with you, Mr. Swecker. 

 MR. SWECKER. If you are talking about between law enforcement 

agencies. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yes, sir. 

 MR. SWECKER. I think there is good cooperation as it is. We have 

the State task forces, the ICACs. They are very well networked. We 

have the National Center, which is sort of a clearinghouse, and makes 

many referrals to the State and Federal task forces. I would go out on a 
325

limb, and say this is really a bright spot in law enforcement, in that I 

don’t think they are out there stepping on each other, and then, when 

they do, I think there is a recognition we need to come together and work 

them jointly. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Plitt. 

 MR. PLITT. Yeah, I think all the agencies certainly represented here 

work together, and I think that you also see that over the past several 

years, they have blossomed in their application of the resources that 

focus on this problem. It is almost time, perhaps, to think about some 

areas of specialization. 

 ICE, for instance, tries to specialize in the trans-border area. The 

reason we do that is to effectively apply the limited resources that we 

have. Just a thought. 

 MR. SWECKER. May I back up for one second? 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yes, sir. 

 MR. SWECKER. One of the chokepoints is forensic examinations, 

and I would venture to say that each State ought to have at least a 

statewide forensic lab, if not regional labs, and because that is an area 

where you get a pretty good backlog. 

 MS. DEGETTE. What about prosecutions? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, you can’t get a prosecution until you get that 

evidence-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Right. 

 MR. SWECKER. --out of the computer, the ISP. Right. 

 MS. DEGETTE. So, that is part of--yeah. Okay. Dr. Kardasz. 

 MR. KARDASZ. I am very happy with the interagency cooperation I 

have had with all my law enforcement brothers and sisters. I can’t throw 

anybody under the bus on that. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Waters. 

 MR. WATERS. We have had excellent support. It is coordinated 

through our United States Attorney’s Office, and we don’t have any issue 

with folks not coming to the table. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Clark is nodding in agreement, it looks like. 

 MR. CLARK. That is right. I am in agreement with Mr. Plitt, 

basically, on his answer. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Kezer. 

 MR. KEZER. I would have to concur. The investigation of these 

cases is a specialized field, and quite honestly, most of the investigators 

know each other, or are familiar. They go to training together. We 

couldn’t get the work done unless we were cooperating. So I would 

concur. It is very good. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And Mr. Smith, do you agree? 
326

 MR. SMITH. I do agree, because we all bring, as a unique agency, 

each of us are different. We all have different jurisdiction and different 

authorities. We all bring something different to the table, and we all take 

different investigative approaches to identify the bad guys. 

 MS. DEGETTE. So, what it really sounds like to me, then, is the 

bottlenecks are the forensic labs, the numbers of investigators we have, 

and bottlenecks with the ISPs getting information to you in a timely 

fashion, so you can investigate and find these perpetrators. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and at this time, we 

recognize Ms. Blackburn for 10 minutes. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for your patience, for being here with us today, and for caring so deeply 

about the issue. It is evident that you all care about your work deeply. 

 Mr. Waters and Dr. Kardasz, each of you mentioned the activity, 

talked a little bit about it by country, and I think Mr. Waters, your 

testimony, you give by country what you have identified, and of course, 

we see the transactions for the U.S. as a much higher number than 

Germany, Canada, or the UK. 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct, ma’am. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Now, I would like to get inside that 

number just a little bit, and then, I think it maybe was Mr. Clark, with 

your testimony, you talked about ICE has successfully arrested more 

than 7,500 child predators. Of these, 6,600 or 88 percent of the arrestees 

have been non-U.S. citizens, and more than 59 percent of those have 

been deported from the U.S. 

 So, my question to you is this. Why the U.S.? Are we a magnet for 

this? Is there something that we are doing, or not doing, that would be 

pulling people that are not citizens here, and finding them involved in 

this activity, the number of websites is there--you want to get inside 

those numbers a little bit for me, either of you? 

 MR. CLARK. First of all, the numbers are in terms of the removals. 

That brings in our immigration capabilities to the fore. It is not our 

Internet investigations, per se, but it is resident aliens who have been 

here, would otherwise be legal, but have committed child exploitation 

crimes, which makes them an illegal, and it allows us to remove them 

from the United States. So, that is part of those statistics there. 

 In terms of the U.S. versus elsewhere, I would say one is probably 

greater Internet capability, more common in the United States than 

elsewhere. I would say probably greater recognition in the United States, 

law enforcement and the public, and greater use of the Internet. But 

again, in my earlier statement, I do think that the international 

community is rapidly growing aware of the issue, and I would refer to 
327

the Australian government, in terms of following the Falcon arrests in 

that country, looking to see what they can do, in terms of their laws and 

regulations, in terms of child exploitation. So, I think it is probably just 

something we have paid more attention to, have more capability of 

looking at, unfortunately, bad people have more access to and can use. 

But I don’t think this is a cultural or a U.S. problem at all. I think it is a 

global problem. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Mr. Waters, anything to add to that? 

 MR. WATERS. I would add the numbers that I represented are from 

an operation where we identified primarily movies, large movies, and 

they tend to traffic more over high speed Internet connectivity, and so, a 

high saturation of broadband Internet leads to more individuals being 

able to participate in that trafficking. But we have clearly identified a 

large number globally, and we have trained Interpol in how to use it, and 

they are now actively searching as well. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Mr. Clark, I wanted to come back to you. 

Tell me why 3,900 of the 6,600 non-U.S. citizens who were arrested 

were deported instead of prosecuted. 

 MR. CLARK. I am not certain I would say they weren’t prosecuted. I 

would have to--I am not certain the numbers, 3,900. What would often 

happen is, in some cases, they have been prosecuted and released. We 

have gone back out, and taken them administratively, and removed them, 

based upon the fact that their resident status or legal status, under the 

immigration authority, is no longer there, so there might have been prior 

criminal arrests and sentences served. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. If you would, then, look back at that 

number one more time in your testimony, and then, kind of clarify that 

for us, I think that would be great. I would appreciate that. 

 Let us see, Mr. Waters, in your testimony, you talked about a 

situation where an agent witnessed the rape of a child taking place. I 

think that is your testimony, and what I want to ask you is, when you get 

information that there is something taking place, how often do you get 

that quickly enough to go in and act, and how often have you been able 

to remove children from those situations when you get the information 

timely? 

 MR. WATERS. I think a two-part answer there. We typically react 

just as fast as possible. We have had several cases where, because-- 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Well, is that hours, days? 

 MR. WATERS. Sometimes, it is hours. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Hours. 

 MR. WATERS. I have had cases where I have gotten on a plane and 

flown to Houston that day, and-- 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. 
328

 MR. WATERS. And worked the case. We have had several where we 

respond immediately. Depending on the type of material that we are 

receiving, sometimes, the circumstances dictate that we wait until we get 

a response from a service provider, to tell us where this person is at. 

Sometimes, we have to wait to get records from there, tying to, to give us 

a physical address. So, occasionally, we are restrained by the logistics of 

the companies to tell us where these offenders are. But we typically get 

on them as fast as possible. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Any idea of the actual number of children that 

you all have pulled out and removed? 

 MR. WATERS. I can speak just to the last couple of months. Maybe 

the last 6 months, we have had two out of Wyoming, we are a fairly 

small State. In our operation, we have had quite a few around the 

country. We just had one, one of these peer-to-peer cases led to an 

offender in San Diego who was working in a hospital, and was actively 

molesting four to five kids a week, coming into these wards, a respiratory 

therapist. And in that case, they were able to take him out of a situation 

where, of the 50 kids on the ward, quite a few of these he was being able 

to molest. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. So, if the ISP providers, if they are going to give 

you the information, that is going to help you to respond quickly. 

 MR. WATERS. Absolutely. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. What I am hearing is, as Ms. DeGette was 

saying, many times that is your bottleneck. 

 MR. WATERS. That is correct. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. That is what slows you up. 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, ma’am. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. Now, out of the ones that you have been 

able to respond quickly to over the past couple of months, what number 

were you hampered from responding in a timely--could you have gotten 

in there and done your work? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, it is difficult to say. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

 MR. WATERS. I would have to draw a conclusion based on 

information I didn’t get, so I don’t know how many of the records that 

failed to come back would have led us to a child in danger. But one is 

far too many. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. In talking about your work with other 

agencies, are all of you satisfied with the interaction that you are getting 

from the Department of Justice? 

 MR. WATERS. If I can speak to that, we are very satisfied with the 

support that we are getting. In Wyoming, the United States Attorneys 

call our office to see if we have any cases we need help with. If they 
329

don’t hear from us in a week or two, we get a call, and they want to 

know how we are doing. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. 

 MR. KARDASZ. May I respond to that? 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Yes, you may. 

 MR. KARDASZ. The OJJDP grants that we work under are very 

helpful, and the coordination that is done at the administrative level of 

the OJJDP really helps us locals to put our programs together, and then 

work with all the other Federal agencies. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Okay. All right. And I think, Mr. Chairman, I 

will yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn, and at this time, I will 

recognize Mr. Inslee for 10 minutes. 

 MR. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Waters, you mentioned something like 

1.9 million images through the peer-to-peer system, and did that, at least 

in your first review, did each one of those cases, at least on a prima facie 

basis, could constitute a crime in and of itself, the retention of, receipt of 

those images? 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, sir. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, we had 1.9 million potential crimes. How many of 

those have been prosecuted? 

 MR. WATERS. I don’t know nationally how many. I can speak to 

those that have reported back to me. I know they did a sweep of about 

40 in New Jersey, they did 70 in North Carolina. We have done 40 or 45 

in Wyoming. I only know the ones that get back to me, and let me know 

how it has gone. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, that is about 165 out of 1.9 million. The 1.9 

million may not be separate individuals. There might be multiple same 

people. 

 MR. WATERS. Yes. That is correct. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, let us cut it in half, and say 800,000. So, out of the, 

say, 800,000, we have had 165 prosecutions, and my constituents are 

going to ask the obvious question, so I will ask it. Why so little with that 

enormous floodtide? Is it a resource issue, and if so, could you describe 

how we could help you in that regard? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, it is absolutely a resource issue. We are hitting 

them as fast and as hard as we can. One of the biggest things that we run 

into, again, are delays or lack of records. So we have an IP address. We 

can identify that there is an offense, but we may not be able to identify an 

offender. But by sheer numbers, it is just, we have more than I have the 

man-hours to send guys out on. 

 MR. INSLEE. What could you usefully use, as far as increased 

resources, what could you efficiently use to pursue these 1.9 million 
330

incidents, do you think? A doubling, a tripling of your resources? What 

do you think? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, I think a tripling, we would still be falling 

behind. As it stands right now, I am bringing in about six, seven new 

leads in Wyoming a week. We are currently able to hit one search 

warrant every week or every 2 weeks, so even if we triple, we are still 

falling behind, as we are finding these leads. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, I have this sense that if there were oh, bank 

robberies where you had 1.9 million bank robberies, but only 165 

prosecutions, there would be a very large hue and cry to solve this 

problem, and that we would have resources to you to get that done. Do 

you kind of share that view? I get this sense that somehow, this has not 

received the priority that at least I think most of us here would believe 

that it should. Do you have any sense of that? 

 MR. WATERS. I share that view, and I thank you for drawing 

attention to that, because we have been yelling at every rooftop we can 

get on. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, let me ask some of the Federal personnel here, start 

with Mr. Swecker, for instance. I have a sense, I think you testified there 

was a 2,050 percent increase in images in one of these databases in the 

last 10 years. What increase in resources would you estimate there has 

been, if any, in the last 10 years, to this problem Federally from Federal 

agencies, all told, or at least from yours? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, we went from zero to 250. We actually have--

that is a little lesser number than we had over the last couple of years, 

because we, truthfully, have had to divert some over to terrorism. But 

we had to borrow those 250, or reprogram those 250 from our Criminal 

Division. So, where all that goes, to say that there is always room for 

more resources, I agree. We could put a thousand FBI agents, and 

thousands more officers on it, and we wouldn’t put a dent in that number 

that you just gave. 

 MR. INSLEE. And what does this year’s budget do to help in that 

regard? Do you have any idea? 

 MR. SWECKER. We have no enhancements for this--well, we got 22, 

I think we got 12 agents and ten analysts. We got 22 positions. 

 MR. INSLEE. So, in the current budget, passed by this Congress, we 

have 1.9 million potential crimes, and we have got no increase in 

resources to deal with that, even though we could, at least in one agency, 

triple it, and use it efficiently. That is a fair statement. 

 MR. SWECKER. We have zero enhancements for ‘07. 

 MR. INSLEE. Okay. I may note, that is not your gentlemen’s 

responsibility. It is ours at this table, just so the responsibility is in the 

right location here. 
331

 MR. SWECKER. I would also go back to the forensic laboratories, 

too, because I think those are critical. 

 MR. INSLEE. Mr. Waters, in the peer-to-peer situation, does the 

problem with ISP records exist in that context, or is that a different 

situation? 

 MR. WATERS. It exists very much in that context. In fact, it is most 

exaggerated, I think, in the context where we are reliant on the IP address 

to find the offender. 

 MR. INSLEE. Okay. I want to ask you about foreign prosecutions, 

where there is a person outside the United States, when they are sitting at 

a computer that is involved in this, what is our situation? The father of a 

victim who testified here last week was apparently, asserted was 

involved while in Mexico. What options exist for us, what handicaps do 

we have in that kind of context? And I will ask that to anyone in the 

panel who wants to take that on. 

 MR. PLITT. ICE was in that situation very frequently. We do have 

some remedies. We have quite a few countries that are, for lack of a 

better term, waking up, strengthening their laws, if they have older ones, 

they are adding laws, if they don’t have it. I think that in the next few 

days, a report will be released, out of NCMEC, I think, that will indicate 

that--and it will surprise the panel here--few countries actually have child 

exploitation laws on the books already, very few. Nevertheless, the 

governments that we work with, they want to help us in these cases as 

much as they can. They are concerned about children, of course. They 

are also concerned about their national reputations, and quite frequently, 

we will have the law enforcement agencies from those countries work to 

get us the evidence that we need, and in some cases, extradite. 

 MR. INSLEE. But is your understanding that we--I mean, do we have 

jurisdiction in a case where a person is sitting in Mexico, and is abusing 

through the Internet inciting, exploiting a child, do we not have criminal 

jurisdiction to assert to extradite that person, assuming that we have the 

resources to do it, and the case to do it? 

 MR. PLITT. Assuming we have the resources, yes, we would. A 

very good example is the child sex tourism cases, where an individual is 

traveling out of the country to have sex with a child. If that individual is 

a U.S. citizen, that individual, upon return, or still in the country where 

the act occurred, is subject to U.S. prosecution. 

 MR. INSLEE. Given the assertions by Mr. Berry, it is hard for us to 

understand, given that, why there hasn’t been a prosecution, in Mr. 

Berry’s case, of this individual who was in Mexico, allegedly exploiting 

him, I am having--understand who is his father, so it is not an 

identification issue. What possible reason for there not for, that to be at 

least started on the prosecutorial trail? 
332

 MR. PLITT. I don’t know. Again, that case wasn’t brought before 

ICE. ICE had a linkage to it, simply because it had arrested another 

individual that had dealt with Berry, and then that was moved to another 

agency, I believe the FBI. 

 MR. INSLEE. Mr. Swecker, do you have any insights on that, on 

what possible reason there would be for not pursuing that? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, let me just resort to talking generically about 

the international investigations. It is really hit or miss on an international 

level. Eastern Europe is a problem, mainly from a training aspect, and 

the aspect of not necessarily having the laws to address it, and there is a 

need for some international training in this area. There is a need for 

some strengthening of the laws in these areas, and then, they will not 

render their own citizens. As a general rule, they won’t render their own 

citizens back to the U.S. 

 MR. INSLEE. Well, let me just sort of interrupt you a second. I have 

only got a little bit of time, but if you have got an American citizen in 

Mexico, who is clearly identified as the father of the victim, who has 

these assertions, under American law, using American resources, using 

American tools, if you will, why could we not pursue that without 

necessarily depending on the investigatory resources of Mexico? 

 MR. SWECKER. We could, if there were charges filed, there is--you 

have to have charges filed. You can put a Red Notice out through 

Interpol. 

MR. INSLEE. And I yield to Ms. DeGette. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you. Well, from what we understand, the 

Department of Justice refused to take jurisdiction on the case. Is that 

correct, Mr. Swecker? 

 MR. SWECKER. I have pretty strict instructions not to discuss that 

case. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Plitt. 

 MR. PLITT. Don’t know. We are not-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, but jurisdiction has been declined. Why can’t 

you discuss it? It is not a case under investigation or prosecution. 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, there is always the potential for prosecution in 

that case. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Who would know? When we bring the Attorney 

General in, will he know? 

 MR. SWECKER. I would defer to main Justice. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, Mr. Berry is here in this room. Can any of you 

give him any reassurance that someone is honestly looking at his case? 

It has been 7 months, 1,500 names, websites, credit cards, everything he 

provided you guys. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Testimony. 
333

 MR. STUPAK. Testimony. 

 MR. SWECKER. This case is being aggressively investigated. 

 MR. STUPAK. That doesn’t do anything for Mr. Berry or for any of 

us up here. 

 MR. SWECKER. I would defer to them, as to whether they are 

satisfied. 

 MR. INSLEE. I just want to speak. I am a former prosecutor, and feel 

very strongly about the integrity and success of prosecutorial efforts, and 

this has been a huge black eye for the country, and a lot of doubt created, 

so I think all of us have an obligation to get with the task at hand. Part of 

that includes cooperating with this panel, which I hope you will spread 

that message, to the extent you can convince people, to figure out how to 

solve these problems. I think that is very important. 

 My time is up. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. At this time, we recognize 

the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I don’t think I am going to take 10 minutes. And if this ground has 

been plowed while I was gone, I apologize, but Mr. Swecker, where are 

you in the chain of command at the FBI? 

 MR. SWECKER. I am the Acting Executive Assistant Director for 

Law Enforcement Services, which puts me directly over both Cyber and 

Criminal Divisions, directly in the chain of command on these violations. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And who do you report to? 

 MR. SWECKER. I report to the Deputy Director. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Who reports to? 

 MR. SWECKER. To the Director. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Director. So, you are third down from the 

Director, and you are in the operational chain of command. You are not 

a staff assistant. 

 MR. SWECKER. I am directly accountable for anything, all things 

cyber. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Does the name, and if I am 

mispronounce it, I apologize, Raul Roldan mean anything to you? 

 MR. SWECKER. Raul Roldan is one of our section chiefs. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And he reports to you? 

 MR. SWECKER. He reports to a Deputy Assistant Director, who 

reports to an Assistant Director, who reports to me. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So, he is three down from you? 

 MR. SWECKER. Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Now, why could he appear on CNN today, but 

he couldn’t appear before this subcommittee? 
334

 MR. SWECKER. Well, I wasn’t involved in that decision, but my 

understanding is that he did not comment on this investigation 

whatsoever. He was talking generically about crimes against children on 

the Internet. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I didn’t ask that question. My question is, we 

specifically asked for him. We are not upset that we have you. You are 

at least a line officer, which is an upgrade from the main Justice 

Department, but the specific person that we asked for, they flatly refused 

to have him testify. 

 I want to know why. 

 MR. SWECKER. I think there was concern that he would end up 

commenting on this case, and there were strict instructions not to 

comment on this case. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I want you to tell the Director, because I 

am going to tell him or ask him, if this gentleman doesn’t testify 

voluntarily, he will testify under subpoena. 

 MR. SWECKER. Yes, sir. I will pass that on. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And I mean, that is not a threat, that is a fact. 

So-- 

 MR. SWECKER. I understand. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am fed up with being told by my friends, we 

have a taped message on the cell phone, or one of our committees, that 

the Justice Department wasn’t going to testify, period. We are going to 

change that. And I thank you for coming. I do have some general 

questions. 

 For my first question, and I don’t know if I direct it to you, or our 

postal people, are the laws for transmission of Internet child pornography 

the same as transmission of pornography, child pornography through the 

mail? Is it the same law? 

 MR. SMITH. There is a number of statutes, but it is primarily the 

same one, 18 USC § 2252, that is our bread and butter statute that we 

charge probably in 90 percent of the cases. That involves the unlawful 

receipt or distribution of any child abuse images, child pornography, that 

travels interstate, foreign commerce, over computers or via mail. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. But it is basically the same. 

 MR. SMITH. Same statute covers them all. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Do we need a special statute specifically for 

child pornography on the Internet, as opposed to through the physical 

mail? Would that be helpful, or is that unnecessary? 

 MR. SMITH. No. I think we have adequate legislation there. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Is it illegal for an adult in the United 

States to possess child pornography, the possession is illegal in itself? 

Okay. Mr. Waters, who is one of our undercover agents here, in order to 
335

prosecute a case, and I am talking generically, do you have to watch a 

perpetrator commit an act over the Internet as an eyewitness, or do you 

have to just have knowledge of it, from the child who was abused in the 

act? 

 MR. WATERS. We do not typically have to watch it. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. You don’t. 

 MR. WATERS. No, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So, what is the burden of proof? What is the 

standard of proof to prosecute? 

 MR. WATERS. Well, depending on the type of act, we still have the 

same burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what occurred, but 

frequently, we get this information from the victims that were involved, 

from the forensic analysis of the computer. Some of these individuals 

even turn on their own webcam and film themselves while they are 

committing the crime. So, usually, it is a combination of testimonial and 

physical evidence that allows us to overcome that burden. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And do you agree or disagree that we don’t 

need any strengthening of the laws in this area? 

 MR. WATERS. I don’t know of any strengthening of the laws, 

federally, that-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. You don’t think it is necessary. 

 MR. WATERS. I believe we have adequate legislation. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Okay. Well, Mr. Clark testified that 

law enforcement can’t do it alone, and I agree with that. We expect you 

folks to help us enforce it, but every one of us up here, I believe, is a 

parent, and in my case, a parent and a grandparent, and we have to be 

involved, too, and the community has to be involved. And I want to 

thank you, Mr. Waters, for your testimony, and some of the displays that 

you put up. 

 How did you get picked to be here, since you are from Wyoming, 

just out of curiosity? 

 MR. WATERS. I believe I got picked because I work on the technical 

side. I spent a few years as a systems programmer, and so, when the 

ICAC Task Force runs into a technical challenge, I co-chair the 

Technology Committee, so at the-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Are you in Wyoming or here? 

 MR. WATERS. Cheyenne. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So, you had to fly in from Wyoming to be 

here. 

 MR. WATERS. Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Did anybody in the agency pressure you not to 

testify? Did you volunteer to testify? I mean, I am glad you were here, 

because you are very credible and very committed, but it is just odd we 
336

can’t get them to come from four blocks away, and yet, they can fly you 

in from Wyoming. 

 MR. WATERS. Well, no one pressured me not to testify. I am here 

because of the program and working with OJP, Office of Justice 

Programs. They helped fund a lot of the work that we are doing, and 

they asked, and I said I would be honored. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. And Mr. Swecker, I need to give you a 

chance to stand on your soapbox a little bit, since I have. Is there 

anything that the Congress is not doing, that we should be doing, to help 

the FBI prosecute these criminals? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, we think we have the laws that we need. I 

think I would resort back to Mr. Stupak’s point, or Congressman 

Stupak’s point, about mandatory referrals. We probably need to get that 

going. In the banking industry, we know that it has been tremendously 

successful in getting suspicious banking transactions referred to us. 

 I would also, again, just beat the drum for the forensic laboratories, 

because again, that is a chokepoint when it comes to the forensic 

analysis. We have the laws, but we need the training. We need to export 

the training to the State and local level as a much faster pace, and get the 

resources out there to the State and local officers where they need it. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not disputing what you just said, but I am 

confused a little bit. Child pornography is obvious. What is forensic 

about that? What kind of a laboratory do you need to dissect if you have 

a picture of a minor child engaged in a sexual act with an adult, that that 

is a crime? 

 MR. SWECKER. It is getting to the picture. It is pulling it out of the 

hard drive, or identifying the ISP, identifying the specific addresses, of 

which there would be thousands, and pulling all that information out of 

the computer. That is what we are calling a forensic analysis. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. I do want to reiterate, you all did 

indicate, though, that it would be helpful if we had the mandatory data 

storage for a period of time, and that, as you said, to clarify, the Internet 

service provider providing the tip to the Cyber TipLine, though those are 

two areas that we definitely could do something about within our 

jurisdiction. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, also responding to the subpoenas 

within-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And responding to the subpoenas. At this time, we 

recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to follow up a 

bit on the Chairman’s comments. 
337

 As I understand it, under 42 USC § 13032, ISPs are required to 

report all child pornography images to NCMEC, correct? Isn’t that--

whoever is the certified expert here? I want to clarify that the position of 

law enforcement here, that you would like all ISPs to have to both 

register and report in known child pornography, to the Cyber Hotline, 

and it is my understanding there are only like 215 ISPs that are 

registered, and there must be thousands out there. Can any of you, or 

whoever feels comfortable, comment about that, and what progress needs 

to be made there, and what we could do to help along those lines? Okay. 

Somebody must have an answer here. There are only 215 registered, 

there are thousands out there. What enforcement capability do you have? 

 MR. SMITH. The largest ISPs, I believe, are in compliance, from 

what I have learned in my conversations with Ernie Allen and John 

Rabin over at the National Center, but there are many, many smaller ISPs 

that either aren’t aware of the law, or they are ignoring the law, whatever 

the case may be. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. Thank you. Mr. Swecker, you are in 

charge of all things cyber, you said. This must fall under your 

jurisdiction. 

 MR. SWECKER. It does. I think there is some confusion on the part 

of the industry as to the content of what they are supposed to refer. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 MR. SWECKER. They are looking for a safe harbor, I think, that 

immunizes them against lawsuits for making the referral, plus I don’t 

think they know whether they are able to send the images across. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MR. SWECKER. So, I think there needs to be some more specific-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Who comes up--you said, I think, that you don’t 

really need any new laws to work in this area, so whose responsibility is 

it to clarify this? Do you need clarifying language from the Congress? 

Do you issue directives and rulemakings? 

 MR. SWECKER. That goes to the Legislative Affairs Offices of both 

Justice and the FBI, and I think they could, we could give you some 

more details on that. 

 MR. WALDEN. That would be helpful, because it just strikes me, if 

we have got the law in place, and you say it is, it is really functionally 

useless if it is not being enforced because there is confusion. And I 

know you all have your hands full, clearly, and probably literally, in 

some of these areas, and so, I guess the question is what do we do to 

help, and how do we get it clarified? If ISPs don’t know they are 

supposed to register, there should be a mechanism set up to help on that, 

and then, to clarify this issue. Because I know we had testimony from 

the gentleman from the New York Times that he had to work with an 
338

attorney, be very careful as he did his investigation, not to run afoul of 

the law by going to a site clicking the wrong time runs you afoul of the 

law. 

 And Mr. Swecker, I want to go to you, because you work in this 

area. Tell me just generically, if you have a child victim of pornography, 

and some predator has abused some child, and it is going on, what sort of 

knowledge do you need as a prosecutor? 

 MR. SWECKER. To elicit the evidence from the victim, or-- 

 MR. WALDEN. To elicit the evidence from the victim, to pursue the 

case, how urgently do you get involved? 

 MR. SWECKER. It is very urgent. These have to be handled with a 

lot of care. Victim/witness specialists need to get involved very early on. 

Child interview specialists need to get involved. We need to find the 

website. We need to find the person that is actually abusing the child, 

and so that is what we are trying to elicit from the child. 

 MR. WALDEN. And so, you would bring the child in immediately, I 

would assume. You would interview them. You would set up--if they 

came in and said not only has this just happened to me, I know it is going 

on to somebody else at this moment. Tell me how the FBI responds. 

 MR. SWECKER. We need to get as much information as we can out 

of the child, as to the identity and the location of the person that is doing 

the abuse. 

 MR. WALDEN. And so, once you do that, let us say you get IP 

addresses, then do you turn that over to some sector within the FBI? 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, the first step is to get the website, you work on 

the Internet addresses that are accessing the website. Our focus really is 

on the abusers before we go to the customers. It is on the website 

administrators. It is on the financiers. To draw an analogy, would be we 

don’t necessarily go after the drug users. We immediately go after the 

abusers. Those would be analogous to a distributor. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. All right. 

 MR. SWECKER. The person who is actually producing the 

pornographic material. That means a child is being abused. That is 

where you want to go first. Find the person who is actually abusing. 

 MR. WALDEN. And if you know of an abuse, if you are told there is 

an abuse going on. We have heard some testimony here and elsewhere, 

that literally, some of these perpetrators use the camera on themselves, in 

real time, you could watch on the Internet, abuse going on. Tell me what 

the FBI does, or the Department of Justice does, if I walked in today, and 

said I just was flipping through the Internet, and came across this. Here 

is the address. It is happening as we speak. 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, in that instance, I mean, I don’t know if we 

could move quickly enough to get them while they were in the act. I 
339

mean, that has happened on occasion. You have been lucky enough, or 

you have been able to set up a situation where somebody was actually on 

the website, and actually either accessing or producing that type of 

material. 

 MR. WALDEN. But if a child presented himself or herself to one of 

your officers, if I came to you and said I just came from the credit union, 

and there is a guy with a gun in there in the face of the teller, tell me 

what happens. 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, we could, as quickly as we could, we would 

intervene. 

 MR. WALDEN. If I come to you today, and say on the Internet right 

now, at this address, this is going on. Tell me what happens. 

 MR. SWECKER. Probably the quickest way to get to it is to pose 

undercover, and try to attempt to get access while that person is on, and 

that may be one of the quickest ways, when you have a proactive 

situation like that, to get very quickly to the person. 

 MR. WALDEN. You are going to move proactively. 

 MR. SWECKER. Right. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right away, even if it means sacrificing evidence, I 

would assume. 

 MR. SWECKER. You still have to find the location where they are 

doing this from. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MR. SWECKER. It could be a library. It could be an Internet cafe. 

 MR. WALDEN. Let us say the child presents herself, and says here is 

the IP address. This is the same person that molested me. Here is the 

name. Here is the address. It is going on now. 

 MR. SWECKER. We would attempt to get a search warrant, and go 

out at that real time. And I will defer to these other investigators, who 

are actually on the street, to respond as well. 

 MR. WALDEN. If you knew Bad Santa was operating in the mall. 

 MR. WATERS. I am going into his living room. If he is at home, and 

it is active. 

 MR. WALDEN. You are going right now, aren’t you? 

 MR. WATERS. I am going right now. I am calling the ISP, finding 

out where it is at, and we are going to be in the door. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. 

 MR. WATERS. If we are not close enough, we will get ahold of the 

local PD, and they will be in the door. 

 MR. WALDEN. So, does that happen in a matter of weeks, days, 

hours, minutes? 

 MR. WATERS. It varies based on the case. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 
340

 MR. WATERS. But if I have credible information right then, I have 

had cases where I call the ISP, and they give me an answer now. 

 MR. WALDEN. Is that right? 

 MR. WATERS. We get an answer, there is an emergency clause that 

allows us to get that, and we go. 

 MR. WALDEN. And you go. Okay. Let me go to the issue of 

affidavits. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am neither an attorney nor 

have I ever been a prosecutor. And usually, in my town meetings, when 

I say I am not an attorney, there is a little ripple of applause. No offense 

to attorneys. 

 Explain to me on affidavits in criminal cases, circumstances where 

victims’ names are released. Explain for me affidavits, they get 

unsealed, victim’s names are put out in the public. Is that sort of normal 

operation? The court says keep this sealed, and then, it becomes 

unsealed. 

 MR. SWECKER. Well, affidavits in this type of case are often sealed, 

but they can’t stay sealed forever. Eventually, particularly when you 

start the judicial process. 

 MR. WALDEN. You have a right to-- 

 MR. SWECKER. They have a right to confront the witness against 

them. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MR. SWECKER. And at some point, the affidavit is unsealed. I mean, 

you can get a search warrant on confidential information, to protect the 

identity. You don’t necessarily have to name the person. It depends on 

how much corroboration you have. 

 MR. WALDEN. If an affidavit is accidentally unsealed, which I 

assume occurs from time to time, clerical error, and the victim tries to get 

it, and asks for it to be sealed again, what obligation does the 

Government have to ensure that that victim’s identity or whatever, if it is 

allowed to be resealed, that the affidavit gets resealed? 

 MR. SWECKER. I know what you are referring to, and I am trying--I 

will try to answer your question without getting into-- 

 MR. WALDEN. You are trying to dodge it. I understand that. I 

haven’t named names. 

 MR. SWECKER. --specific facts. But the first step would be to notify 

the person, and offer protection. That would be the first investigative 

step. The rest of it would be up to a prosecutor to reseal the affidavit. 

 MR. WALDEN. What should--if it is supposed to be resealed, what 

sort of timeline should a victim anticipate for that resealing to occur? 

 MR. SWECKER. I would have to defer to the prosecutors on that, as 

to what a reasonable time-- 
341

 MR. WALDEN. Who is a prosecutor here who has ever been through 

one of these? Have you ever, sir, from the great State of Wyoming? 

You are an investigator. 

 MR. WATERS. Strictly an investigator. 

 MR. WALDEN. Have you ever heard of this sort of circumstance? 

 MR. WATERS. We work in a different model. We don’t typically put 

victims’ names in our affidavits. 

 MR. WALDEN. Really? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. This is when we should have Mr. Mercer back. 

We released him this morning, but he is the U.S. Attorney for Montana. 

 MR. WALDEN. Yeah, but--well, Wyoming is near Montana. Which 

is are we getting closer to Washington? I don’t know. One final 

question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. 

 There has some concern been expressed about extraterritorial 

application of the law, because in some cases, some of this child 

pornography is actually being put on the Internet in a foreign country, 

but it is received in this country because of the global nature of the 

Internet. Is that an area where the law needs to be changed, or can be 

changed? Is that an area that precludes your ability to engage in 

enforcement? Let us say if somebody were in, oh, Canada, or maybe 

Mexico, and transmitting this sort of pornography. Can you go after it? 

 MR. CLARK. I would say our laws are satisfactory. Oftentimes, the 

foreign laws aren’t as satisfactory, but we do have relatively good 

cooperation on a number of fronts with foreign governments, as far as 

working those types of cases. 

 MR. WALDEN. One final question. Digital currency, this is sort of 

new to me. Can you explain? I understand that is sort of the new 

underground way to engage in payments without fingerprints, if you will. 

Digital currency. Is this an area we need to explore more? 

 MR. PLITT. Yes, it probably is. Digital currency is simply the 

situation where an individual put money on the Internet. You can do that 

through any brick and mortar location. I will give you an example in a 

second, but when the money is put on the Internet account, then the 

money can be used on the Internet to buy access to legitimate sites, to 

child exploitation sites, to buy items off of the Internet, regular 

merchandise. It can also be taken off the Internet through another brick 

and mortar location somewhere else in the world. Currently, it is not 

regulated. A simple example I would give is that we had one 

investigation where memberships were being purchased with e-currency, 

and a lot of the e-currency documents, if you will, were charged with 

money in Australia. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 MR. PLITT. To the tune of approximately $30 million a year. 
342

 MR. WALDEN. So this could get completely around the Bank 

Secrecy, or whatever those--what is the law they have to follow in a 

bank? 

 MR. PLITT. Bank Secrecy Act. 

 MR. WALDEN. Yeah, if $10,000 in cash or more. So you just do it 

in a foreign country, put it in, pull it out somewhere else. 

 MR. PLITT. Yes, and to date, though, the services, the companies 

that provide the service, have been very, very cooperative with us to 

track that, yeah. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. Well, if you have specific suggestions in 

this area, I would certainly like to work with you on it. 

 MR. PLITT. Very good. If I could, one other response. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MR. PLITT. Since I have the mic. You were asking about 

victim/witness issues. One to keep in mind is one that is very, very 

complex, and that is the child sex tourism cases, where the individual 

was traveling to another country to have sex with a child. The logistics 

of bringing the child back, if necessary to testify, parents, guardians, et 

cetera, is one that is coming up in these cases. Just another comment. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

 I think Mr. Walden’s line of questioning encapsulates the concerns 

of many members of this committee about the investigation we heard the 

testimony of on Tuesday, and that is why we do want to pursue further 

meetings with Justice, maybe in executive session, because I heard you 

speaking, Mr. Swecker, of victim/witness specialists, and I am assuming 

that that is a person who assists the victim, and in the testimony of our 

hearing on Tuesday, in our meetings with the victim, I never heard that 

any victim/witness specialist was assigned in that case. And then, we 

know that evidence was given of child victims, and they were being 

abused in a real time manner, and action was not taken, and so, we have 

walked away from these hearings quite puzzled, because it appears that 

in that instance, the victim of the crime was being treated more as a 

perpetrator of the crime, and so, I think that is really kind of underlying 

the sentiment of the committee, and that is something that we need to get 

into. 

 But I want to thank all of you for your testimony. We appreciate 

your efforts to continue to bring these perpetrators to justice, and with 

that, this panel is dismissed. 

 Now, at this time, we will call the third panel, which consists of one 

person, and that is Mr. Grier Weeks, who is the Executive Director of 

PROTECT, from Ashville, North Carolina. 

 Mr. Weeks, thank you very much for being with us, for your 

patience. As you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations hearing. 
343

We take testimony under oath. Do you have any difficulty with 

testifying under oath? And I assume you do not need a lawyer with you. 

So, if you would stand, and raise your right hand. 

 [Witness sworn.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. You are sworn in now, and you are recognized for 

5 minutes for your opening statement. Turn your microphone on. 

 MR. WEEKS. Is that better? 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

STATEMENT OF GRIER WEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN 

 MR. WEEKS. Thank you. I am Grier Weeks, Executive Director of 

the National Association to Protect Children, also known as PROTECT. 

We are a national membership association dedicated to just one simple 

issue, which is child abuse, child protection. We have members now in 

50 States and 10 countries. 

 One of the things we do the most is go around the country to various 

State houses, and work on State legislation. And one of the greatest 

problems we see is a spectacular national failure to take these issues 

seriously at the State level. 

 I will condense my remarks here, because I know you know at this 

point the nature of child pornography, and don’t need that characterized 

again. I would say that as you go back out among your colleagues, and 

hear this material referred to as kiddy porn, or trivialized in that way, you 

will be reminded of what we are up against. 

 Two years ago, law enforcement agents in my home State of North 

Carolina, arrested a criminal, Brian Schellenberger, who was convicted 

of producing child pornography, and distributing the images over the 

Internet. Photos showed a 6-year-old girl was kept in a cage, beaten, 

sexually tortured, and urinated and defecated on. The criminal penalty 

for being an accomplice to that crime, for possessing those images in 

North Carolina, is a felony, is the exact same felony penalty you would 

get for operating a bingo game without a license or cockfighting. In 

California, the penalty is a misdemeanor, distributing it to others is a 

misdemeanor, using a child to distribute it to others is a misdemeanor. 

And under California law, even manufacturing such a despicable product 

is a minor felony with no minimum prison sentence. In Colorado, 

Oregon, North Dakota, possession of these brutal images of children 

being raped and humiliated is a misdemeanor. In Iowa, it is an 

aggravated misdemeanor, the equivalent of livestock abuse. If you 

compare the risk/gain ratio for trafficking in a product like this, to the 

risk/gain ratio for those who traffic in cocaine, you will instantly 
344

understand why our national weakness on this issue has attracted so 

many new predators. 

 Nationwide, an estimated 96 percent of those arrested for child 

pornography possession are convicted, but fewer than 60 percent are ever 

incarcerated. Of those convicted solely of child pornography possession, 

fewer than one in three serves more than a year in jail. This is despite 

the fact that child pornography, like narcotics, is illegal contraband in 

and of itself, and easily prosecutable. Let me just add that in the State of 

Wisconsin, a WITI investigative reporter did a painstaking investigation 

of how child pornography possession cases were handled in his State, 

searched every single one of them down, and found that 75 percent of the 

perpetrators did no time in prison whatsoever. 

 PROTECT’s first point is this. Unless and until the States are made 

to treat “simple possession” of child pornography as the egregious felony 

it is, and unless the funding is made available to aggressively investigate 

and prosecute possession of child pornography, Federal efforts will be 

hopelessly diluted. Let me give you some examples. 

 Instead of Federal resources being a multiplier of State efforts, as 

you would hope they would be, the lack of appropriate legislation and 

resources is actually discouraging the States from prosecuting these 

cases. Until States get serious, U.S. prosecutors will continue to pick up 

the slack for local prosecutors, who have grown dependent upon the 

Federal government to prosecute their criminals for them. I think all of 

the prosecutors you talk to will attest to that. 

 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, the ICACs you have 

heard so much about, will continue to provide training and technical 

assistance to frontline law enforcement agents who are so unsupported 

by their own States that they often have backlogs of hard drives waiting 

to be analyzed, many of them containing evidence that could save a child 

immediately. 

 And the mass, and this is the most important issue here, the mass of 

domestic criminal conspirators who create and feed the insatiable 

demand that you have heard about will remain at large as limited Federal 

resources are triaged and focused on chasing after the major cases of 

commercial manufacturers and distributors. 

 PROTECT’s second point is that the Federal government also must 

get serious. We are losing this war, and I don’t think we have heard that 

enough today. We are drowning. I think it is obvious to everybody that 

was here that we are not supporting our troops on the frontlines. Recent 

estimates of the size of the exploding global criminal market in child 

pornography are in the multibillion-dollar range. You have heard $20 

billion numerous times. Yet, there really is no objective measure 

whereby we can say we are serious about this. 
345

 The FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative is funded at a level of 

about $10 million a year. That is chump change. By comparison, HUD 

recently announced it was awarding more than that to build 86 new 

elderly apartment units in Connecticut. It is a wonderful thing, but this is 

to put it in perspective. They spent almost seven times the Innocent 

Images budget just on homelessness in Ohio. The Administration has 

proposed 20 times the entire Innocent Images budget for abstinence-only 

education programs. Another example, the Department of Justice’s 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program received about 

$14.5 million in FY 2006. That is less than one-fifth the amount 

proposed for the new initiative to help prisoners reintegrate into society. 

Last year’s budget included $211 million for the Department of Interior 

to do high priority brush removal. That is compared to $14.5 million. 

 The law enforcement officers that came here today, and that come 

here every year, to testify on this issue, can’t get up here and tell you 

that. You heard one say he wouldn’t, if he had his budget tripled, he 

would still be behind. But I honestly don’t know how we can look him 

in the eyes, asking them to do probably the most unthinkable job on the 

planet, and this is what we put into it. 

 The radical increase in child pornography we see today is the direct 

result of failing to match our rhetoric about children with the resources 

needed to fight this war, and we will hear a lot of rhetoric this month. It 

is Child Abuse Prevention Month. Our third and final point is simply 

that you heard a lot of experts with a lot of expertise, and I think that 

after these hearings, they would be very eager to give you very specific 

policy proposals, hopefully more than you have heard today. But the 

expertise, really, that is needed here, is your expertise, and I mean that in 

a meaningful way. It is your expertise that is needed. How do we make 

this an urgent, serious issue, because nobody else you have heard from 

knows how to do that. 

 Finally, I would like to just address a few loose ends that I heard 

mentioned, and I knew you were looking for policy proposals, and I 

would like to address a few of them. On the issue of Federal penalties, 

the Federal penalty for possession of child pornography is a minimum of 

a fine. So, I do think there is a problem there. The issue is not what is 

the maximum. The issue is what is the minimum. 

 On forfeiture, I would strongly encourage you to look into that much 

more seriously. There is much more that could be done, and it is an 

extremely--has a lot of potential, because any time you can give law 

enforcement that much more motivation to get out there and do their 

jobs, and also, to benefit the efforts of law enforcement, it is very 

important. 
346

 On telecommunications type of issues, we hear from the industry that 

although there is the issue of reporting child pornography, there is a 

separate issue, and that is the filtering, essentially, that they would do to 

detect it in the first place. And we got a comment the other day from one 

of the major industry leaders, saying that they essentially could turn up 

that filter, tighten it up, enhance it, and completely blow law enforcement 

out of the water. And I think there was a realization, all the way around, 

that you want referrals, we will give you referrals kind of thing. 

 This is a huge problem. We need them to find more, but we also 

need to be ready to get it. There is also an issue, I would strongly urge 

you to talk to industry. What they can do that legislation may not be able 

to do, and certainly not law enforcement, is tell us what is next. This is 

truly staggering. The latest that I have heard is wireless Bluetooth 

technology being used to transfer child pornography where perpetrators 

gather in a park, and just while they are standing there, watching the 

pigeons, they are transferring child pornography to each other. My guess 

is at my age and my limited technological expertise, that is not even the 

beginning of it, and unless we are hearing from them about what is 

coming next, 10 years down the line, we are really losing. 

 I would also mention to you another thing you may want to follow 

up on, that we are hearing from industry, and that is that many of these 

perpetrators are actually cataloging children. These images have a 

monetary value, but that value goes up tremendously when there is a 

name and address attached to it, and the latest thing that we are hearing is 

that people are actually putting those names, addresses, elementary 

schools, and identifying information with these photos, and selling them, 

and cataloging them. 

 Finally, just to respond to one other thing. Well, let me talk about 

two other things. One is that one of the witnesses on this last panel 

mentioned that, if you find the abuser, that is where you want to go first. 

I would say to you that is where you want to go first, if you have 

extremely limited resources. And this is the problem. We cannot just 

focus on manufacturing. It would be like legalizing heroin, and saying 

we are going to go get them in Afghanistan where they are growing the 

poppies. If we do not get serious about the-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Can I interrupt you for a minute? 

 MR. WEEKS. Yes, ma’am. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Because I see Justin leaving, and I have been 

meaning to thank him, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to interrupt the 

witness, but I just want to thank you and your family, and everybody for 

coming to these hearings, and for bringing this to us. You do not know 

how much you have helped stop this practice, by coming to us. So, I just 

want to say thank you, and I hope you can come back to some of the 
347

other hearings that we will have. And I hope you can be there when we 

pass the legislation that will help put a stop to this. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and we met with Justin 

earlier, and we all expressed our appreciation to him, and wish him the 

very best, and we will stay in touch with him. Sorry, Mr. Weeks. 

 MR. WEEKS. No, I am glad you stopped. 

 My final point is simply on international treaties. There was a press 

conference held this morning that talked about the fact that there were 

only five nations in the world that had serious laws. I have a little bit a 

problem with characterizing our laws as all that serious, but the point is a 

serious one, and that is that we need to recognize this as a human rights 

issue, and whenever human rights are discussed, the exploitation of 

children should be discussed, and I think you can advance the effort 

there. 

 Thank you very much. 

 [The prepared statement of Grier Weeks follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRIER WEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

TO PROTECT CHILDREN

Chairman Whitfield, Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, I am Grier Weeks, the Executive Director of the National Association to 

Protect Children, generally known as PROTECT. PROTECT is a grassroots membership 

organization focused exclusively on child protection issues. We have members in all 50 

states, and we pride ourselves on being one of the most nonpartisan organizations in 

America. 

As PROTECT works in state legislatures, one of the greatest problems we see is our 

national failure to aggressively respond to child pornography and the use of the internet 

for both dissemination of such material and direct exploitation of individual children. 

 People have argued for decades about what child pornography is, yet there has been 

virtually no attention paid to what it is not. It is our position that understanding what 

child pornography is not is the key to understanding—and actually doing something 

about—what it is. 

A 2005 study funded by Congress studied child pornography possession cases 

nationwide.1

 In looking at the nature of the images being trafficked on the internet, the 

study revealed the following: 

• 83 percent of possessors had images of children between ages 6 and 12 

• 80 percent had images of sexual penetration of children—that is to say, child 

rape 

• 21 percent had images showing “children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded 

or otherwise enduring sadistic sex.” 

• Only 1 percent were in possession solely of images that depicted simple nudity 

or what researchers termed “softcore” pornography2

 

1

 “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National 

Juvenile Victimization Study,” National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Crimes Against 

Children Research Center, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005. 

2

 The study also found that 40 percent of those possessing child pornography were found to have 

sexually assaulted a child in addition to their child pornography crimes and an additional 15 were 
348

So we begin with the understanding that child pornography is not a “free speech” 

issue, nor does it have anything to do with definitional arguments over whether a given 

image is “obscene.” It is a human rights issue of catastrophic proportions. 

Two years ago, law enforcement agents in Canada and the U.S. arrested a criminal 

in my home state of North Carolina. Brian Schellenberger was convicted of producing 

child pornography and distributing the images over the internet. Photos showed that a sixyear old girl was kept in a cage, beaten, sexually tortured and urinated and defecated on. 

The criminal penalty for being an accomplice to that crime, for possessing those 

images in North Carolina, is a felony—the exact same felony penalty you would get for 

operating a Bingo game without a license or Cockfighting.3

In California, the penalty is a misdemeanor.4

 Distributing it to others is a 

misdemeanor.5 Using a child to distribute it is a misdemeanor.6

 Under California law, 

even manufacturing such a despicable “product” is a minor felony, with no minimum 

prison sentence.7

In Colorado8

, Oregon9 and North Dakota10, possession of brutal images of children 

being raped, sodomized and humiliated is a misdemeanor. In Iowa, it’s an “aggravated 

misdemeanor,” the equivalent of Livestock Abuse.11 

If you compare the risk-gain ratio for those who traffic in such a “product” to the 

risk-gain ratio for those who traffic in cocaine, you will instantly understand why our 

national weakness on this issue has attracted so many new predators. 

Nationwide, an estimated 96 percent of those arrested for child pornography 

possession are convicted. But fewer than 60 percent are ever incarcerated. Of those 

convicted solely of child pornography possession, fewer than one in three serves more 

than a year in jail.12 This is despite the fact that child pornography—like narcotics—is 

illegal contraband in and of itself, and is easily prosecutable.13 

PROTECT’s first point is this: Unless and until the States are made to treat 

“simple possession” of child pornography as the egregious felony it truly is—and 

unless the funding is made available to aggressively investigate and prosecute 

possession of child pornography—federal efforts will be hopelessly diluted.

Instead of federal resources acting as a multiplier of state law enforcement efforts, 

the lack of appropriate legislation and funding is actually discouraging the individual 

states from protecting our children. 

 known to have attempted a child sexual assault, a conservative indication of a much larger danger. 

Thirty-four percent had minor children living in their homes at the time of arrest and an additional 

12 percent had direct access to children “through a job or organized youth activity” 3

 North Carolina General Statutes 14-190.17A 

4

 California Penal Code 311.11 and 311.3 

5

 California Penal Code 311.2 (c) 

6

 California Penal Code 311.4 (a) 

7

 California Penal Code 311.4 (c) 

8

 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-6-403 

9

 Oregon Rev. Stat. 163.687 

10 North Dakota Cent. Code 12.7-27.2-04, “Possession of certain materials prohibited” 11 Compare Iowa Code 717.1A, “Livestock abuse” to 728.12 (3), “Sexual exploitation of a minor.” 12 “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National 

Juvenile Victimization Study,” National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Crimes Against 

Children Research Center, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005. 

13 Television station WITI in Wisconsin recently conducted a painstaking investigation of every 

felony conviction for child pornography possession in their state. They found that 75% resulted in no 

prison time whatsoever. Reporter Bryan Polcyn requested data from the Wisconsin Supreme Court 

on all cases charged under state statute 948.12 (1m), “Possession of Child Pornography,” for the 

years 2003-2005. They then researched the disposition for each case that resulted in a conviction. 
349

Until the states get serious, U.S. prosecutors will continue to pick up the slack for 

local prosecutors, who have grown dependent upon the federal government to prosecute 

their criminals for them.14 Internet Crimes Against Children task forces will continue to 

provide training and technical assistance to front-line law enforcement agents who are so 

unsupported by their own states that they often have long backlogs of hard drives waiting 

to be analyzed, many of them containing evidence that could save a child immediately.15

And the mass of domestic criminal conspirators who create and feed the insatiable 

demand for more and more children to be raped on camera will remain at large, as limited 

federal resources are triaged and focused on chasing after the “major cases” of 

commercial manufacturers and distributors. 

PROTECT’s second point is that the federal government also must get serious. 

We are losing this war, and we are not supporting our troops on the front lines. 

Recent estimates of the size of the exploding global criminal market in child 

pornography are in the multi-billion dollar range.16 Yet, by no objective measure can we 

claim to be serious or prepared as a nation about stopping what is being done to these 

children. 

The FBI’s Innocent Images National Initiative is funded at a level of about $10 

million annually. By comparison, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

just announced it was awarding more money than the entire Innocent Images budget to 

build 86 elderly apartment units in Connecticut... and almost 7 times their budget just on 

the homeless in Ohio.17 The administration has proposed 20 times the entire Innocent 

Images budget for abstinence-only education programs through the Department of Health 

and Human Services.18

The Department of Justice’s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force 

program received about $14.5 in FY 2006. That is less than one-fifth the amount 

proposed for a new initiative to help former prisoners reintegrate into society.19 Last 

year’s budget included $211 million for the Department of the Interior for “high-priority 

brush removal” and related projects. $14.5 million doesn’t clear much brush. 

The law enforcement officers on the front lines of this war won’t come here and tell 

you what they honestly think of these priorities. They will be grateful if you simply keep 

their budgets growing. And while we realize that your committee is not the one 

responsible for these spending priorities, I don’t know how any of us, as taxpayers, can 

look these men and women in the eyes. 

The radical increase in child pornography we see today is the direct result of failing 

to match our rhetoric about children with the resources needed to fight this war. 

Our third and final point is that while you have an incredible array of experts 

at your disposal—all of whom, including PROTECT, are eager to provide specific 

 

14 Reliance upon federal prosecutors to handle internet child pornography cases is so common 

throughout the U.S. that many jurisdictions appear to regard child pornography as a “federal crime” 

or federal problem, further weakening state and local resolve to mount serious campaigns to 

aggressively investigate and prosecute. 

15 Legislation is currently before the Maine state legislature to increase funding for the state crime 

lab for investigating child pornography. Local news reports say that backlogs of hard drives, 

awaiting forensic analysis, are severe. A state cyber crimes agent in the Midwest reported recently 

that he waited months for a hard drive to be analyzed, only to find that it had graphic photos showing 

the suspect was sexually assaulting his own child, who lived with him at home. Federal agents also 

report bottlenecks with computer analysis teams. 

16 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

17 HUD Section 202 grant funding announcement, January 5, 2006. 18 HUD Continuum of Care and Emergency Shelter grant funding announcement, January 25, 2006 19 Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007 
350

legislative and policy solutions—the expertise we need most now is the expertise you 

possess: political leadership. 

On behalf of our members and the millions of Americans who believe that nothing 

should be a higher priority than protecting children from predators, I ask you for that 

leadership and I thank you for the opportunity to testify in this important hearing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Weeks, thank you very much, and tell me, did 

you form PROTECT yourself, or-- 

 MR. WEEKS. No, actually, several people did. There were a number 

of very prominent experts around the country, including Jay Howell, who 

started the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who said 

for the longest time, the only group in this country that didn’t seem to 

have a lobby is abused kids, and that is why we exist. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And how old is it? 

 MR. WEEKS. We are about 3 years old. We have changed the laws 

in about seven or eight States now, and worked with both Democrats and 

Republicans. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you are funded by just private donations? 

 MR. WEEKS. Through our members. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. WEEKS. Right. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you for the great work that you are 

doing. Talking about the penalties for these crimes, and you mentioned 

in your testimony how there is this great disparity going from State to 

State, and you mentioned in Iowa, it is a misdemeanor similar to an 

animal abuse case. Of course, any of these crimes can be prosecuted 

under Federal law, I am assuming, and I guess it just gets down to a 

matter of whether or not interstate commerce is involved, and whatever. 

But I find it laudable that you are trying to increase the penalties at the 

State level, because we know that the largest percentages of the cases are 

prosecuted at the State level. 

 And I was curious, when you lobby for tougher sentences in the State 

legislatures, what are some of the reasons that you are given for opposing 

what you are trying to do? 

 MR. WEEKS. It is pretty awful. I mean, there is a widespread 

tolerance for this, especially for possession, so-called simple possession. 

You don’t hear that same excuse used for possession of heroin. I think 

we have heard it all, but we are now days away from getting a major bill 

introduced in California, which in California, as I failed to mention, there 

is also a statute for luring a child over the Internet, and for the longest 

time, there was a vigorous debate going on in committees about whether 

that should be an infraction or a misdemeanor. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Really. And South Carolina, I understand, just 

recently passed some legislation that would make a person that was twice 
351

convicted of child molestation eligible for the death penalty. Is that 

correct? 

 MR. WEEKS. Yes. Let me just say this about that. And we don’t 

have a position on whether someone should be put to death, or go for 

life, but we have a lot of these laws, often named after dead children, that 

doesn’t do much. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. WEEKS. South Carolina is my family’s home, and I feel entitled 

to say this, it is a little hard to take, given the fact that South Carolina has 

a law on the books called assault and battery of a high and aggravated 

nature, and the vast majority of child sexual abuse seems to be plea 

bargained down to that. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. WEEKS. So, you know, it is great to have tough laws on the 

books, but if you are only using them for that tiny fraction of stranger 

abusers that gets all the media attention, it doesn’t do a whole lot for 

kids. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. But I guess the bottom line of this is while you are 

trying to increase the penalties for possession of pornographic material 

involving children, most of these child molestation cases regarding 

children today appear to be more and more aggravated. There appears to 

be rape involved. There appears to be even torture involved. There 

appears to be, in some cases, I guess they are holding children against 

their will. Unfortunately, in some cases, you have parents involved in 

this. 

 MR. WEEKS. In the majority of cases. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Which is almost unbelievable, but those crimes, if 

they are being prosecuted on those crimes, I mean, those are quite severe. 

Would you agree with that? 

 MR. WEEKS. No. Essentially our studies show that about 4 percent 

of cases nationwide, of all criminal cases, ever go to a jury. So, start off 

with the vast, vast majority of them being plea bargained. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MR. WEEKS. Even a smaller percentage of child sexual abuse cases 

ever go before a trial. So, we are talking about how are cases plea 

bargained? They are plea bargained, and there is also charge bargaining 

that goes in. What is happening now, with a lot of these laws, like 

Jessica’s Law, is that you have these draconian sentences that sound 

great, but very few people will ever be charged with them, and in fact, 

these cases are trivialized to a great extent. 

 Let me mention one thing related to that, though, and Chairman 

Barton brought this up. For decades, what we have heard is that we 

would love to prosecute these crimes against children, but they are tough. 
352

We have problems with young witnesses. We have problems with 

evidence. And it is very tough, and we have to plea bargain. This is the 

exception. We now have a type of crime where you have hard, cold 

evidence. And if we don’t put people away for that, shame on us. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Absolutely. In your testimony, you talked about 

the case in North Carolina, I believe, and where, the gentleman was 

keeping a young girl in a cage. Was that his daughter, or-- 

 MR. WEEKS. That was a complicated story. I hesitate to say, 

because I may be mixing it up with the second one. I am not sure. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Do you know what penalty he received for-- 

 MR. WEEKS. He did get, I think, 100 years under the Federal law. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So, he was prosecuted by Federal officials. 

 MR. WEEKS. Right. And again, I want to emphasize, there may be 

some resistance among ideological conservatives to telling the States 

what to do, and being heavy-handed about it. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. WEEKS. But the flipside of this is, they are using the Commerce 

Clause to essentially slough this off on the Feds. I mean, we have heard 

top criminal justice policy people in State legislatures essentially talk 

about these crimes as if they are a Federal problem, even to the extent 

where one of the most influential policymakers in a Sate capital told me, 

look, if you want us to be prosecuting these, then give us more money for 

Federal prisoners that we are taking care of. So, there is a real 

disconnect there, and this is, I would think that the staunchest 

conservative would be a heavy-handed Federalist on this. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, I mean, I certainly don’t have any problem 

for ramping up and prosecuting more people at the Federal level on this, 

and I am sure the rest of us do not. So, thank you for mentioning that. 

 One other comment I would just like to make. You had mentioned 

that industry told you that they could increase their filters and blow the 

law enforcement out of the water. Now, would you elaborate on that a 

little bit? 

 MR. WEEKS. Well, yeah, I would love to, and let me say, I think it is 

fair to say that law enforcement is already blown out of the water. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, okay. 

 MR. WEEKS. By any definition. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. WEEKS. But essentially, what they were saying is look, we are 

reporting everything that we are detecting. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

 MR. WEEKS. But they could detect a lot more. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 
353

 MR. WEEKS. And they are the ones that are going to be the most 

sophisticated at detecting it. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. WEEKS. But there is a realization that if they greatly increase 

their detection abilities overnight, that we won’t be able to keep up with 

them, and that is the problem. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So, there are so many violations going on that it 

would just swamp everybody. 

 MR. WEEKS. Right. Well, there were several questions today about 

the gentleman from Wyoming, who said there were over a million IP 

addresses, and I am not sure everybody got the real story there. The real 

issue, in my mind, is the number of IP addresses, not the number of 

images. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MR. WEEKS. We are talking about a million computers. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah, unbelievable. Yeah. Well, and you devote 

full time to this project? 

 MR. WEEKS. Not just to child pornography, but to the work on child 

abuse legislation, yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. Well, this is such an overwhelming 

problem, and it is so complex, that is difficult not to become discouraged 

about it, right? 

 MR. WEEKS. Yeah, I think everybody, the ones that are looking at 

this every day are the ones that I worry about, but I think there is a 

common thread, which is if it doesn’t kill you, it just makes you feel like, 

you know, you are doing the Lord’s work, getting up every morning. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. Well, thank you very much for being with 

us, and at this time, I will recognize Ms. DeGette for questions. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Weeks. 

 As I understand it, right now, the folks who testified earlier, the 

Federal prosecutions really take place involving cases where there is 

some use, there is either international trafficking, or there is some use of 

the U.S. mail. Is that correct? 

 MR. WEEKS. I think that is fair to say, yeah. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Because of the way the Federal statutes are, to 

prosecute-- 

 MR. WEEKS. They are looking at getting the best bang for their 

buck, and they are looking at interrupting commercial networks and 

things like that. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Right. Well, there is no Federal statute that makes it 

a crime to possess these materials unless there is some involvement of 

the Commerce Clause, correct? 

 MR. WEEKS. Right. 
354

 MS. DEGETTE. So, it would have to be interstate. 

 MR. WEEKS. And if the Internet is involved, of course, that is a 

given. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, I mean, yes and no. It would be, as someone 

who has been in, who has done criminal work before, I mean, if you have 

got a situation where you have got a case where someone was doing 

these horrible crimes within a State, and transferring it within a State, 

while technically, you have got the Commerce Clause involved, because 

it is the Internet, from a law enforcement standpoint, it is really going to 

be hard to prosecute that by Federal authorities, right? 

 MR. WEEKS. Right. Right. 

 MS. DEGETTE. That is why we need tough State laws and Federal 

laws, right? 

 MR. WEEKS. That is one reason. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. 

 MR. WEEKS. Another, though, is simply that unless the Federal 

government wants to increase its force by, you know, by fifty, it is going 

to have to work with the States, and create incentives for the States to do 

their share. And a related issue, too, is that a study done, it was 

commissioned by Congress, came out last year on people that possess 

child pornography found that 40 percent of them were conclusively 

known to have also sexually abused children directly, and another 15 

percent were known to have tried to lure. So, you have 55 percent, 

representing a much larger percent, no doubt, that had actually molested 

children. If we don’t have on the ground, local expertise and resources 

to fight this, what is going to happen is, every time that little 5-year-oldgirl goes to school, and discloses that she is being molested at home, that 

guy may have child pornography. It is a very high likelihood that he has 

child pornography on his computer. Now, are we going to put together a 

case that involves dragging that girl through the wringer in court, and 

many prosecutors will just dismiss it out of hand, because she is too 

young, or are we going to actually go and get that hard drive, and that is 

the issue. We are losing the ability to protect children in our local 

communities every day. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Right. Well, and I am not trying to disagree with 

you in any way. I think we agree. What we need is tougher enforcement 

of Federal laws and State laws and resources at all levels, and 

coordination. And frankly, from listening to the second panel, I was a 

little encouraged in this hearing, that at least the levels of authorities 

seem to be coordinating. I mean, the problem is not, and the Chairman 

will tell you, we see a lot of situations where the agencies can’t even 

coordinate with each other. So, the good news is, at least they have the 

mechanisms to coordinate. Do you agree with that? 
355

 MR. WEEKS. I have to take their word for that. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. And so, really, what we need is strong laws 

and resources, to help them carry out their charge, correct? You need to 

answer in words. 

 MR. WEEKS. Yes, yes. Excuse me. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thanks. Now, so, with that in mind, are there 

Federal statutes that you think we can strengthen, as well as the State 

laws? 

 MR. WEEKS. I think that the penalties for possession need to be 

increased. Since Federal, since the guidelines were deemed advisory 

only, that is a loophole now. I think that most of the cases you hear 

about are not getting probation, because they are just essentially cherry 

picking at this point, but that is a loophole that is a serious issue. I think 

that forfeiture is another major issue that should be looked at. 

International treaties. I wish I was more of a telecommunications expert 

for you. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Yeah. Okay. Well, but you think we have the 

adequate laws on the books to prosecute, to federally prosecute cases, 

even when mail is not involved or international situations. Do you think 

we can prosecute these cases, simply because they are done on the 

Internet? 

 MR. WEEKS. I think we can prosecute them all day long and all 

night, yeah. 

 MS. DEGETTE. All right. I was appalled to hear that Colorado is one 

of the States that just classifies this as a misdemeanor, and I would 

imagine that States like Colorado and other States that classify it like this 

have not really looked at their laws vis-a-vis the increase, as the 

Chairman said the increasing violence and depravity of these Internet 

communications and the horrible abuse for the children. Would that be 

your sense as well, working in these things? 

 MR. WEEKS. I am conflicted about that, and I will tell you why. I 

have a real hard time believing there are as many people left in this 

country, especially in positions of leadership, who are that clueless about 

the nature of child pornography. I just don’t believe it. I think, it would 

be interesting to find out in your State, and other States like that, what 

has transpired in recent sessions, whether or not they have tried to 

increase the penalty. Often, what it is, is unfortunately, is prosecutors 

who just want so much discretion that they resist mandatory minimums 

and increased penalties. But there is also-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, part of what happened, and I will tell you, I 

was in the State legislature in Colorado in the early to mid ‘90s. During 

those years, we basically tripled, sometimes quadrupled the sentences for 

the existing felonies in the State. And so, for example, where you had a 
356

crime where it might be an 8 year maximum penalty, it suddenly went up 

to 36 years, and then, you had the mandatory minimum sentences put in, 

and in many cases, those increases were warranted. Some of the 

maximum penalties for different felonies were too low. In other cases, 

there was no judgment. It was just a rush to increase the penalties. 

 Well, then, what happened, of course, in the late 1990s, in the past 

few years, the prisons and the criminal justice systems have become 

completely overloaded in States like my State and other States. So, I 

think the legislatures have now been loath to increase the penalties of 

other crimes because they don’t have any place to put the perpetrators, 

which is a tragedy, because what is happening is the perpetrators for 

these horrible crimes that are affecting younger and younger children are 

going away with a slap on the wrist, while other people, who have 

committed crimes that are not crimes against people, economic crimes 

and other kinds of crimes, are sitting in prison for 38 years, and that just 

seems insane to me. 

 MR. WEEKS. Yes. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And you agree. 

 MR. WEEKS. I agree. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And so, I imagine that is part of the explanation of 

what has happened here. But I will tell you this. I intend to call up my 

Senate President and House Majority Leader, who are personal friends of 

mine, and see if they can’t get a late bill introduced next week to fix this 

in Colorado. 

 MR. WEEKS. Please, and when you do, please make sure it is 

tougher than felony cockfighting, as it is in my State, because making it a 

felony in and of itself is not enough. But thank you. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Well, making it a felony, I mean, in a State like 

Colorado, and you have to look at the different States, in a State like 

Colorado, making it a felony helps, because of the penalty structure. 

 MR. WEEKS. Absolutely. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And just one last question. I don’t know if you 

heard me ask the last panel, but for a crime like child pornography, 

maybe not for the hardcore perpetrators who, as you say, are rapists and 

child abusers, but for people who possess it, it would seem to me that 

tougher penalties at the State level and at the Federal level would begin 

to deter these crimes, because simple possession of it, if someone knew 

they were going to prison for a long time, that might make them think 

twice. For the people who are perpetrating these horrible crimes, they 

are a different story, and they need to be locked up for even longer, but 

wouldn’t you agree, just if someone knew that there was a certainty that 

they could be arrested and prosecuted and go to jail, that would really 

reduce the amount of possession. 
357

 MR. WEEKS. I absolutely agree. I think to a large extent, it is the 

certainty of being caught and prosecuted that is the most important thing, 

and that is not there. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Right. Well, thank you very much, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WEEKS. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and that concludes 

today’s hearing, but before we adjourn, without objection, I want to ask 

that the slides shown during the hearing by Mr. Flint Waters be entered 

into the record. The slides from the Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, the Regpay article from the Wall Street Journal, and then 

Chapter 26 from Dr. Cooper’s book, and then, the record will be open for 

30 days for any additional information that may come in. 

 [The information follows:] 

Why do we do it?
358

♦ Arrested: Dec 31, 2001 – Cheyenne, Wyoming
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407

 MR. WHITFIELD. But Mr. Weeks, thank you for the great job you are 

doing. 

 MR. WEEKS. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. We really appreciate your willingness to come and 

help us out, and I look forward to working with you in the future. 

 MR. WEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
408

 MR. WHITFIELD. And that adjourns today’s hearing. 

 [Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
409

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF WILLIAM E. KEZER, DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR, UNITED 

STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE

May 19, 2006 

The Honorable Edward Whitfield 

Chairman 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

 of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-0001 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On April 6, 2006, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was honored to testify before the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee concerning its efforts to combat the 

increasingly, menacing crime of sexual exploitation against children. Despite the 

overwhelming use of the Internet to perpetuate crimes involving child exploitation, many 

offenders also utilize the U.S. Mail, in concert with the Internet, to traffic in child 

pornography or otherwise sexually exploit children. Numerous examples of recent cases 

investigated by Postal Inspectors with a common nexus to the Internet and the U.S. Mail 

were provided in our oral and written testimony. 

When the U.S. Mail is used in connection with crimes involving the sexual exploitation 

of children, Postal Inspectors work diligently to identify and track down those 

responsible for the commission of these heinous crimes. We work closely with the 

various United States Attorneys and other agencies, such as the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children in order to bring the alleged offenders before the federal 

judicial system. The Postal Service has and continues to be committed to fighting the 

war on crime against those individuals who prey on our nation’s children. Presently, we 

have a number of Postal Inspectors assigned full-time to these types of investigations. 

Testimony elicited by the Subcommittee revealed several areas in which Congress may 

aid law enforcement in these types of investigations. These include possible assistance 

within the jurisdiction of both the House Energy and Commerce and House Judiciary 

Committees. Assistance suggested by several of the law enforcement witnesses at the 

April 6th hearing included requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to maintain 

subscriber data for a set time period (i.e., a minimum of 90 days) and to respond 

promptly to subpoenas seeking subscriber information; providing for additional 

investigator resources assigned to child exploitation investigations; providing for the 

means to reduce backlogs in the forensic examination of digital evidence; and, specific to 

the Postal Inspection Service, providing administrative subpoena authority in the area of 

child exploitation offenses. 
410

As a result of the hearing, the Postal Inspection Service, along with other agencies, were 

asked to provide further comment on the benefits of administrative subpoenas as a 

necessary law enforcement tool. The Postal Inspection Service was invited to formally 

request this type of investigative authority. 

It is our belief the ability to issue administrative subpoenas will greatly assist our efforts 

against child exploitation. The testimony of several witnesses at the April 6th hearing 

supported the fact administrative subpoenas help accelerate the process of identifying 

offenders who oftentimes hide behind screen names as well as websites operated by child 

abusers and pornographers. As you are aware, in 1998 Congress passed The Child 

Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. Title III, Section 301 of the Act 

authorized the Attorney General to issue administrative subpoenas in child exploitation 

cases. This authority is presently codified at 18 U.S.C. §. 3486. (Exhibit A) This 

authority has been delegated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the supervisory 

field level. 

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service would benefit from having this investigative tool to 

aid in its law enforcement efforts against child exploitation. As the Internet has changed 

the manner in which child pornographers operate, so too, must the law enforcement tools 

used to investigative and arrest the perpetrators of these crimes adapt to the changing 

environment. 

It appears an amendment would be needed to 18 U.S.C. § 3486 in order to include 

authority for the Postmaster General to issue administrative subpoenas in criminal 

investigations involving child exploitation. (Exhibit B) If such an amendment is enacted, 

the Postal Service would then publish regulations authorizing Postal Inspectors in Charge 

at the field level similar to the process used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This 

amendment would greatly assist federal agencies in the pursuit of those individuals who 

are sexually abusing and exploiting our children. 

The interest and assistance of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations are 

welcomed and appreciated. If you require any additional information, please contact 

Deputy Chief Inspector William Kezer at 202-268-8709. 

Sincerely, 

L. R. Heath 

Chief Postal Inspector 

Enclosures 
411

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF FLINT WATERS, LEAD SPECIAL AGENT , WYOMING 

DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK 

FORCE TECHNOLOGY CENTER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

May 30, 2006 

The Honorable Edward Whitfield 

Chairman 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

 of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-0001 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

1. You state in your testimony that a special agent from the Department of Homeland 

Security worked with your task force. Is this an employee of the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, or some other division? 

Special Agent Balliett is an employee with Immigrations and Customs 

Enforcement. She is assigned to our task force full time and routinely handles cases 

throughout the region related to the trafficking of child sexual abuse images and 

Internet child victimization. I can’t emphasize enough how the Federal support of 

our mission makes it possible to protect Wyoming children. This crossjurisdictional problem has overwhelmed state and local law enforcement. Without 

the Federal resources we have received, like a special agent from ICE and the 

ongoing guidance and funding provided from the Office of Justice Programs, we 

would have failed. 

2. Under Wyoming law, if law enforcement has a current IP, e-mail and home address 

for an Internet user suspected of possessing child pornography, is that sufficient to obtain 

a search warrant and seize that computer? 

If the suspicion of criminal conduct rises to a level of probable cause we can obtain 

a search warrant to seize the computer. 

I will make myself available for any further questions that may arise from this matter. 

Respectfully, 

Flint Waters, 

Lead Agent, Wyoming ICAC 
412

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF CHRIS SWECKER, ACTING ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
413
414
415
416
417

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF DR. FRANK KARDASZ, SERGEANT, PHOENIX POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, PROJECT DIRECTOR, ARIZONA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK 

FORCE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1. Please describe the difficulty of tracking illegal Internet activity that occurs 

through wireless access points. Are there tools to determine where the activity 

originates? 

The difficulty in tracking illegal Internet activity originating from wireless access 

points might best be described by way of a true-life example. 

In August, 2005, I received a call from an officer of the Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin Police Department. He was investigating the case of a missing boy 

who had disappeared with someone the boy had met via the Internet. 

Milwaukee computer forensics examiners had looked into the contents of the 

boys computer. They found the screen name of the suspect with whom the boy 

had been chatting before he had disappeared. They subpoened the Internet 

service provider (ISP) associated with the suspect’s screen name. Subpoena 

results indicated that the Internet protocol address affiliated with the screen 

name originated from an apartment in Phoenix, Arizona. Milwaukee PD 

provided me with the apartment address. 

My detectives and I immediately went to the Phoenix apartment. We 

quickly eliminated the apartment resident as a suspect but we learned that she 

possessed an unencrypted wireless router and the device provided free Internet 

access to everyone in nearby apartments. We began interviewing neighbors, 

asking them if they had observed a new boy in the area. Our diligence and luck 

prevailed. One local resident said that a man living nearby had recently been 

accompanied by a boy whom the man said was his son. 

We then conducted surveillance for several hours until the man and boy 

appeared. Detectives apprehended the suspect, a wanted sex offender with 

felony warrants from prior offenses, and the boy, who had been molested by the 

suspect. 

The Phoenix suspect had used a laptop computer from his nearby 

apartment to intercept the unencrypted wireless signal from his unsuspecting 

neighbor’s computer router. This permitted the offender to communicate with 

the boy in Wisconsin and entice him into meeting. The boy is now back with 

his mother in Wisconsin. The suspect awaits trial. 

There were no special tools available to us that could have pinpointed the 

exact location of the offender who had used his neighbors unencrypted wireless 

access. We employed two old-fashioned police techniques; interviews and 

surveillance. 

My colleagues nationwide have shared other similar stories with me 

involving wireless access points used for criminal offenses. In some cases their 

investigations dead-end at a wireless access point that is providing unencrypted 

Internet service to everyone in antenna range. In other cases interviews and 

surveillance fail because the elusive suspect(s) quickly move on to other 

wireless access points. 

Countless libraries, coffee shops, airports, hotels and businesses now 

provide free wireless Internet access either accidentally, because they fail to 

enable the encryption features to protect the signal, or as a free-bonus customer 

service. While free wireless access is a welcome service for law-abiding 

citizens, it is also a tool for criminals. 
418

Are there tools to determine where the activity originates? 

The answer is yes and no. A subpoena or search warrant to the ISP associated 

with an Internet protocol (IP) address is the tool that we use to identify the specific 

location of the computer assigned to an IP address. 

In some cases, the computer we identify is attached to a router that is 

broadcasting a wireless signal to another computer, the exact location of which is 

unknown. If the wireless signal is being used by a remote computer, the 

investigation continues and becomes more difficult. There are technical 

surveillance tools, to wit, radio spectrum analyzers and direction finders, that can 

be used to further hone in on the remote computer, but these tools are somewhat 

expensive for the average local law enforcement agency ($5,000 - $25,000), they 

require advanced training and are often inexact in a city environment where 

several wireless signals may be present at the same time. 

2. In your testimony, you stated that the cell phone providers maintained their 

records for cell phone usage for long periods of time, but that Internet service 

providers (ISP) did not. Internet service providers have alleged that they do not 

have storage space to maintain records for any length of time. Do you know why 

cell phone providers can store this information for long periods of time, but 

Internet service providers cannot? 

My comments about records preservation were based on my limited knowledge 

of the cell phone industry and from my experiences, mostly as a cellular service 

consumer. I know that cell phone providers often closely track customer usage by 

the minute and cell phone providers often maintain copious records for billing 

purposes. I have reviewed cell phone billing statements that gave long lists of 

individual calls including the numbers called from and to, the number of minutes 

used during each call and the cost of each call. Maintaining so much data likely 

entails computer servers with large data storage capacity. 

Internet service providers do not normally bill customers on a per-minute basis 

so there is usually not a need to record the frequent changes in Internet data-packet 

destinations that are needed for billing purposes by cell phone companies. I have 

seen computer traceroute software that enables reporting of the location of each 

server through which data packets travel across the Internet but the data storage 

capacities needed to track all of that information would be incredibly large, and in 

most cases, unnecessary. 

The datum that we believe would be most useful in order to have a starting 

point for our investigations are, minimally, the subscriber information. There is no 

privacy violation when ISP’s retain subscriber information and we in law 

enforcement could only subsequently obtain the information through a subpoena 

or search warrant. I believe that Internet service provider can preserve this data. 

Many of them already retain the data because without it, they are unable to bill 

customers who use their services. 

If ISP’s are stating they cannot store the information, it is probably because 

they choose not to store it. Computer data storage capacity has increased 

exponentially in recent years and the cost of data storage has decreased. 

I am aware that data retrieval and subsequently reporting the information back 

to law enforcement requires human intervention and entails labor costs. 

It is my opinion that ISP’s can store the information if they choose to. It is also 

my opinion that some ISP’s will not satisfactorily store data and recover data for 

law enforcement until the law mandates them to do so. 
419

3. Are you proposing that all records of individual Internet use be maintained by 

the service provider, including e-mails, instant messages and chat room 

discussions, or only the IP addresses and other identifying information about 

the addressee? If all you want is the background information to identify 

subscribers, do you believe that a lack of storage space is a problem for the ISP? 

I am not proposing that all records of individual Internet use be maintained by 

service providers. 

Maintaining ALL records, including the content of all emails, instant messages 

and chat room discussions for extended periods of time would present the ISP’s 

with a significant storage responsibility. Although it is possible to preserve all of 

the data, it would require very large data storage capacities. 

Preserving all data, including the intimate details of private text messages 

and/or the images transmitted during private communications would undoubtedly 

send privacy protection advocates into a lather! Even though the information 

would be retained by the ISP’s and not released to law enforcement except by 

court order, privacy advocates would likely balk. 

Basic subscriber information, that data which is presently available from 

cooperating ISPs through subpoena is the minimum we hope to mandate that ISP’s 

preserve for law enforcement investigations. This information would not be 

available to law enforcement except through subpoena or search warrant. 

Although I do not claim intimate knowledge of the specific equipment or 

storage capacities presently available to all ISP’s, I do not believe that storing this 

information would present most ISP’s with storage space problems. 

4. Are administrative subpoenas only used for business records? 

In my work involving Internet crimes, our administrative subpoenas have been 

used only for retrieving business records from Internet service providers. As a 

wider practical matter, I am aware that administrative subpoenas can also be used 

to demand personal documents and other tangible things from not only businesses 

but also from private citizens. 

5. Under Arizona law, if law enforcement has a current IP, e-mail and home 

address for an Internet user suspected of possessing child pornography, is that 

sufficient to obtain a search warrant to seize that computer? 

No. In Arizona, a search warrant must be based on probable cause for a felony 

offense and the warrant must be authorized by a magistrate. The required probable 

cause is described in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant. The affidavit 

is written by the investigator(s) who work the case. 

Although a current IP address and the physical “home” address where the 

felony offense originated would be two very important items towards obtaining a 

search warrant, detectives would also conduct other investigative activities to 

build the necessary probable cause. The activities could include surveillance of the 

location, records checks and criminal history checks of the property owners, motor 

vehicle checks on vehicles frequenting the location, pretext visits and/or calls to 

the location. The combination of several of these items, along with the physical 

“home” address associated with the IP address would provide the probable cause 

needed for the search warrant. 
420

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the preceding questions. Please 

contact me if you require additional information. 

Regards, 

Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sgt. / Project Director 

Phoenix P.D. /AZ Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force 

620 W. Washington 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

desk: 602 256 3404 

email: frank.kardasz@phoenix.gov 

web site: http://azicac.net 
421

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF JAMES PLITT, DIRECTOR, CYBER CRIMES CENTER, OFFICE 

OF INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

 No response was received to the following question submitted to Mr. Plitt. 

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Question for Mr. James Plitt, Director 

Cyber Crimes Center, Office of Investigations 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

April 6, 2006 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing entitled: “Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What 

Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators”

1. Please describe in detail the relationship between the Cyber Crimes Center of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Innocent Images National Initiative 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When a child exploitation investigation 

involves trans-border movement of images, which agency takes the lead in dealing 

with foreign agencies such as Interpol? Do both agencies count that investigation as 

one of their own? 
422

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD OF GRIER WEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN

 No response was received to the following questions submitted to Mr. Weeks. 

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Questions for Mr. Grier Weeks, Executive Director 

PROTECT 

April 6, 2006 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing entitled: “Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What 

Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators”

1. Please describe state statutes of limitation for possessing and distributing child 

pornography and any problems that may result. How successful has PROTECT 

been in increasing these time limitations? 

2. Mr. Swecker of the Federal Bureau of Investigations testified, despite the public 

concern about child pornography, his office had not received any additional 

investigative resources in the FY2007 budget. Does the same situation exist in the 

States? Are state legislatures generally more willing to increase penalties for these 

crimes than to increase resources to investigate and prosecute them? 
423

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN 

OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, 

KIDS AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW 

ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Walden, Burgess, Blackburn, 

Barton (ex officio), Stupak, DeGette, Inslee, Baldwin, and Whitfield. 

 Also present: Representative Gingrey. 

Staff Present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian, Counsel; 

Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel; 

and David Nelson, Minority Investigator/Economist. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I am going to call this hearing to order, and I 

apologize for our delay today. There was a hearing in the hearing room 

prior to our arrival and I certainly want to welcome those on the first 

panel. We will have a second panel of witnesses as well. Those buzzers 

that you hear going off are calling us to votes on the floor. We are going 

to have three votes on the floor, so I apologize in advance for further 

delay, but we will go do the three votes, then we will come back. We 

will do our opening statements, then we will swear in the first panel, and 

then we will get into the questions and answers. 

 So please forgive us, and we will adjourn the hearing--not adjourn, 

but recess the hearing until we can do these three votes. Thank you very 

much. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I will call the hearing to order, and once again 

apologize for the delay because of the votes on the floor. We are 

extremely enthusiastic that we have such a great panel of witnesses today 

on a subject matter that is quite serious, and one that is quite disturbing. 
424

 This will be our third hearing on “Sexual Exploitation of Children 

Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids, and Congress Need to Know 

About Child Predators.” Our first two hearings brought to light many 

staggering and sobering facts about how children are victimized over the 

Internet. We know the number of sexually exploitative images of child 

victims continues to rise, and that a large-scale commercial industry has 

developed around taking, trading, and selling sexually exploitative 

images of children over the Internet. We also heard testimony at our last 

hearing from several law enforcement agencies that are trying to combat 

this problem and catch child predators. 

 It is not an easy task. Although the Immigration and Customs 

Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Service, the 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, and many State and local 

agencies are working on putting child predators behind bars. The 

Internet has caused a proliferation of both the abusers as well as the 

images of the abused. 

 At our last hearing, I was struck by how many different law 

enforcement agencies are working on this problem, and yet, there does 

not seem to be any national strategy in place to deal with this growing 

problem. I hope that through our hearing on this topic, a national 

strategy will be put in place to ensure that our children are safer and child 

predators are caught and put behind bars. 

 Today, we will continue to learn about this horrific problem. We 

have a brave young lady with us today whom I had the opportunity to 

visit with before the hearing, Masha Allen, and I want to extend my most 

sincere thanks to you, Masha, publicly, for coming forward to tell us 

about your experience at the hands of a pedophile who happened to be 

your adoptive father. I also want to thank her mother, Faith Allen, for 

accompanying her today. Masha is now 13 years old, will testify about 

how she was adopted when she was 5 years old from a Russian 

orphanage by a divorced man living alone in Pennsylvania named 

Matthew Mancuso. Her adoptive father, Mr. Mancuso, sexually 

molested Masha from the first day she arrived at his home as a 5-yearold until law enforcement finally caught up with him 6 years later. 

 Masha is a survivor, and she will be able to tell us as the voice of a 

child victim and for victims everywhere how she feels particularly 

violated by the sexually exploitative images taken and posted by 

Mancuso over the entire Internet. 

 We will also hear testimony from Nancy Grace, a former State court 

prosecutor in Atlanta, Georgia, who I understand handled a number of 

cases involving sexually abused children. We also look forward to 

hearing from Ms. Grace about her media work involving issues 
425

surrounding the sexual exploitation of children and specifically, over the 

Internet. 

 Finally, we will revisit some questions that we previously had for the 

Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation witnesses at 

our last hearing which were not answered because we did not feel like 

the right witnesses were present. 

 I am very glad to see that the Department of Justice has sent us up 

one witness that the subcommittee did request, Ms. Alice Fisher, who I 

had the opportunity to meet with earlier; however, we are still 

disheartened that we will once again not hear testimony from Mr. 

Andrew Osterbein, who is the head of the section at the Department of 

Justice that actually handles cases involving the sexual exploitation of 

children over the Internet. I know that Ms. Fisher oversees this section, 

and I am hopeful that she will be able to add some significant detail to 

how that section handles these types of cases, particularly when a 

cooperating child victim witness is involved, and also, we want to hear, 

obviously, from law enforcement on what we can do to help them do 

their jobs better. 

 A daunting challenge in combating the sexual exploitation of 

children over the Internet continues to be faced by all of us involved in 

this issue, and we hope to learn more today about the efforts of law 

enforcement in this area, and also to understand what the Department of 

Justice’s recently proposed legislative package will add to their efforts in 

this regard. 

 I thank all of you for being here today. There isn’t a more important 

issue than this one on our plate, and we want to make some efforts to 

curtail this, obviously, and prohibit it and be very stern in our 

enforcement of these statutes. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED. WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

GOOD AFTERNOON. I’D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE’S THIRD HEARING THAT EXPLORES ISSUES RELATED TO 

THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. OUR 

FIRST TWO HEARINGS ON THIS TOPIC HAVE BROUGHT TO LIGHT MANY 

STAGGERING AND SOBERING FACTS ABOUT HOW CHILDREN ARE 

VICTIMIZED OVER THE INTERNET. WE LEARNED AT OUR LAST HEARING 

THAT THE NUMBER OF SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES OF CHILDVICTIMS CONTINUES TO RISE AND THAT A LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL 

INDUSTRY HAS DEVELOPED AROUND TAKING, TRADING AND SELLING 

SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. 

WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY AT OUR LAST HEARING FROM SEVERAL 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE TRYING TO COMBAT THIS 

PROBLEM AND CATCH THESE CHILD PREDATORS. IT IS NOT AN EASY 
426

TASK. ALTHOUGH THE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS SERVICE, THE 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTGATION, THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THE 

INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE AND MANY STATE 

AND LOCAL AGENCIES ARE WORKING ON PUTTING THESE CHILD 

PREDATORS BEHIND BARS, THE INTERNET HAS CAUSED A 

PROLIFERATION OF BOTH THE ABUSERS, AS WELL AS, IMAGES OF THE 

ABUSED. 

AT OUR LAST HEARING, I WAS STRUCK BY HOW MANY DIFFERENT 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM—AND 

YET, THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY NATIONAL STRATEGY IN PLACE 

TO DEAL WITH THIS GROWING PROBLEM. I HOPE THAT THROUGH OUR 

HEARINGS ON THIS TOPIC, A NATIONAL STRATEGY WILL BE PUT IN PLACE 

TO ENSURE THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE SAFER AND THAT THESE CHILD 

PREDATORS ARE CAUGHT. 

AT OUR HEARING TODAY, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LEARN ABOUT THIS 

HORRIFIC PROBLEM. WE HAVE A VERY BRAVE YOUNG LADY HERE WITH 

US TODAY—MASHA ALLEN. I WANT TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST THANKS TO 

MASHA FOR COMING FORWARD TO TELL US ABOUT HER HORRIFIC 

EXPERIENCE AT THE HANDS OF A PEDOPHILE AND I ALSO WANT TO 

THANK HER MOTHER, FAITH, FOR ACCOMPANYING HER UP HERE TO THIS 

HEARING. 

MASHA, WHO IS NOW 13 YEARS OLD, WILL TELL US ABOUT HOW SHE 

WAS ADOPTED WHEN SHE WAS JUST 5 YEARS OLD FROM A RUSSIAN 

ORPHANAGE BY A DIVORCED MAN, LIVING IN PENNSYLVANIA, NAMED 

MATTHEW MANCUSO. HER ADOPTIVE FATHER, MANCUSO, SEXUALLY 

MOLESTED MASHA FROM THE FIRST DAY SHE ARRIVED AS A 5 YEAR OLD 

UNTIL LAW ENFORCEMENT FINALLY CAUGHT HIM 6 YEARS LATER. 

MASHA IS A SURVIVOR—AND SHE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL US, AS THE 

VOICE OF CHILD VICTIMS EVERYWHERE, HOW SHE FEELS PARTICULARLY 

VIOLATED BY THE SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES TAKEN AND POSTED 

BY MANCUSO OVER THE INTERNET. 

WE WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM NANCY GRACE, A FORMER 

STATE COURT PROSECUTOR IN ATLANTA GEORGIA, WHO I UNDERSTAND 

HANDLED A NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING SEXUALLY ABUSED 

CHILDREN. WE ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM MS. GRACE 

ABOUT HER MEDIA WORK INVOLVING ISSUES SURROUNDING THE SEXUAL 

EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. 

FINALLY, WE WILL REVISIT SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY 

HAD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION WITNESSES AT OUR LAST HEARING WHICH WERE NOT 

ANSWERED BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGEABLE WITNESSES WE REQUESTED 

WERE NOT SENT UP TO TESTIFY. I MUST STATE THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN 

EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING PROCESS TO GET THE WITNESSES WE WANT—

AND WHO WE BELIEVE WILL PROVIDE THE MOST THOROUGH ANSWERS-- 

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FROM THE FBI UP HERE TO 

TESTIFY. I HOPE THAT TODAY IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF MY 

FRUSTRATION ON THIS POINT. I AM VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SENT UP ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE REQUESTED—MS. ALICE FISHER. HOWEVER, I AM STILL 

DISHEARTENED THAT WE WILL, ONCE AGAIN, NOT HEAR ANY TESTIMONY 

FROM MR. ANDREW OOSTERBAAN, THE HEAD OF THE SECTION AT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT ACTUALLY HANDLES CASES INVOLVING 

THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. I KNOW 
427

THAT MS. FISHER OVERSEES THIS SECTION AND I’M HOPEFUL THAT 

SHE’LL BE ABLE TO ADD SOME SIGNIFICANT DETAIL TO HOW THAT 

SECTION HANDLES THESE CASES, PARTICULARLY WHEN A COOPERATING 

CHILD-VICTIM WITNESS IS INVOLVED. 

I AM ALSO PLEASED TO SEE THAT MR. ROLDAN AND MR. BELL, FROM 

THE FBI, ARE HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY. MR. ROLDAN—I AM SURE YOU 

KNOW THAT WE REQUESTED YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING WE 

HAD ON APRIL 6TH. WE WERE VERY DISTURBED TO LEARN THAT RATHER 

THAN ATTEND OUR HEARING, YOU WERE APPEARING ON MORNING NEWS 

SHOWS LIKE CNN AND THE TODAY SHOW. WE’RE GLAD YOU MADE TIME 

FOR US TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THE WORK 

THAT INNOCENT IMAGES IS DOING TO COMBAT THIS GROWING PROBLEM. 

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORK THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS CUT 

OUT FOR THEM IN COMBATTING THIS PROBLEM OF THE SEXUAL 

EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET IS MASSIVE. I HOPE TO 

LEARN MORE TODAY ABOUT THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS AREA—AND ALSO TO 

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S RECENTLY 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION WILL ADD TO THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD. 

 THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So at this time, I will recognize our Ranking 

Member, Mr. Stupak from Michigan, for his opening statement. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for convening 

this hearing. This committee must take our time to adequately address a 

number of very serious issues involving child pornography and 

exploitation on the Internet. These include sexual exploitation of very 

young children by members of their own family; how to remove 

pornographic images of children from the Internet; how to keep these 

images off the Internet; and whether the Department of Justice and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation are aggressively investigating and 

convicting individuals for these crimes. 

 The sexual abuse and exploitation of children facilitated by the 

Internet is a criminal activity of horrible dimensions. Last month, we 

heard the story of Justin Berry, when he was a 13-year-old boy, was 

manipulated to perform sexual acts in from of a web camera for 5 years. 

Unlike the case before us today, the FBI and Department of Justice have 

largely failed to act on the information provided by Justin that would 

have saved other children from sexual predators. They failed to shut 

down or arrest the Internet operator of Justin’s child pornography site. 

While the site is now shut down, the operator has fled the country. 

 Today, we will hear another tragic story of child pornography, this 

one involving a 5-year-old child adopted from a Russian orphanage for 

the sole purpose of sexual exploitation. Masha Allen, a young girl of 

great courage, will tell us of her 5 years of rape and how she became 

featured in one of the most sought after sets of child pornography 

images. Masha’s adoptive father specifically requested a blonde-haired, 

blue-eyed 5-year-old girl, and three adoption agencies helped fulfill this 
428

wish. The adoption agency that delivered Masha to this monster did not 

check the living and sleeping arrangements for the child. The agency did 

not interview the adoptive father’s estranged daughter, whom he had 

previously abused when she was the same age as Masha. The agency did 

not perform follow-up home visits after the adoption, as required. The 

agency delivered a 5-year-old child into a living hell. Masha was 

rescued only after an undercover Illinois police officer corresponded 

with her adoptive parents--excuse me, her adoptive father, and obtained 

his Internet address and a search warrant. When executing this warrant, 

authorities rescued Masha. 

 Masha, now 13, will testify how her images became the most soughtafter images for pedophiles. We will learn how, because of web file 

sharing, her terrible ordeal did not end with her rescue. 

 As the Supreme Court observed over 20 years ago in New York v. 

Ferber, and I quote “The distribution of photographs and films depicting 

sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to a sexual abuse of 

children, and harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.” 

 Mr. Chairman, this Nation has done very little to stop the Internet 

exploitation of children like Masha. Last month, we were shocked to 

learn that 80 percent of the pornographic images on the Internet involve 

children less than 12 years of age. Thirty-nine percent involve children 

under 6 years of age, and 19 percent portray children age 3 or younger. 

Even more disturbing is the fact that at least a third, and perhaps as many 

as 75 percent of the men caught with these images molest and rape their 

own children, just as Masha’s adoptive father did. 

 Also today, we will finally hear from the Department of Justice. I 

will be interested to know why, after 8 months, there has been little 

follow up in the Justin Berry case, while other cases, like Masha’s, 

received an immediate response with search warrants and arrests. Is 

there a Constitutional, legal, or resource impediment that Congress does 

not fully understand? Why are there so few of the tens of thousands of 

perpetrators who buy, sell, and trade images of young children being 

raped and tortured are not prosecuted. 

 After our last meeting, U.S. Attorney General Gonzalez announced 

that his agency had rounded up 1,100 violent sexual offenders, some of 

which were child molesters. But from what this subcommittee has heard, 

1,100 is a small fraction of the true number of sexual predators in our 

society. So what is the Justice Department’s plan for the rest of these 

people? 

 Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know that you plan to call Internet service 

providers and related businesses that facilitate the transmission of images 

over the Web. It is important to learn what they believe can be done to 

prevent the dissemination of the estimated 3.5 million pornographic 
429

images currently on the Internet. I truly hope that when these companies 

testify, they will have viable plans to remove the horrible images of 

Masha and other young victims from the Internet. Voluntary action to 

clean up the Internet has not been successful in dealing with this 

problem. 

 I look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure Congress 

does everything it can to protect our children and prevent images of 

abuse from flooding the Internet. I yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Stupak, thank you very much, and I am going 

to go out of order for just 1 minute. Congressman Phil Gingrey is on the 

first panel with us, and he is the Representative and represents in the 

Congress Masha Allen and her mother, Faith Allen, and he has some 

amendments on the House floor that he is going to have to take care of, 

so Congressman Gingrey, I will recognize you now for any comment you 

would like to make about Masha and her family, or this issue. 

 MR. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Stupak and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me 

the opportunity to talk about a remarkable young lady, Masha Allen. 

Masha is a strong, resilient 13-year-old girl who lives in Georgia’s 11th

District, which I am honored to represent. I want you to hear Masha’s 

story from her in her own words so you can fully grasp what horrors she 

has lived through, but I guarantee the first thing you will notice, as I did, 

is her strength of spirit. This little girl was forced to grow up too fast in 

order for her to process the numerous atrocities that she has experienced. 

However, Masha’s determined spirit gives her the power to stand up and 

tell her story, illustrating the fact that she is much more than a victim of 

child sexual exploitation. Masha is a wonderful, willful girl who has 

decided to be empowered by her situation, and to do something to deter 

the disgusting world of Internet child pornography that has grown to be a 

multi-billion dollar industry. 

 There are many places in this young girl’s story where the system 

failed to protect her from the monster who adopted her. Even before the 

horrible sexual exploitation began, it is important to understand how she 

has come to be before you today. You should ask yourself, as I did, how 

the regulations that exist in international adoption agencies failed, how 

follow-up visits or school intervention did not rescue this child much 

sooner, how our Federal laws have really abandoned this area of child 

welfare, and most importantly, what is Congress’s responsibility now 

that we have heard her story? 

 The world of Internet child pornography is vast, it is dark, and it is 

deep. These possessors of child pornography trade these images like we 

would trade baseball cards, and the business indeed is booming. With 

the Federal government stretched thin trying to investigate, prosecute, 
430

and convict these numerous and varied possessors of child pornography, 

advocates are left trying to find new avenues to expose these animals 

with the goal of deterring future acts of child pornography. This is how 

the idea of Masha’s Law came to fruition: the need to introduce 

legislation that updates a 20-year-old civil statute and brings it into the 

21st Century. Current civil law allows victims of child sexual 

exploitation to recover damages of no less than $50,000; however, 

Federal copyright law provides statutory damages of $150,000 to be 

awarded to a copyright holder when a song is illegally downloaded from 

the Internet. There is something wrong with that picture. Masha’s Law 

allows a civil remedy for the dissemination of child pornography to be 

equal to other illegal downloads. By increasing the amount of damages a 

victim is able to recover, the Government can accomplish in civil court 

what is a lengthy and complex process in criminal, stopping the pictures. 

 Congressman Tierney and I introduced H.R. 4703, Masha’s Law, as 

a companion to legislation in the Senate spearheaded by Senators Kerry 

and Isakson, to even out a horrible inequity that currently exists in 

Federal law. It is one step that can be taken to stem the tide of child 

pornography; however, I know that it is just one step. 

 As you listen to testimony today, keep in mind the responsibility of 

the Federal government to protect our children. We need to be proactive. 

We need to respond to the reality that Internet child pornography is a 

growing business, one that victimizes our children and leaves them with 

scars that may never heal. As a physician Member of Congress, it is very 

important for me to convey to you what a devastating and lasting effect 

these images have on children. The physical injuries they suffer as a 

result of child molestation may be more obvious; however, the 

psychological damages are lengthy and they may not be fully realized 

until these children are well into adulthood. Child victims struggle with 

constant feelings of guilt and responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a 

sense of powerlessness, and a feeling of worthlessness. 

 In the case of Internet child pornography, these images are 

permanent proof of their exploitation. Unfortunately, with these images 

documented in cyberspace, they are irretrievable and can continue to 

circulate forever, allowing the child to be victimized each and every time 

the image is downloaded and viewed. The reality of these crimes are 

horrible; however, I am encouraged when I see victims who have the 

courage to tell their story. By supplying Americans with the knowledge 

of these criminals and arming prosecutors with an avenue in civil court to 

attack their pocketbooks, we can take tremendous strides toward ending 

the cycle of pornography. 
431

 As I said earlier, I am proud to be here today with such an amazing 

and courageous girl who is looking to turn her victimization into an 

avenue to stop this horrendous criminal behavior. 

 This completes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to go out of order. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Congressman Gingrey. 

 At this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for his opening statement. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having 

this important series of hearings. As a father of three, I cannot 

comprehend how people can commit these types of crimes against 

children. And like my colleagues, I continue to be angered and 

astonished by the cruelty in the stories that we hear. Just last week, I 

read another story in my hometown newspaper about a local man 

charged with sexually abusing children and posting their pictures on the 

Internet. This is happening in our communities, and it must be stopped. 

For the sake of our children, we cannot afford to ignore the problem any 

longer. 

 Mr. Chairman, I view these hearings as having two main goals. The 

first, of course, is to educate Congress and the public, and second, to 

implement stricter laws for deterrence and retribution. I, for one, have 

learned a great deal more than I ever wanted to know about this topic; 

however, it is crucial for the safety of our children for all of us to know 

about these evils so that we can help end this abusive and dangerous 

practice. It is through the brave souls of children like Justin Berry and 

Masha Allen that we know so much about this secretive world. Masha, 

thank you for appearing before us today. Your courage and your dignity 

are apparent, and you are, in fact, an inspiration to all of us. 

 I also would like to thank my friend, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing 

Masha’s Law. When enacted, this law will help to ensure that abused 

children receive a portion of the justice they deserve. I am a cosponsor 

of the bill and I encourage my colleagues to also cosponsor this 

important legislation. 

 As I mentioned before, I feel that the goal of this hearing should be 

stricter laws regarding this type of abuse. Congressman Gingrey’s 

legislation is a good start. I am also aware that the Department of Justice 

has ideas regarding an increase in penalties for Internet service providers 

not reporting known violations. Just one step, as Dr. Gingrey said. It is 

my sincere hope that these hearings will be a catalyst for even more 

legislation named at curbing this problem. Our children are depending 

upon us to do this. 

 Mr. Chairman, I believe, as we learned in other hearings, we have to 

hold organizations and Federal agencies like the Department of Justice 
432

accountable for enforcing these laws. It does us no good to continue to 

pass laws if enforcement is nonexistent. 

 Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your continued leadership and 

dedication to this grave situation. I look forward to working with you 

and others on the committee as we continue to seek solutions to the most 

egregious deviation from the norm that I think I have ever seen. 

 I yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. 

 At this time, I recognize Ms. DeGette for her opening statement. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

add my thanks for this series of important hearings. We are all learning a 

shocking amount, and I am hoping that instead of just emoting for the 

next few months, we actually have legislation that actually comes out of 

these hearings. 

 I want to extend a special welcome to our first witness. Masha, we 

are really privileged to have you here with us today. You had quite a 

journey in your life, and I know it has been hard, but we think that there 

are many, many wonderful things ahead of you and this is just the first 

one of those many things. You are really brave and you, and also Justin, 

who testified before, are going to teach us a lot of things that we can help 

both make laws and enforce laws that will stop this from happening to 

other children. So you are starting with what I hope will be a lifetime of 

helping other people. 

 Mr. Chairman, what happened to Masha is one of the worst cases 

any of us have ever heard about. It really boggles the mind to 

comprehend how someone as evil as this was allowed to adopt a young 

girl. I hope that some light will be shed on how this was allowed to 

happen, and while it is not under this committee’s purview, maybe the 

hearing will spur some needed changes in the system, the adoption 

system, to make sure this never happens again. 

 So Chairman, in preparing for this hearing, I learned that the primary 

investigators on the case tracked down Masha’s adoptive father by using 

an IP address. They were able to locate his whereabouts by obtaining the 

IP address, which then led them to his home. Tracing pedophiles and 

others who produce and distribute child pornography through their IP 

addresses is an important tool used by law enforcement agencies. In our 

last hearing, by way of contrast, we heard some testimony from 

investigators who actually saw a 2-year-old being raped live on the 

Internet. It was shocking. They were able to trace this to my home State 

of Colorado. They knew that the perpetrator and the little child were in 

Colorado, but when they tried to subpoena the IP address, those records 

had been destroyed by the Internet service provider because ISPs do not 

keep those records on any kind of consistent basis. 
433

 After the hearing, Mr. Stupak and I had the idea, maybe we can do 

some simple legislation, and what that legislation would say is that 

Internet service providers have to maintain the addresses for a period of 1 

year. This created havoc among the IP community, and I am horrified 

that the provider community is not working with us on this, because it 

seems to me to be a very simple piece of legislation. I am going to 

continue to fight for it. I am telling this to all the people sitting out there 

in the audience. We are not saying that the Internet providers should 

keep all of the communications. That would be burdensome. All we are 

saying is that they should have to keep the IP addresses of their 

subscribers for a period of 1 year. We are also not saying that we want 

anybody to violate folks’ privacy rights. Instead, just like if you were 

subpoenaing bank records--and Ms. Grace knows about this. She is a 

former prosecutor and I used to be a public defender in my youth. If the 

law enforcement investigators had probable cause, they could go and get 

a warrant. They could serve that warrant, and they could get that 

information from the Internet provider. That seems to be a very minor 

burden to ask to be able to find these horrible criminals who are making 

crimes on the Internet. 

 One last thing I will say that I have been thinking about is use of an 

Internet service provider is a contractual agreement. I would assume that 

all of the Internet service providers enter into a contractual agreement 

with their subscribers that they will not commit crimes over that Internet 

service. And so therefore, if Internet service providers are obtaining 

evidence of criminal activity under their contract with their subscribers, 

they should be able to turn that over to law enforcement authorities. I 

don’t understand what the big deal is, but I will tell you this, Mr. 

Chairman. I have heard that our next hearing is supposed to be a hearing 

when the Internet service providers come in, and I am very much looking 

forward to asking them these questions. 

 In addition, if we have a telecom bill that comes up on the floor next 

week or the week after, I do intend to work with Chairman Barton, who 

has said he wants to work with me, and I know you do, too, Mr. 

Chairman, to make sure that we craft something that is sensible, that is 

narrowly drafted, and that protects these kids so that all of the kids, just 

like Masha, that we can find these criminals and we can bring them to 

justice. 

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and we do look forward 

to the Internet service providers when they come to testify. I know that 

Ms. Fisher is going to be making some comments, I believe, about a 

recent meeting that she had with some Internet service providers on this 

issue. 
434

 At this time, I recognize the Vice Chairman of this subcommittee, 

Mr. Walden, for his opening statement. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am actually 

going to waive my opening statement. I very much appreciate our 

witnesses today, but I want to reserve the extra 3 minutes I will get for 

questioning of this panel. So I am going to waive at this time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

 At this time, I recognize Ms. Baldwin for her opening statement. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I want to also acknowledge and commend the subcommittee’s work 

in prior sessions examining the proliferation of child exploitation over 

the Internet. 

 Sexual exploitation and the assault of minors is simply one of the 

most heinous crimes that can ever be committed, yet advancements in 

Internet technology have greatly enabled the production, viewing, and 

trafficking of images that are the result of such crimes against children. I 

applaud this subcommittee’s effort to shed light on these abhorrent but 

burgeoning networks of child predators online, and to educate the public, 

especially parents, about the dangers such individuals pose to children’s 

access to the Internet. 

 Having read the New York Times article detailing the harrowing 

story of Justin Berry and his testimony before the committee several 

weeks ago, it is clear to me that our Department of Justice has some 

explaining to do over the way its Child Exploitation and Obscenities 

Section handles child sexual exploitation over the Internet. Although I 

am disappointed, as the Chairman is, that Mr. Andrew Osterbein, Chief 

of CEOS, still will not be testifying today, I hope that Ms. Fisher will be 

able to offer some insight into the general operations of the Section in 

handling the referral of online child exploitation cases. 

 In addition, I am pleased that Mr. Roldan has finally agreed to testify 

before this subcommittee on its second panel today. I hope we will have 

an informative discussion regarding the operation of Innocent Images, 

especially the level of resources that this Section has devoted to 

investigate sexually explicit images of children online. 

 Finally, I also want to acknowledge and thank Masha Allen for her 

courage and the courage you have exhibited in coming before this 

committee to testify today regarding your experiences. It is really 

unimaginable to me to know how the international adoption process, 

which is aimed at giving children a new start through a nurturing family, 

would become a tool of child predators. Masha, your story is one of both 

despair and hope. Our adoption system failed you in ensuring that a 

healthy, stable home was provided to you, and as a result, you have 

endured years of inconceivable suffering. But yours is also a story of 
435

hope, as law enforcement officers worked to bring you to safety and to 

provide you an opportunity to live a life free of violence. I admire your 

courage very much. 

 I hope that the hearings this subcommittee has been conducting will 

lead directly to a reduction in such violent crimes against children. 

Whether it is through informing parents of the dangers of online child 

predators, or a greater oversight of Federal responses to the issue of child 

exploitation on the Internet, or new legislative proposals that would deter 

online pedophilia. Again, I thank the subcommittee for holding this 

important hearing. 

 Mr. Chairman, I yield back my remaining time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Baldwin. 

 At this time, I recognize Ms. Blackburn for her opening statement. 

 MRS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I 

thank you for holding the hearing, for the time and effort that you have 

put into it, and the work that the staff continues to do to help us and work 

with us on this issue. I also want to thank our witnesses. We appreciate 

your time and the efforts that you put in to preparing your testimony, and 

being here with us today. Masha, we are especially happy and we are 

grateful that you would agree to join us and be with us. 

 This subcommittee started with these hearings, just as you have 

heard other members mention today, with testimony from Justin Berry 

about the pervasiveness of child predators on the Internet. One of the 

things that has surprised us, it is like anything else you begin to 

investigate and you look at it, and you realize as you are peeling back the 

layers that it is much deeper than you ever imagined it could possibly be. 

So we know that there is a lot of work to be done on this. Justin 

described for us how the predators help teenagers set up websites and 

webcams and how they lure them into the sexual acts for money. He 

also told the committee that the Department of Justice’s CEOS failed to 

act on information provided to them. At the risk of his own life, he 

provided that information of over 1,500 child predators and distributors 

of child pornography, yet it seems that the Department of Justice is 

unconcerned about the information or has chosen not to move forward. 

We are looking forward to getting that answer, because it is troubling 

when the FBI has used similar information in Operation Falcon and the 

Regpay investigations that led to hundreds of warrants and arrests and 

convictions. It is very difficult for us to comprehend why the 

information from Mr. Berry has not led to similar actions. 

 I would have to say, too, I am also concerned about the funding for 

the Departments that are investigating child pornography and 

exploitation. I have yet to hear from the Department about their budget 

submissions to cover the exponentially increased workload that has come 
436

from the investigations. But not all the blame should be put on the 

Department of Justice. Right now, unfortunately, there are some 

Members of Congress who would rather see multi-hundred million dollar 

railroads and multi-million dollar subsidies to corporations that already 

have $7 billion in revenues, but yet cannot adequately fund the 

Departments that are trying to save our children from being victims of 

these crimes. 

 The House has acted to implement a nationwide sex offender registry 

and enhanced criminal penalties for crimes against children. The bill, the 

Child Safety Act, was passed by the House this past September, but we 

have got some members in the Senate that have refused to allow the bill 

to be considered. These members have put their unpolitical ambitions 

ahead of the protection and welfare of our children. That needs to stop. 

 I have also had brought to my attention, and I would like to bring to 

the attention of the committee, a recent investigation by News Channel 5 

in Nashville, Tennessee, which is there in my district, and they found a 

fast-food restaurant franchise all over the country that had been hiring 

sex offenders to work in the restaurants. This has seriously troubled me 

because of the actions that we have seen of these despicable people and 

what they go to to try to get close to the children so that they can 

proposition the children. This is something we are still working on, Mr. 

Chairman, and hope to have more information for the committee on that 

issue at some point soon. We are also looking at the work opportunity 

tax credit that is there to help in hiring and retraining expellant and 

wanting to be certain that none of that money is directed towards 

individuals that would have committed these crimes. 

 Again, to our panel, I thank you. I thank you so much, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you, and I yield back. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. 

 At this time, I recognize Mr. Inslee for his opening statement. 

 MR. INSLEE. Thank you. I just hope that the courage of Masha 

Allen and Justin Berry is matched with appropriations by the U.S. 

Congress for resources to actually do something about this instead of just 

talk about it. 

 As a prosecutor, I learned that you could have all the laws on the 

books and you can have all the fancy library books you wanted in your 

library of all the great statutes that legislators had passed with great 

fanfare, but if you didn’t have detectives, if you didn’t have Internet 

search tools, if you didn’t have prosecutors, if you didn’t have victim 

advocates to help them through this process, this didn’t get shut down. 

This is not getting shut down. It is a $20 billion industry, we are told, on 

the Internet. To put that in context, it is a $3 billion industry for music, 

just to give a context to how large this is. 
437

 So while this has exploded exponentially, the United States 

Congress, the way it is currently formed, has had tiny little dribs and 

drabs of additional appropriations to get the prosecutors, to get the 

detectives, to get this job done. There is no secret here. When Justin 

Berry had the courage to come forward several weeks ago to talk about 

this, we learned from these detectives that said I got stacks, I got boxes 

back in my office that we can prosecute tomorrow if we had any 

resources to investigate them. So you will know whether Masha Allen’s 

courage is matched by Congress when you see whether or not we do the 

Federal appropriations to help the FBI and the Justice Department to get 

to the bottom of this, and whether also we help local communities with 

their local prosecution, because they are just as important as the Feds are 

in this. And instead, what this Congress has done is cut funding for local 

law enforcement in the COPS program and a variety of other places. 

 So I just want to say I just hope that Congress will show respect for 

Masha’s courage here with appropriations in addition to our verbal 

thanks for her courage here today. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. 

 The Chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee has just 

come in from a meeting, and at this time I recognize Chairman Barton 

for any opening statement he may want to make. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, thank you. I am not going to give an 

opening statement. I do want to appreciate you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Stupak for continuing to focus on this issue. I want to thank the young 

lady here who is brave enough to come forward. I want to thank the 

media representatives who have stood by her and helped to protect her 

and bring her story to the public. I appreciate what you all are doing. 

 This is an issue that this subcommittee takes absolutely seriously. I 

have four children and two stepchildren, of which three are still at home, 

and on a bipartisan basis, we are going to absolutely guarantee that when 

the hearings get through, if there is legislation that can be passed at the 

Federal level to help prevent this obscenity, we are going to do it. 

 I will be back to ask my questions, Mr. Chairman. I will come back 

for the second panel. I want to ask our friends at the Justice Department 

some questions. But on this panel, I just want to say thank you and we 

will continue to work together to try to find ways to prevent this 

problem. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 
438

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Whitfield, for holding this hearing. 

 Today’s hearing marks the third in a series of hearings that this subcommittee has 

held about the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. Our previous hearings 

have revealed a shocking and revolting problem. Unfortunately, with regard to the Justin 

Berry case, these hearings also have raised serious questions about whether the Justice 

Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are being aggressive enough in 

pursuing those individuals who seek to abuse and exploit children over the Internet. 

 Today, we are joined by two witnesses who can help explain how the Justice 

Department and the FBI investigate and prosecute these cases: Alice S. Fisher, Assistant 

Attorney General for the Criminal Division at Justice, and Raul Roldan, Section Chief of 

the Cyber Crime Section of the Cyber Division at FBI. I thank you both for taking the 

time to appear before us this afternoon although I am disappointed that Andrew 

Oosterbaan, the chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Justice 

Department, was not sent to this hearing. 

The recent arrests of 1,102 sexual offenders as part of the “Operation Falcon II” 

investigation are an example of the progress that is being made by the Justice 

Department, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies in the war against the sexual 

exploitation of children. I would like to take this opportunity to commend your 

departments for everything they did to make “Operation Falcon II” a success. Bringing 

these sexual predators to justice will undoubtedly help to make this world a safer place 

for our children. However, I think one thing this Committee’s investigation has shown us 

is that there is still much more work to do. 

Therefore, in addition to learning how effectively these cases are investigated and 

prosecuted, I hope Ms. Fisher and Mr. Roldan can comment on the role of Internet 

Service Providers and credit card companies in these investigations. The previous 

hearings have demonstrated that the war against child pornography is not simply a matter 

of law enforcement resources. For example, at our last hearing, agents from the state 

Internet Crimes Against Children task forces explained that some of their investigations 

have been thwarted because Internet Service Providers did not retain the data that would 

allow them to identify online child predators. There may be other areas where more 

should be required of the Internet and financial services industries with respect to 

retaining data and conducting due diligence of those who use servers and financial 

networks to distribute child pornography. As the Committee moves forward with this 

investigation, we are simply trying to better understand the scope of the problem, the 

adequacy of law enforcement efforts to fight it, and what we should do legislatively to 

help put an end to this epidemic of abuse. 

We are also joined today by Masha Allen. After being adopted from a Russian 

orphanage, Masha was raped and molested by her adoptive father, Matthew Mancuso, 

who placed images of that abuse on the Internet. Thankfully, Mancuso was prosecuted, 

convicted, and is now incarcerated. However, hundreds of images of Masha’s abuse are 

still on the Internet today. For this reason, Masha bravely decided to come forward and 

tell the public about the abuse she suffered and about the dangers lurking online. I know 

appearing before us today must not be easy, Masha, but I hope you will take some 

comfort in knowing that your story might help others. 

With Masha today is our colleague, Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. 

Congressman Gingrey has introduced a bill, H.R. 4703, also known as “Masha’s Law,” 

which he will discuss with us today. This bill will increase the civil statutory damages 

available to victims of online child exploitation to $150,000, the same fine that is 

imposed on those who illegally download music from the Internet. I thank the 

Congressman for taking the time to appear before the Committee this afternoon. 
439

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time. 

 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that 

concludes all the opening statements, so we will now get to the 

testimony, which is where we learn most of the important issues that we 

need to deal with. 

 You are aware that--I would, first of all, say that on the first panel, 

obviously, there has been a lot of reference to Masha Allen. Masha is on 

this first panel. She is 13 years old. She was the young lady who grew 

up until she was 5 years old in Russia. She was adopted by a gentleman 

in Pennsylvania and she will be testifying today. In addition, Ms. Nancy 

Grace, who is with CNN and was a former prosecutor, and has had a lot 

of experience and interest in this particular subject matter. We welcome 

her. 

 In addition, although the next three people that I am going to 

introduce are not going to be giving opening statements, they may be 

answering some questions. Mr. James Marsh, who is the attorney for 

Masha, and then Maureen Flatley, who works with Masha and her family 

and I understand she is an expert on adoption agency practices and other 

child issues. And then, of course, we are delighted that Masha’s 

adoptive mother, Faith Allen, is with us today, and we welcome you to 

the panel as well, Faith. 

 So we take this testimony under oath because it is an investigatory 

hearing, and I would ask you now, do any of you have any objection to 

testifying under oath? I would also advise you that under the rules of the 

House and the rules of the committee, everyone is entitled to legal 

counsel, and we know that Masha does have legal counsel. I have 

already introduced him. But the rest of you, do any of you desire to be 

advised by legal counsel? Okay. 

 All right. In case not, then I would ask all of you to stand and raise 

your right hand, and I will swear you in. 

 [Witnesses sworn.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. You are now sworn in, you 

are under oath, and we will begin the opening statements. 

 Masha, we are going to recognize you first for your 5-minute 

opening statement, and once again, we genuinely appreciate your 

willingness to testify before the committee and help bring this issue to 

the public. 

STATEMENTS OF MASHA ALLEN, C/O JAMES R. MARSH, 

ESQ.; AND NANCY GRACE, CNN NANCY GRACE 

 MS. ALLEN. Thank you. My name is Masha Allen. I am 13 years 

old and I live near Atlanta, Georgia, with my mother, Faith Allen. 
440

 When I was 5 years old, Matthew Mancuso, a Pittsburgh 

businessman who was a pedophile, adopted me. I was rescued almost 

three years ago when the FBI raided his home in a child pornography 

citing. After I was rescued, I learned that during the 5 years I lived with 

Matthew, he took hundreds of pornographic pictures of me and traded 

them over the Internet. 

 Thank you for conducting this hearing. Also, thank you for letting 

me have Nancy Grace here. Nancy is really special to my family and 

me. She has been an advocate for me and lots of other kids. 

 The Internet is everywhere in my story. You need to do something 

about it right away. 

 I was born August 25, 1992, in Russia. For the first 3 years of my 

life, I lived at home with my mother and siblings. My mother was an 

alcoholic. When I was 3 years old, she tried to kill me. She stabbed me 

in the neck and I almost died. The Government took me away from her 

and I went to live in an orphanage near my family’s home in Russia. 

 Living in the orphanage was scary and dangerous. There was 

constant noise and the older children abused the younger ones. I was 

afraid all the time. I kept all my belongings under my pillow because I 

was afraid that they would be stolen. After living in the orphanage for 2 

years, I found out that I was going to be adopted. Matthew visited the 

orphanage a couple of times. He seemed nice. He gave me presents. I 

asked if he was married and if I would have a mother, but he said no. He 

adopted me in Russia in July, 1998. After that, we left Russia and 

traveled to his house outside of Pittsburgh. The abuse started the night I 

got there. 

 Matthew didn’t have a bedroom for me. He made me sleep in his 

bedroom from the very beginning. He molested me all the time. He 

made me dress up in adult clothes and even pretended to marry me. 

Sometimes he kept me chained in the basement. Because he didn’t want 

me to grow up, he only let me eat a little bit of food: plain pasta, raw 

vegetables, no meat. Five years after I went to live with him, I was only 

gaining a little bit of weight. When I was rescued, I was 10 years old, 

but I only wore a size 6X. 

 Matthew let me go to school and sometimes play with friends, but he 

told me if I ever told anyone what was happening, that something bad 

would happen to me. Even though I was the size of a 5-year-old when I 

was 10, no one at my school ever said anything to anyone. No one from 

the adoption agency ever came to check on me to make sure I was okay. 

I never told anyone about the abuse because I was afraid and I thought 

that no one cared. 

 A lot of people ask me how anyone could let a pedophile adopt a 

little girl. I didn’t know very much about my adoption until my lawyer 
441

investigated everything. Now, I know there were three adoption 

agencies involved with my adoption by Matthew. The first was Families 

Through International Adoption in Indiana. I think Matthew found them 

on the Internet. He went to an office they had in New Jersey. The State 

of New Jersey found out that they were operating without a license and 

closed them down. The same people who worked for that agency just 

started a new agency in the same office in New Jersey that they called 

Reaching Out Through International Adoptions. The two agencies are 

fighting over who was really responsible for Matthew adopting me, but 

the name of the Families Through International Adoption is on the home 

study, the immigration paperwork, and the Russian government 

documents. I think Matthew also paid Families Through International 

Adoptions. Reaching Out Through International Adoption was really 

just the same agency, the same people, with different names. A third 

agency did Matthew’s home study to adopt me. They were in Pittsburgh 

and were called the Family Health Council, but they just changed their 

name to Adagio Health. 

 I found out, after I was safe, that none of these agencies asked 

Matthew any questions. They never really checked him out. They 

showed him pictures of me, probably on the Internet, before he had a 

home study to adopt me. In some of the pictures they showed him of me 

from the orphanage, I was naked. He told them he was divorced and had 

a daughter that he wasn’t close to. I found out later that the reason his 

daughter didn’t talk to him was because she was molested, too. 

 While I lived with Matthew, no one from any of the adoption 

agencies ever came to check on me, though the Russian government 

requires it. As my story came out, we found out two other kids, a boy 

from Romania and a girl from Russia were adopted by pedophiles, too. 

Just so you know, 14 other Russian kids have actually been murdered by 

their adoptive parents. I am sure there are other kids in trouble, but no 

one seems to care about any of this. When I told my story in public for 

the first time, all the adoption agencies, not just Matthew’s, tried to cover 

up my story. I lived with Matthew for 5 years. The whole time, he 

starved and molested me. The whole time, he took pictures of me. I 

didn’t know until later that he was putting my pictures on the Internet to 

trade, maybe to sell to other pedophiles. I was rescued when the FBI 

discovered that Matthew had a lot of child pornography on his computer. 

They came to raid his house; they didn’t know I would be there. When 

the FBI arrested Matthew, I was taken to the hospital, examined, and 

then put in foster care. My foster mother was Faith Allen. She 

understood what I was going through because she was sexually abused 

when she was little. She was a foster child in Georgia when she was 
442

growing up. As soon as I went to live with her, I felt safe. She adopted 

me on May 14, 2004. 

 Matthew was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh 

on September 25, 2003. He was convicted on child pornography charges 

for all the pictures he had on his computer. He was only sentenced for 

15 years in prison for that. I was afraid he would get out of jail too soon. 

He was convicted again in Pennsylvania State Court on August 23, 2005, 

of 11 criminal acts for some of the things he did to me. He was 

sentenced last November to 35 years in prison. I was really upset that he 

didn’t receiver a harder sentence. I was even more upset that he was sent 

to a hospital in Massachusetts so he could be rehabilitated. A person like 

Matthew can never be rehabilitated. Plus, in this hospital prison, he has 

free healthcare, free mental health services, and can read magazines, play 

ping-pong, and have hobbies. No one cares about rehabilitating me. I 

just lost my Medicaid and my mom has to work doubly hard to pay for 

the things that I need while Matthew lays around in the hospital playing 

games. 

 I was really mad that Matthew didn’t get a harder sentence and that 

he went to an easy prison, but I got much more upset when I found out 

about the pictures of me that he put on the Internet. I had no idea he had 

done that. When I found out about it, I asked our lawyer to get them 

back. He told me that we couldn’t do that. I found out that they would 

be there forever. That is when I got mad and decided to go public with 

my story. Usually when a kid is hurt, the abuser goes to prison and the 

abuse is over, but because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet, the 

abuse is still going on and everyone can see them. People are still 

downloading them. We get notices from the FBI every time someone is 

arrested for it. I want every single one of them to go to jail, and they will 

be punished, but that is a problem too. 

 I found out last summer that if someone downloads a song off the 

Internet, the penalty is three times worse than if someone downloads 

child pornography. I couldn’t believe it. How could this be? That is 

when I decided we had to change the laws about downloading child porn. 

Senator Kerry and Senator Isakson and Congressman Gingrey and 

Congressman Tierney introduced bills in Congress that make the penalty 

the same as downloading songs. That was a few months ago. There 

hasn’t been a vote on it. I want every single Member of Congress to 

support these bills and want Congress to pass them right away. There are 

lots of cases of people downloading our pictures, and I want every single 

one of them to be punished as much as possible. 

 There might be more pictures of me on the Internet than any other 

real child. The police told my lawyer that a lot of child pornographers, 

more than half even, have my pictures on their computers, and there are a 
443

lot of other kids like me, too. People who are doing this should be afraid. 

We know who they are. A lot of people downloading those pictures are 

professionals. They are doctors and teachers and ministers who would 

like to put their pictures on the Internet and tell people what they are 

doing. People stopped downloading songs when they found out they 

could be sued. We are going to sue these guys too, every single one of 

them. I want to tell them you aren’t doing this in secret anymore. 

Everyone can find out who you are. 

 I am really upset about the pictures on the Internet, and I am upset 

about what Matthew did to me, physically. A lot of people are surprised 

that I wanted to go public with my story, but I have been on the Internet 

since I was 5 years old. Going on television shows wasn’t going to hurt 

me. I did it because I don’t think anyone is doing enough about the 

things that happened to me and a lot of other kids. Talking to John 

Quinones and Nancy Grace helped me. They were my champions. I felt 

in charge of my story because of them. I know they will help me to help 

other kids like me. People need to know about this stuff. The adults 

who let this happen have just tried to cover it up. 

 You have to do something about the Internet. Matthew found the 

adoption agency on the Internet. They let him look at my pictures from 

Russia on the Internet, even though they didn’t know anything about 

him. Other kids have been adopted by pedophiles the same way. 

Matthew put my pictures on the Internet after he got me. People are still 

downloading them, even though he has been in prison for 2 years. We 

don’t even know whether he still makes money from them, even though 

he is in jail. Even now that I am safe, the Internet is still a dangerous 

place for me to go. The police detective who found Matthew’s home for 

the FBI said I should never go to chat rooms even for fun things, because 

they almost always have pedophiles. 

 Ten years ago, I was a scared little girl in a Russian orphanage. For 

5 years, I was held hostage by a monster. But in the last 2 years, a lot of 

amazing things have happened. John Quinones and Nancy listened to me 

and told my story to the whole world. I called my Congressman, Dr. 

Gingrey, who didn’t even know me. He introduced a bill in Congress 

right away to help me and other kids like me. Because of all these 

things, I believe I can do something for other kids so they don’t have to 

go through what I did. 

 Some people say we can’t control what is on the Internet, but that is 

ridiculous. If we can put a man on the moon, we can make the Internet 

safe for kids. That is just common sense. I am going to work hard to 

protect other kids and make sure people who hurt them are punished. I 

hope you will help me. You can start by passing Masha’s Law right 

away. That would be a good start. 
444

 Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Masha Allen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MASHA ALLEN, C/O JAMES R. MARSH, ESQ. 

My name is Masha Allen. I am 13 years old and live near Atlanta, Georgia with my 

mother, Faith Allen. When I was five years old Matthew Mancuso, a Pittsburgh 

businessman who was a pedophile, adopted me. I was rescued almost three years ago 

when the FBI raided his home in a child pornography sting. After I was rescued I learned 

that during the five years I lived with Matthew he took hundreds of pornographic pictures 

of me and traded them over the Internet. Thank you for conducting this hearing. Also, 

thank you for letting me have Nancy Grace here. Nancy is really special to my family 

and me. She has been an advocate for me and lots of other kids. The Internet is 

everywhere in my story. You need to do something about it right away. 

I was born on August 25, 1992 in Novochakhtinsk, Russia. For the first three years 

of my life I lived at home with my mother and siblings. My mother was an alcoholic. 

When I was three years old she tried to kill me. She stabbed me in the neck and I almost 

died. The government took me away from her and I went to live in an orphanage near 

my family’s home in Russia. 

Living in the orphanage was scary and dangerous. There was constant noise and the 

older children abused the younger ones. I was afraid all the time. I kept all of my 

belongings under my pillow because I was afraid they would be stolen. After living in 

the orphanage for two years I found out that I was going to be adopted. 

Matthew visited the orphanage a couple of times. He seemed nice. He gave me 

presents. I asked him if he was married and if I would have a mother but he said no. He 

adopted me in Russia in July 1998. After that we left Russia and traveled to his house 

outside of Pittsburgh. The abuse started the night I got there. 

Matthew didn’t have a bedroom for me. He made me sleep in his bed from the very 

beginning. He molested me all the time. He made me dress up in adult’s clothes and 

even pretended to marry me. Sometimes he kept me chained in the basement. Because 

he didn’t want me to grow up, he only let me eat a little bit of food – plain pasta, raw 

vegetables, no meat. Five years after I went to live with him I had only gained a little bit 

of weight. When I was rescued I was 10 years old but I only wore a size 6X. 

Matthew let me go to school and sometimes play with friends. But he told me if I 

ever told anyone what was happening that something bad would happen to me. Even 

though I was the size of a five year old when I was ten, no one at my school ever said 

anything to anyone. No one from the adoption agency ever came to check on me to make 

sure I was OK. I never told anyone about the abuse because I was afraid and I thought no 

one cared. 

A lot of people ask me how any could let a pedophile adopt a little girl. I didn’t 

know very much about my adoption until my lawyer investigated everything. Now I 

know there were three adoption agencies involved in my adoption by Matthew. The first 

was Families Thru International Adoption in Indiana. I think Matthew found them on the 

Internet. He went to an office they had in New Jersey. The state of New Jersey found 

out that they were operating without a license and closed them down. The same people 

who worked for that agency just started a new agency in the same office in New Jersey 

that they called Reaching Out Thru International Adoption. 

The two agencies are fighting over who was really responsible for Matthew adopting 

me. But the name of Families Thru International Adoption is on the home study, the 

immigration paperwork and the Russian government documents. I think Matthew also 

paid Families Thru International Adoption. Reaching Out Thru International Adoption 

was really just the same agency and the same people with a different name. A third 
445

agency did Matthew’s home study to adopt me. They were in Pittsburgh and were called 

the Family Health Council. But they just changed their name too, to Adagio Health. 

I found out after I was safe that none of these agencies asked Matthew many 

questions. They never really checked him out. They showed him pictures of me, 

probably on the Internet, before he had a home study to adopt me. In some of the 

pictures they showed him of me from the orphanage I was naked. He told them he was 

divorced and had a daughter that he wasn’t close to. I found out later that the reason his 

daughter didn’t talk to him is that he molested her too. While I lived with Matthew no 

one from any of the adoption agencies ever came to check on me even though the 

Russian government requires it. Since my story came out we found out that two other 

kids – a boy from Romania and a girl from Russia – were adopted by pedophiles too. 

Just so you’ll know, fourteen other Russian kids have actually been murdered by their 

adoptive parents in America. I’m sure there are other kids in trouble. But no one seems 

to care about any of this. When I told my story in public for the first time all the adoption 

agencies, not just Matthew’s tried to cover up my story. 

I lived with Matthew for five years. The whole time he starved and molested me. 

The whole time he took a lot of pictures of me. I didn’t know until later that he was 

putting my pictures on the Internet to trade and maybe sell to other pedophiles. I was 

rescued when the FBI discovered that Matthew had a lot of child pornography on his 

computer. They came to raid his house. They didn’t know I would be there. 

When the FBI arrested Matthew I was taken to the hospital, examined and then put 

in foster care. My foster mother was Faith Allen. She understood what I was going 

through because she was sexually abused when she was little. She was a foster child in 

Georgia when she was growing up. As soon as I went to live with her I felt safe. She 

adopted me on May 14, 2004. 

Matthew was prosecuted by the US Attorney’s office in Pittsburgh and on 

September 25, 2003 he was convicted on child pornography charges for all the pictures 

he had on his computer. He was only sentenced to fifteen years in prison for that. I was 

afraid he would get out of jail too soon. He was convicted again in Pennsylvania state 

court on August 23, 2005 of eleven criminal acts for some of the things he did to me. He 

was sentenced last November to 35 years in prison. I was really upset that he didn’t 

receive a harder sentence. I was even more upset that he was sent to a hospital in 

Massachusetts so he could be rehabilitated. A person like Matthew can never be 

rehabilitated. Plus in this hospital prison he has free health care, free mental health 

services and he can read magazines, play ping-pong and have hobbies. No one cared 

about rehabilitating me. I just lost my Medicaid and my mom has to work double hard to 

pay for the things I need while Matthew lays around the hospital playing games. 

I was really mad that Matthew didn’t get harder sentences and that he went to an 

easy prison. But I got much more upset when I found out about the pictures of me that he 

put on the Internet. I had no idea he had done that. When I found out about it I asked our 

lawyer to get them back. He told me we couldn’t do that. Then I found out that they 

would be there forever. That’s when I got mad and decided to go public with my story. 

Usually, when a kid is hurt and the abuser goes to prison, the abuse is over. But 

because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet the abuse is still going on. Anyone can 

see them. People are still downloading them – we get notices from the FBI every time 

someone is arrested for it. I want every single one of them to go to jail and really be 

punished. But that’s a problem too. 

I found out last summer that if someone downloads a song off the Internet the 

penalty is three times worse than if someone downs child pornography. I couldn’t 

believe it! How can this be? That’s when I decided that we had to change the laws about 

downloading child porn. Senator Kerry and Senator Isakson and Congressman Gingery 

and Congressman Tierney introduced bills in Congress that make the penalty the same as 

downloading songs. That was a few months ago. There hasn’t been a vote on it. I want 
446

every single member of Congress to sponsor these bills and I want the Congress to pass 

them right away. 

There are a lot of cases of people who downloaded my pictures and I want every 

single one of them to be punished as much as possible. There might be more pictures of 

me on the Internet than any other real child. The police told my lawyer that a lot of child 

pornographers – more than half even – have my picture on their computers. And there 

are a lot of other kids like me too. The people who are doing this should be afraid. We 

know who they are. A lot of the people downloading these pictures are professionals. 

They are doctors and teachers and ministers. We’re going to put THEIR pictures on the 

Internet and tell people what they are doing. People stopped downloading songs when 

they found out they could be sued. We’re going to sue these guys too – every single one 

we find out about. I want to tell them, “You’re not doing this in secret anymore. 

Everyone can find out who you are!” 

I’m more upset about the pictures on the Internet than I am about what Matthew did 

to me physically. A lot of people are surprised that I wanted to go public with my story. 

But I’ve been on the Internet since I was five years old. Going on a television show 

wasn’t going to hurt me. I did it because I didn’t think anyone was doing enough about 

the things that happened to me and to a lot of other kids. Talking to John Quinones and 

Nancy Grace has helped me. They were my champions. I feel in charge of my story 

because of them. I know they will help me to help other kids like me. People need to 

know about this stuff. The adults who let this happen have just tried to cover it up. 

You have to do something about the Internet. Matthew found the adoption agency 

on the Internet. They let him look at my pictures from Russia on the Internet even though 

they didn’t really know anything about him. Other kids have been adopted by pedophiles 

the same way. Matthew put my pictures on the Internet after he got me. People are still 

downloading them even though he has been in prison for two years. We don’t even know 

whether he still makes money for them even though he’s in jail. Even now that I’m safe 

the Internet is still a dangerous place for me to go. The police detective who found 

Matthew’s house for the FBI said I should never go to chat rooms even for fun things 

because they almost always have predators. 

Ten years ago I was a scared little girl in a Russian orphanage. For five years I was 

held hostage by a monster. But in the last two years a lot of amazing things have 

happened. John Quinones and Nancy listened to me and told my story to the whole 

world. I called my Congressman, Dr. Gingery, who didn’t even know me. He 

introduced a bill in Congress right away to help me and other kids like me. Because of 

all these things, I believe I can do something for other kids so they don’t have to go 

through what I did. 

Some people say we can’t control what’s on the Internet but that’s ridiculous. If we 

can put a man on the moon, we can make the Internet safe for kids. That’s just common 

sense. I’m going to work hard to protect other kids and make sure people who hurt them 

are punished. I hope you will help me. You can start by passing Masha’s Law right 

away! That would be a good start! 

Witness contact information: 

James Marsh, Esquire 

Marsh, Menken and Weingarden, PLLC 

81 Main Street 

Suite 305 

White Plains, NY 10606 

914.686.4456 
447

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Masha, for your testimony. 

At this time, I will recognize Ms. Grace for her 5-minute opening 

statement. 

MS. GRACE. Thank you. 

 After growing up in a loving home where there was nothing the eye 

could see except soybean fields and pine trees, I suddenly learned about 

a whole other world, a world I had never known anything about, after the 

murder of my college sweetheart just before our wedding, my fiancé. In 

deep grief, I answered the call not just to be a crime victim, but to fight 

violent crime. I applied, entered, and graduated from law school and had 

the opportunity to fight violent crime over 10 years in inner city Atlanta. 

I learned about a world I never knew existed. I learned there were 

people who do not follow the rules as we know them. During that time, I 

often represented the single most innocent segment of America, its 

children. 

 I learned in court that children speak a language all their own. 

Prosecutors and social workers are very hard-pressed to understand it 

sometimes. Once I broke that barrier, I was pained to learn the suffering 

of our children. No, not children far, far away in some other country, 

where we can go to bed at night and put our head on the pillow and 

sleep, and think no, no, not here. Not here in America. They are here in 

our country, in our States, on this very block. Their suffering knows no 

barrier, white, black, good students, bad students, the well-to-do, the 

poor. 

 I can’t begin to tell you what I saw with my own two eyes. How 

many children ranging from infants to toddlers, elementary schoolers, 

beaten, raped, used, covered in cigarette burns, sometimes starved, left 

alone. Child by child, case by case, jury by jury, I tried so hard to make 

a difference so that one day these children would know when they grow 

up that someone had fought for them when they were too powerless to 

struggle. 

 As the years went on, I began to realize that I was simply putting a 

band-aid on a mortal wound. That while I could detect, apprehend, and 

punish child predators, I had no way of stopping future predators. What 

could be done, I wondered, besides taking the individual offender off the 

street. I didn’t know the answer, so I, like you, just struggled every day 

and wrestled. 

 My life path landed me at Court TV and CNN’s Headline News, and 

I have the opportunity to continue this battle in another forum. It is there 

at Headline News I learned of Masha. When I approached Headline 

executives, we joined together to tell the world her story. Together, we 

join forces today to ask you for our voices to be heard. 
448

 All the statistics that you have heard became real for me when I met 

this girl, this little girl, a tiny girl with a big, big voice. As you know, her 

case highlights so many grievous failings of our system, from illegal 

foreign adoption, what can go so horribly wrong, to undetected fullblown child molestation that went undetected by teachers, friends, 

neighbors from age 5 to age 10. Most of us have memories of birthday 

cakes, of Christmas trees, of dinner around the table when your parents 

come home from work with your brother and your sister. Not her. Her 

memories are fear and pain and sexual exploitation at the hands of a man 

we now know to be a virtual clearinghouse for the most horrific child 

pornography I have ever laid my eyes on. 

 In addition to the outright abuse he heaped on his own child, dozens 

and dozens, hundreds of photos of this girl will be forever on the 

Internet. Did you hear her say, I asked my lawyer could he get them 

back? Nothing she said hurt me so much as that, that innocence of a 

child believing she could take it all back and it would be okay. 

 Now, technology has made it so easy for these twisted perpetrators to 

not only fill their appetite for our children, but allow them a window 

back into the child’s home, every home in America where a child is 

sleeping, is playing, is setting the dinner table tonight, doing their 

homework. In addition, the so-called Super Highway is just that. It is 

just a pit stop for predators to gather, to share stories, share their illegal 

photos, and pass on tips to each other, and they do, to how better meet, 

seduce, have sex with, and sometimes kidnap our children. 

 This child, a little girl, has been so very brave. A staggering 

majority of little children, child molestation victims, never speak out. 

They never make a peep. Often, they can’t. They go on living their lives 

in quiet desperation with the albatross hanging around their neck of pain 

and helplessness like no other. Not only has this child come forward and 

spoken out, she has made her way here to our Nation’s capital. How 

many of us dreamed of being here one day to make a difference? 

 As you all know, it is written in the oldest book of all, “A little child 

shall lead us,” and so she has. She has displayed more courage in her 

short life than many of us will in a lifetime. I am here today before you, 

humble, on behalf of every child victim I ever knew, every child victim I 

never met, for those who are too young or weak or innocent or simply 

afraid to speak out, to ask you, sirs and madams, for your help in passing 

legislation, forcing it through, that will stop child sex predators. 

 I am so proud to be in this room today that you may often take for 

granted. My prayer is that you will use your power to protect the 

weakest among us. 

 Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Nancy Grace follows:] 
449

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY GRACE, CNN NANCY GRACE

After growing up in a loving home, where there was nothing but soybean fields and 

tall pine trees as far as the eye could see, I suddenly learned about a whole other world. 

Suddenly and without warning, I became a victim of violent crime when my fiancé, my 

college sweetheart was murdered shortly before our wedding. In deep grief, I answered 

the call not to simply be a victim of violent crime, but to fight it. In that vein, I applied, 

entered, and graduated from law school and then, had the opportunity to fight violent 

crime for over ten years in the courtrooms of inner-city Atlanta. During that time, I 

learned about a world I had never before known existed. A world where rules, as we 

know them, do not apply...where those more powerful or cunning prey on others that are 

weaker or simply more innocent than themselves. During that time, I often represented 

the single most innocent segment of American life, specifically, children. 

I learned in court that children speak a language of their own that prosecutors and 

social workers are hard pressed to understand. Once I broke that barrier, I was pained to 

learn the suffering of children...not far, far away in another country so we could say “No, 

no...never here in America!” and put our head to our pillow at night to sleep easy, but 

here, in this country, in this region, in this state....on this street. Their suffering knows 

no barrier, white, black, good students, bad students, the well-to-do, the poor. 

I can not begin to tell you what I saw with my own two eyes. How many children 

did I see? Ranging from infants to toddlers to elementary schoolers beaten horribly, 

raped, used, covered in cigarette burns, sometimes starved, left alone. Child by child, 

case by case, jury by jury, I tried so very, very hard to make a difference in these 

particular children’s lives...so that one day they would know when they grew up, that 

someone had cared, someone had fought for them when they were to young and innocent, 

too powerless to fight back. 

As the years went on, I began to realize that I was simply putting a Band-Aid on a 

mortal wound... that while I could detect, apprehend, and punish child predators, I had 

no way of stopping future predators. What could be done, I wondered, besides taking 

that individual offender off the street after-the-fact? I didn’t know the answer...so I just 

kept on and on and on. 

My life-path landed me at Court TV and at CNN’s Headline News, where I have the 

opportunity to continue my battle in another forum. And it is there, at Headline News, I 

first learned of Masha. When I told Headline News executives of her story, the call to try 

and DO SOMETHING was heard. Together, we join forces in asking you for her, for our 

voices to be heard. 

The threat of internet child predators is like no other. Some studies put numbers of 

child internet victims at one in five young internet users. (Youth Internet Safety Survey, 

2001). When asked, many of the children stated the solicitation made them feel 

extremely upset or afraid. Ninety-seven percent of the solicitors were strangers. (Id.) 

Shockingly, seventy percent of these unwanted solicitations happened when the child was 

using a computer in their own home. 

These statistics became real to me the evening I met Masha, a tiny little girl who 

now, has a big, big voice. As you know, her case highlights so many grievous failings of 

the legal system, ranging from illegal foreign adoptions and what can go so horribly 

wrong, to undetected full-blown child molestation that went undetected by teachers, 

friends, and neighbors from Masha’s age five to age ten. Most of us have memories of 

birthday cakes, Christmas trees. School bus rides and dinners around the family table 

each night. Not Masha. Her early childhood memories are those of fear, pain, and sexual 

exploitation at the hands of a man we now know to be virtual clearing house for internet 

child pornography. 
450

In addition to the outright abuse he heaped on his own adopted child for years, 

dozens and dozens of photos of her in pornographic poses remain forever in cyberspace, 

traded like baseball cards amongst child predators. It is horrific. It is wrong. 

And now, technology has made it so easy for these twisted perpetrators to not only 

fuel their own sick appetites for our children through internet child pornography, but to 

allow them a window into every home in America where a child is sleeping, playing, 

setting the table, doing their homework. In addition, the so-called Super Highway is just 

that, and serves as a pit stop for predators to gather, share stories, share their illegal 

photos, and pass on tips to each other as to how better to meet little children, then seduce, 

and even abduct them. 

This child, Masha, a little girl for Pete’s sake, has been so very, very brave. A 

staggering majority of child molestation victims never speak out, never make a peep, and 

go on living their lives in quiet desperation, never really being free of the albatross 

hanging around their necks, a hidden pain and feeling of helplessness like no other. Not 

openly has this child come forward and spoken out, she has made her way here, to our 

nation’s capital, to ask for you to act. 

As it was written “a little child shall lead us,” and so she has. She has displayed 

more courage in her short life than many will show in a lifetime. I am here today on 

behalf of every child victim I ever represented, of every child victim I never met, on 

behalf of those who are too weak or young or innocent or simply too afraid to speak out, 

to ask you for your help in passing legislation that will not only crack down upon, but 

help stop ongoing child sex predators. 

I am so proud to be here today. My prayer is that you will use your power to protect 

the weakest among us. 

Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Ms. Grace. Your testimony was 

certainly compelling, both of you. You almost don’t know where to 

really start. When you think about this subject matter, it shows, I think, 

something systemically wrong with our society because I have been told 

that in the U.S. this problem is so pervasive that it is just mind-boggling 

for everyone. We have heard testimony about Masha and what has 

happened to her, and earlier today I found out that there have been 14 

adopted children from Russia that have been murdered by their American 

adoptive parents. We can’t fathom why adoptions like this have been 

allowed to happen, why someone like Mancuso would be able to adopt a 

child from anywhere. 

 So one of the questions that I would like to get into to start off with 

relates to this adoption issue. It is my understanding, and Mr. Marsh, 

you may be able to help in this, or Ms. Flatley or maybe Ms. Grace, that 

the name of the adoption agency was the Families for International 

Adoption, is that the name of the agency? 

 MS. FLATLEY. Families Through International Adoption is the 

agency of record. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Families Through International Adoption. And 

Mr. Mancuso initially went to New Jersey, is that correct? 

 MS. FLATLEY. An office that they had in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 

correct. 
451

 MR. WHITFIELD. And was that a licensed agency in New Jersey? 

 MS. FLATLEY. It was not, and the State of New Jersey ultimately 

suspended their operations. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And when did he actually adopt Masha, was it in 

1998? 

 MS. FLATLEY. The adoption was finalized, I believe, in July of 

1998. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And he went to Russia to pick her up, is that 

correct? 

 MS. FLATLEY. Correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, Masha, when you first met Mr. Mancuso in 

Russia, how was it explained to you about who he was or what he was or 

why he was there? 

 MS. ALLEN. I knew that he was going to adopt me because I found 

out, but they didn’t really tell me a lot about him, so yeah. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So the people at the orphanage in Russia told you 

that you would be adopted by an American? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And I suppose at that time you were maybe excited 

about it, because from what you said about the orphanage, that was a 

rather unpleasant experience also. Is that correct? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And how many times did you meet Mr. Mancuso 

and spend time with him before you actually went to America with him? 

 MS. ALLEN. About two or three times. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Two or three times? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And how long did you stay with him? 

 MS. ALLEN. He came like for the day to visit for a couple hours 

sometimes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. How did you feel about it? Did you want to go to 

America? Did you feel like that was in your best interest at that time? 

 MS. ALLEN. Well, he seemed nice. He would bring me gifts. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And you knew that he was not married, correct? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, he told me he wasn’t. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I guess that was maybe disappointing for you, but 

at the same time, it was an opportunity for maybe a new life for you. 

Would that be accurate? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, when you arrived at Mr. Mancuso’s home, it 

is my understanding that there was only one bedroom. Is that right? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, he only had one bedroom. 
452

 MR. WHITFIELD. And that is when he told you that you would 

actually be sleeping with him? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, he told me that because we got in late, and so we 

just went to bed like first thing. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And what did you think about that? 

 MS. ALLEN. I didn’t-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Of course, you were very young at the time, 

weren’t you? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. How old were you? 

 MS. ALLEN. I was 5. At first I thought it might be normal, because 

you know how some little kids sleep with their parents, but then after the 

first night I figured out that there was something wrong because he tried 

to touch me or something. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, I know this has been difficult for you, but 

you did testify also that he actually kept you chained in the basement or 

in a room or where? 

 MS. ALLEN. In the basement. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. How frequently were you chained in the 

basement? 

 MS. ALLEN. Maybe like once a month or something. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. For how long? 

 MS. ALLEN. A couple hours, or sometimes he would leave me down 

there for a while. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, why would he do that? 

 MS. ALLEN. I don’t know. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. He would just take you downstairs and chain you? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, he would take my pictures and-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Were you nude? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes, I was. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And did he have you chained to a bed or to a post 

or-- 

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, it was a post. There were two of them. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Two posts? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Your hands would be chained, or your legs? 

 MS. ALLEN. Both. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Both? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. That went on for the entire period of time that you 

lived with him? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 
453

 MR. WHITFIELD. And did he ever tell you what he was going to do 

with those pictures? 

 MS. ALLEN. No, he just said he was keeping them. I don’t know. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So you had no idea that he was trading them over 

the Internet-- 

 MS. ALLEN. No. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. --all around the world? 

 MS. ALLEN. At the time, I didn’t think that that was possible. I 

didn’t know. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Was there ever a time that you were scared of him, 

that he might injure you physically or try to harm you? 

 MS. ALLEN. I was always scared of him, but I don’t really think that 

he--like he never hit me a lot or anything, but I was always scared of 

him. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, he did tell you frequently that if you told 

anyone that you might be harmed. Is that correct? 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Did you ever think about telling someone else? I 

often wonder when a child is experiencing the type of things that you are 

experiencing, and we talked to Justin Berry about this as well. Can you 

explain to us how you felt and why you didn’t tell anybody? 

 MS. ALLEN. I was afraid because I thought he would do something 

to me, and I didn’t know what would happen. At school, they would 

never talk about any of this kind of stuff, so I was really confused, too. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Yes, yes. Mr. Marsh or Ms. Flatley, how is it that 

an adoption agency--do you have any idea how much money Mr. 

Mancuso paid this adoption agency? 

 MS. FLATLEY. We are informed by a reliable source that it was 

probably in the neighborhood of about $15,000, which is actually 

somewhat less than we might have expected. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And from the facts of this case and from the 

information that you have seen on applications or whatever, is there any 

reason that you can fathom why an adoption agency would approve a 

gentleman like Mancuso to adopt any child? 

 MS. FLATLEY. I think the question, Mr. Chairman, is more does an 

adoption agency like this ever decline to place a child with anyone. The 

adoption, as we have discussed, was exceptionally unregulated. In fact, I 

wanted to share with Mr. Walden as an aside that the two other children 

that we know of who were adopted by pedophiles were adopted in Salem 

County, Oregon. The perpetrators were prosecuted by the same State 

prosecutor, who did a wonderful job, by the way. So one of the 

underlying issues here, and the thing that I think was of greatest concern 

to us is that when we began to investigate the circumstances around 
454

Masha’s adoption, and we certainly believe that the adoption agencies in 

this case might have been manipulated by him, although it turns out not 

to have been the case, that they have characterized on national television 

that the process that went on in Masha’s adoption was actually typical. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Typical? 

 MS. FLATLEY. It begs the question in our minds how many other 

Masha’s are there out there. The fact is, no one knows. But the fact is, 

we are quite certain that there are. 

 MR. MARSH. We also, in looking into this, Mr. Chairman, believe 

that the fragmentation in the adoption system worked to Mr. Mancuso’s 

advantage. He was dealing with a well-regarded agency in Pittsburgh to 

do the home study. He was dealing with another agency headquartered 

out of State to do the adoption. That agency was dealing with a 

facilitator in Russia to actually find the child. The facilitator was dealing 

with a different set of orphanages in Russia to identify and procure the 

child. So based on the fragmentation in the system, he was able to 

basically pick and choose the avenue by which he wanted to adopt and I 

think this is definitely a factor that helped facilitate. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Did you say a well-respected agency in Pittsburgh 

did the home study? 

 MR. MARSH. We initially thought that it would be an independent 

social worker or someone very new that had signed off on the home 

study, which really reads like a public relations document. In fact, I wish 

we had a copy here today because it is laughable. On the last page of the 

document, the writer refers to Mr. Mancuso as being a highly moral 

individual and an outstanding citizen. I am not mincing words here. It 

says that, ironically and unbelievably. So we believe that it would be a 

rookie social worker doing the report that he could have conceivably 

paid off, and in fact, it was a well-respected agency that-- 

 MS. FLATLEY. And Mr. Whitfield, if I may add, we also believe that 

one of the reasons this happened so readily is the U.S. State Department 

has effectively become a lobbying arm for the adoption industry. We 

were quite disturbed to learn from the Salem County, Oregon 

prosecutor’s office who prosecuted the two other pedophiles who 

adopted children, one from Romania and one from Russia, that the U.S. 

State Department, this past fall, attempted to coerce him into deleting 

any references to adoption from his press releases, and in fact, furnished 

him by e-mail with a draft press release to substitute for the press release 

that he had written. Now, it should be noted that he really didn’t get the 

adoption connection at the time. It appeared a coincidence to him. But 

to the extent that you and we have been hampered in our efforts to 

institute greater and more effective regulation of adoption, it is in large 
455

part because, in fact, the U.S. government has conspired with the system 

to remain unregulated. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. So in that instance, it sounds like the State 

Department was doing a cover-up as well as the adoption agency wanted 

to cover up. 

 MS. FLATLEY. Exactly. When Masha’s story went public on ABC 

News Primetime Live in December, 3 weeks before Primetime’s story 

aired, when the adoption agencies--not just the ones involved, I should 

say, but all of the adoption agencies involved in international adoption, 

discovered that Primetime was doing a story on this, they inundated ABC 

News with over 3,000 e-mails attempting to coerce them into canceling 

the story and/or censoring the story. So to the extent that we have a 

culture here in this industry that is not about the children, we have a 

more serious problem and the problem you see in front of you today. 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. Just for the 

record, it is actually Marion County. It is the City of Salem, but I know 

we may want to follow up just for our record, but I appreciate the 

reference. 

 MS. FLATLEY. Very good, thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would recognize Mr. Stupak. We 

have, unfortunately, 7 minutes to cast a vote, five votes. So we are going 

to recess and we will be back at 5:00. I apologize once again, and Mr. 

Stupak will be recognized. 

 MR. STUPAK. Before we leave, Mr. Marsh, can you give us that 

document that you testified to where they described Mr. Mancuso-- 

 MR. MARSH. Yes, we can. 

 MR. STUPAK. --so we can have it for the record to complete your 

testimony. 

 MR. MARSH. Absolutely. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. 

 [Recess.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I apologize. You have been very patient and at 

this time, I am going to recognize Mr. Stupak for his line of questioning, 

then I understand that some people on the first panel, Ms. Grace in 

particular, have some time deadlines, so I recognize Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, thank you. Let me thank all the witnesses for 

their testimony, especially Masha, for your testimony. I think we should 

also acknowledge your mother, Faith Allen, who is here with you, for her 

very important role that she plays in your life. 

 Let me ask you, Masha, if I may, one question. What is most 

important to you, and from your testimony, I think I can understand it, 

but I would like you to explain it. Is it getting your images off the 

Internet, is that the most important thing to you? 
456

 MS. ALLEN. Yeah, it is very important for me, but I understand that 

it is very unlikely that they all will be taken off. The thing that is most 

important to me right now is trying to help other people and trying to get 

everyone aware of the topic. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 Mr. Marsh, you are Masha’s attorney, and I know you are 

contemplating a civil litigation against a number of parties involved in 

the actual adoption. We have a book here, it is titled “Beyond Tolerance: 

Child Pornography on the Internet” by Philip Jenkins, in which he 

describes the great difficulty in removing these images from the Internet. 

There are literally thousands of collectors all over the world who have 

thousands of images, some of them decades old. In fact, they call them 

the classic collections, if I am correct. These people are technologically 

very sophisticated and a click of the button can give them a new location 

and a new life. So what can we in Congress and law enforcement do to 

help remove these images? 

 MR. MARSH. That is a very good question, Congressman. 

 The first thought that I had when Masha asked me that question last 

summer as to whether or not we could remove her pictures from the 

Internet was in the nature of copyright law, whether or not we could gain 

any sort of legal control over them so that we would have at least a 

remedy or a cause of action or some way to assert a legal claim over the 

images themselves. I was quite frankly-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Would you have to cert that through the victim? 

 MR. MARSH. Excuse me? 

 MR. STUPAK. The copyright. 

 MR. MARSH. We were actually quite surprised to find that that 

provision was already provided for in the criminal code-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MR. MARSH. --and it involved what is the precursor to Masha’s Law 

and had been on the book for 20 years. I was, quite frankly, very 

shocked to find that our current code provides for civil remedies for a 

violation of the criminal possession, distribution, and creation provisions. 

Not surprisingly, I guess, was that law had never been used in 20 years. 

There were no reported decisions, and at the time we were developing a 

strategy to deal with this, there did come a decision from the Eastern 

District of Virginia which dealt with this law. It was the first reported 

case, and that is when we contacted our friends on the Hill about 

enhancing this. 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MR. MARSH. And giving the victims an actual cause of action so 

that they can go in and assert a legal claim over these images. 
457

 MR. STUPAK. So I take it that Virginia court then upheld the cause 

of action? 

 MR. MARSH. The Virginia court did uphold the cause of action. 

 MR. STUPAK. For civil-- 

 MR. MARSH. For the civil-- 

 MR. STUPAK. --remedies? 

 MR. MARSH. --remedies, but it pointed out that due to a quirk in the 

law, the law--and your question is very relevant here--the law as written 

only allows a victim to file a claim when they are age 18 or younger. 

 MR. STUPAK. Right. 

 MR. MARSH. So once the victim hits age 19, they lose the cause of 

action. It was just based on inartful drafting. 

 MR. STUPAK. But no matter when images may have been taken-- 

 MR. MARSH. Exactly. 

 MR. STUPAK. They may have been 12 years old at the time. 

 MR. MARSH. So part of what we are doing with Masha’s Law is we 

are removing that limitation. In terms of the-- 

 MR. STUPAK. But if you file a claim--you are under 18, let us say 

you have filed a claim that probably hasn’t been litigated, and then as we 

talked about the classic collectors may produce these images years later, 

would you be able to come back and bring a claim? 

 MR. MARSH. That is what Masha’s Law allows us to do. It basically 

eliminates the cap of age 18, so if you discover that somebody has 

downloaded the images when you are 20 or 30 or 40, you still have the 

cause of action to pursue them. 

 MR. STUPAK. So caps lifted, how about statute of limitations? 

 MR. MARSH. The statute of limitations, because of the way the law 

is structured, you can get current downloaders-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Correct, okay. 

 MR. MARSH. We are actually receiving now notices through the 

victims of crime-- 

 MR. STUPAK. So every download or every transmission of the image 

should be a new cause of action? 

 MR. MARSH. That is correct, and that is how it is worded, and that is 

what the criminal law recognizes. In terms of the international reach of 

the problem, I was, quite frankly, shocked by a recent report by the 

International--it is basically the equivalent of the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Right. 

 MR. MARSH. Ninety-four countries have no laws regarding child 

pornography at all. 

 MR. STUPAK. But still underneath this civil remedy, if you will, that 

may be available, you still almost have to go at it each image at a time. 
458

 MR. MARSH. Absolutely, and that is what we are doing and that is 

being facilitated for us by the Victims of Crime Act which Congress 

passed 2 years ago. We are now receiving notices from the FBI and 

from the U.S. Attorney’s Office regarding every prosecution and every 

investigation involving Masha’s pictures. So this really allows us, 

instead of being a needle in a haystack, where do you start, how do you 

find these guys, how do you find the perpetrators? We are actually, 

under the Victims of Crime Act, receiving notices of individual cases, 

and we are receiving dozens of those at a time of individuals who have 

pled guilty or been convicted criminally of this crime today, and then we 

can pursue civil remedies against each one of them. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this. Going back to Mr. Jenkins’ 

book, he states on page 215, let me just read this here. “In spite of all the 

enforcement efforts of recent years, it is still remarkably easy for any 

reasonably discreet person to pursue this highly illegal conduct 

indefinitely, as long as obvious traps are avoided. Law enforcement 

agencies and their political masters have just had a very poor idea of the 

organization and the mechanisms of child porn subculture, and above all, 

of its critical institutions, such as news groups and bulletin boards.” Do 

you agree with that? 

 MR. MARSH. Absolutely I agree with that. 

 MR. STUPAK. Is it because of lack of resources, technical knowhow? 

 MR. MARSH. I was surprised, Congressman, and we are always on 

the lookout technologically for Masha’s pictures, different means of 

transmission, how are these pictures being distributed. I was actually 

surprised that something called the UseNet--I don’t know if you know 

what the UseNet is. I used it 15 years ago prior to the Internet. The 

UseNet is still out there and being used to transmit binary pictures of 

child pornography. Certainly, some of the earliest FBI stings involved 

the UseNet. I thought it had gone from the face of the Earth, but it is 

actively in place out there. 

 What we are also seeing is that pedophile networks are using a 

Napster-like technology to create basically parallel Internets that only 

they have access to that are widely distributed, widely diffuse. There is 

no central server, and images and access to that basically underground 

Internet are strictly controlled by masterminds in the business of child 

pornography. 

 MR. STUPAK. I was going to ask you this question, but let me go to 

Ms. Grace, if I may. 

 As you know, it is a crime for anyone other than law enforcement 

agencies to possess images of child sexual exploitation, so not even news 

gathering organizations can view it. So the entire field of knowledge, if 
459

you will, or knowing how horrible this really is and how effectively or 

ineffectively the laws are being enforced are really hidden. Do you think 

there is a need to have some broader public knowledge of exactly what is 

going on than there currently is? 

 MS. GRACE. Certainly, a broader public knowledge of what is going 

on, but absolutely under no condition further dissemination of child 

pornography and some misled attempt to inform the public. And as to 

the earlier question is how do you get these off the Internet? There is no 

way. They are just like roaches, you can’t stop them. But the ones that 

you can apprehend, they you can stop. And I feel that just like the 

orphanage that sent her here, the adoption agency that mishandled it to 

another one that did a fake home study, they go off one title and spring 

up under another name. If they could just be stopped, just like these-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

 MS. GRACE. Yes. 

 MR. STUPAK. Ms. Flatley, you were indicating a little bit about--and 

I would like to hear your views a little bit more on this adoption, because 

the way Masha has described the problems with the due diligence done 

by the U.S. adoption agencies that facilitated her adoption from a 

Russian orphanage, and by the agency that did the home study, it is our 

understanding that although Mr. Mancuso had a large house, he had no 

bedroom set up for Masha? 

 MS. FLATLEY. Correct. 

 MR. STUPAK. One would assume that when you are doing an 

adoption home or foster home study, almost the first thing you do would 

just look to see if the person is going to have their own room, a place to 

sleep-- 

 MS. FLATLEY. Exactly. 

 MR. STUPAK. That the basic steps, it seems like even if they were 

initially taken, there was no follow-up. I find it sort of outrageous, you 

take a look at it, even the Humane Society does follow-up on placement 

of dogs and cats and things like that, but we don’t do it for children? 

 MS. FLATLEY. The standards are quite a bit lower for home studies 

for foreign adoptions than they are, for instance, for adoptions from 

foster care. So one of the first exercises that we went through when we 

obtained Mancuso’s home study, which we did with some difficulty, was 

to compare his home study done in Pennsylvania to the one that was 

done when Faith readopted Masha, and they are like night and day. They 

have had to submit to all kinds of invasive tests, there were home visits 

and so forth. 

 I think the thing that we found the most troubling about this home 

study is that it is not clear from the language of the home study that they 

ever visited Mancuso’s house even once. 
460

 MR. STUPAK. After the adoption? 

 MS. FLATLEY. Before the adoption. But there is a very vivid 

description in the home study, which I believe we are having faxed to the 

committee right now-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 MS. FLATLEY. --that there was no room set up for the child, that 

there was an extra room, but it was a mix and match of furniture. Let us 

say for the sake of discussion that they might have tried to play that off 

by saying well, he hadn’t gotten the child yet and so therefore he wasn’t 

ready. Any reasonable person might suggest that you would go back to 

make sure that he had, especially because he was a single father. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, international adoptions by U.S. child welfare 

agencies, are there any legal oversights? 

 MS. FLATLEY. There is not only no real oversight, this has been a 

conspicuous exception to what is in every other respect in this country a 

broad regulatory framework at the Federal and the State level. The 

argument is often made by the industry to foreclose more regulation, but 

adoption is a State law issue and we can’t tell the States what to do. That 

will come as quite a shock to the States in a number of other important 

areas. More importantly, they extend that argument by saying in the case 

of foreign adoption that we simply can’t dictate to the foreign 

governments about what should happen. But that is in two important 

ways. One is that the Russian government requires post-placement 

supervision, which almost never happens, or at least doesn’t happen 

enough, but the other issue is that we have had a number of foreign 

countries who have closed down international adoption to the United 

States because we apparently suspend American child welfare law when 

these children enter the country. 

 So we have some real serious issues in terms of the regulatory 

framework. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, when these children enter the country, do they 

come in as U.S. citizens then if the adoption is-- 

 MS. FLATLEY. They do and they don’t. There has been a change 

recently that Congress passed a couple of years ago, the Child 

Citizenship Act, which now facilitates citizenship for kids when they are 

adopted abroad before they enter the United States as if they were born 

to their families, but that was probably not in effect when Masha was 

adopted. But more importantly, so what? What difference does it make, 

if they are here as illegal aliens or they are adopted by American families 

or if they are here to visit people, the child welfare system in this country 

would shut down if we said that families who had children had any kind 

of right to privacy when there was an issue of the best interest of the 

child. And so the agency--and I have interviewed the agency at some 
461

length about why there wasn’t supervision, and they argued to me that, 

well, Mancuso didn’t want to cooperate with the Russian standards. 

Well, I believe the Russian standards are the standards we should have, 

and in fact, that the Russian standards for post-placement supervision are 

not only quite a bit stronger than ours, we don’t have any that are 

standard. 

 The other issue is that adoption is largely inherently interstate 

commerce. Every single international adoption is--I believe that the 

Energy and Commerce Committee should have jurisdiction over this 

issue. I have said that for years. But ultimately, if we are allowing 

children to enter this country with people that we have not done adequate 

due diligence on, and then on top of it we are going to argue that we have 

no moral or legal authority to check on those children once they get here, 

we are out of our minds. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, I believe the chairman and everyone on this 

committee would agree that the Energy and Commerce Committee 

certainly has jurisdiction over this. This subcommittee though, 

Oversight and Investigations, we do not write legislation. We can only 

make recommendations, but we are very interested and we will make 

sure we get those recommendations to the proper people. 

 MS. FLATLEY. Thank you very much. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you. Thank you all. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Mr. Walden is going to be 

recognized next, but I understand, Ms. Grace, that you have another 

commitment and we need to dismiss you. But before you go, Mr. 

Walden, do you have a specific question for her? 

 MR. WALDEN. I just have one quick question for Ms. Grace, and 

first of all, I appreciate all the work you have done in this area, both as, I 

guess, a prosecutor, but also on the air, I think you have gotten the 

message out to Americans on the kind of problem that we have 

uncovered here and that you have continued to do work on. 

 I guess this morning you were on Good Morning America and had 

some ideas about how we might be able to combat the proliferation of-- 

 MS. GRACE. Yes, I did. 

 MR. WALDEN. Can you share those ideas? 

 MS. GRACE. Yes, and I consider them to be more innovative than 

simply increasing the time that felons would do behind bars, which I 

coincidentally am all for. 

 First of all, I feel that parents don’t know what their children are 

doing online. It is very obvious. I mean, if you look at Columbine, they 

were cooking up bombs in the garage and they didn’t know that, much 

less where they go online. I think that it would be a fantastic idea, and so 

easily done, just as you get a readout of what calls you have made on 
462

your cell phone every month to pay another dollar to AOL and they 

could for $6 a month to get a readout of where your computer has gone. 

Also, when you buy a beer, not that any of you esteemed drink or 

imbibe, but when other people buy a beer, look at it. There is a warning 

there, and I don’t understand why on laptops and desktops all over the 

country there is not a warning for adults to see. Also, I don’t know how 

many of you have a TiVo, but to get into the thing, you have to go 

through a tutorial. And I don’t understand why every time you buy a 

computer, a new computer, which can be controlled through interstate 

commerce, there is not a warning. They are on microwaves, they are on 

beer bottles, they are on cigarettes, and none as to the dangers of the 

Internet. We do public warnings all the time. I have a very extensive list 

of ideas which I will be happy to submit to the committee. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you. That would be most helpful. I 

appreciate it. I realize you do have to leave. I have got questions for the 

other panelists. 

 MS. GRACE. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thanks again for your good work. 

 MS. GRACE. And again, thank you for having me. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Chairman Barton, Ms. Grace is going to be 

dismissed. She has-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I don’t have any questions for this panel, Mr. 

Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Grace, thank you very much for being with us, 

and thank you for the leadership that you are providing on this issue. 

 MS. GRACE. We are focusing on you. This committee is so kind to 

hear us tonight on our live show and taking calls from America, so I 

hope you listen. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MS. GRACE. Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

 Mr. Walden, you want to continue? 

 MR. WALDEN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Ms. Flatley, if I might ask you just a follow-up question. I may have 

missed this in the intervening period. What has become of the agency in 

Pennsylvania that did the home study review that said that her adoptive 

father was this marvelous moral character? 

 MS. FLATLEY. As is the case with the other two social service 

agencies involved in this, they continued to operate and thrive. I believe, 

although I am not positive, that the agency in Pennsylvania may receive 

actually some Federal funding because they do quite a bit of family 

planning. They are all in business. They are all considered leaders-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Did they suffer any penalty? 
463

 MS. FLATLEY. Absolutely none. This is the first public discussion. 

Today is the first day that their identities have been revealed publicly. 

 MR. WALDEN. What is the name of the agency that did the reviews? 

 MS. FLATLEY. The agency in Pittsburgh was called the Family 

Health Council at the time that the home study was done. They recently 

changed their name to Adagio Healthcare. They are based in Pittsburgh. 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Marsh, are you Masha’s legal counsel? 

 MR. MARSH. Yes, I am. 

 MR. WALDEN. Is there not some grounds here for litigation? 

 MR. MARSH. There are plenty of grounds, and to be quite frank with 

you, we have been so busy in the 6 months since I met Masha trying to 

figure out exactly what happened, who were the players, how it 

happened, we have a fraction of the documentation that we believe is out 

there. Because of the confidentiality concerns, we are only able to get it 

through a third party, not through the agencies themselves. Despite 

waivers and requests and letters, they are hiding behind Mr. Mancuso’s 

right to privacy and refusing to release those documents to us so we can 

gain a fuller understanding of exactly why this happened. We know why 

it happened, excuse me, we don’t know exactly how it happened and we 

are going to get to the bottom. 

 MR. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, that almost sounds like something we 

ought to be looking at and perhaps use our subpoena power to get there. 

 MS. FLATLEY. Well, if I may add that, when James and I because 

involved in this case, we had a sense of what had happened, but even we, 

I don’t think, under any circumstances anticipated the alacrity with 

which this adoption took place. And we have reached out to all the 

social service agencies involved because we initially believed that they, 

in fact, had been somehow manipulated and would want to join with us 

in helping to close these loopholes and do a better job. 

 As I said before, not only did they argue that this adoption was 

routine and this is how they always did business, but in fact, when we 

began a discussion with them to obtain voluntarily from them a copy of 

Masha’s home study, they asserted that Mancuso had a right to privacy 

and they could not disclose it. We ended up getting it from another 

source in November, but to your point, I think that what has been the 

most troubling about this is that the more we have investigated it, the 

more we realize we needed to know, so in fact, this case is much more 

complicated than we originally thought it would be. 

 MR. WALDEN. And I appreciate the work you are doing, and just for 

the record, I am a big fan of adoption. My two brothers are adopted, my 

niece is adopted. 

 MS. FLATLEY. Adoption is what saved this child, and I just want to 

say that at many points in this discussion, James and I and Masha and 
464

Faith have been accused of trying to somehow undermine adoption, stop 

adoption, being anti-adoption. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Let it be clear that adoption saved this child’s life. Faith adopted her. 

 MR. WALDEN. No, I-- 

 MS. FLATLEY. And that Masha felt so strongly about the power of 

adoption in her own life that she actually wrote a letter to President Putin 

which was hand-delivered to him several months ago. So I think we all 

want to say very clearly that the only good adoption is a safe adoption-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MS. FLATLEY. --and it makes it safer for all consumers of adoption 

services to regulate adoption effectively and consistently. 

 MR. WALDEN. Masha, if I could, first of all, thank you for speaking 

out. I can’t begin to imagine the pain and suffering and sorrow you have 

gone through, but what you are doing today obviously will have 

enormous benefit for others. 

 When Justin Berry was in that very seat not long ago, testifying 

about the problems he encounters on the Internet and all, I asked him a 

similar question, one I want to ask you. As a child, what advice do you 

have for parents and adults and for other children who might be in your 

situation, who might be watching this sometime and say I know 

somebody who may be in this situation. How could your friends have 

helped? What should we be looking for? What would you tell other kids 

who might find themselves in a situation similar to that which you were 

in? 

 MS. ALLEN. I would just say that even if you are threatened, you 

should speak out because that is the only way that it is going to stop. 

 MR. WALDEN. Who do you speak out to, your teacher, your pastor, 

your-- 

 MS. ALLEN. Whoever you trust more, because it is easier to talk to 

someone you trust. 

 MR. WALDEN. Right. 

 MS. ALLEN. And I think parents should be watching out for their 

kids, too, like and doctors should be checking to see if the kids have any 

problems or eating disorders or anything like that. 

 MR. WALDEN. Did you get any medical treatment in those years 

when you were-- 

 MS. ALLEN. Yes, I did. 

 MR. WALDEN. And the medical providers didn’t question your 

health status? 

 MS. ALLEN. No. 

 MR. MARSH. She did receive, if not routine, sporadic healthcare. 

We did get a copy of her medical records, and ironically, in the context 

of all of this, we got the school records. It is obvious to me that Mancuso 
465

was a very savvy operator. His initial contact with the school was with 

the school nurse, who he immediately befriended, knowing that as a 

medical professional on site she would be a natural conduit for any sort 

of abnormalities or information. Although it is hard to believe that the 

growth charts that are in the school records show Masha at the 10th

percentile in terms of weight, and she was quite a bit taller, so that even 

suppressed her more, because her height was normal but her weight was 

severely underweight. So consistently throughout her school record, we 

have--and we have a doctor here--a growth chart which indicates a child 

year after year after year, growing-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Did they never ask? 

 MR. MARSH. They never asked, according to Masha. No one ever 

asked anything about her. Nobody ever asked anything about her time in 

Russia, why she came to America. It was as if the person is in front of 

your house screaming rape and no one is hearing, seeing, or realizing 

what is going on right under their nose. 

 And so for us, at least, the growth charts were a chilling indication 

that something was very wrong with this child and someone should at 

least have made an inquiry about her health status, given that she was so 

underweight. 

 MS. FLATLEY. If I could just add, I mean, having interviewed a lot 

of people that were involved in life, what is shocking to me as a parent 

myself-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Nobody noticed. 

 MS. FLATLEY. --is that her teachers never said anything, despite the 

fact that she looked emaciated. The pictures of Masha when she was 

rescued, she literally looks like a concentration camp survivor. The 

social service agencies involved, there were three, none of them checked 

on this child. The neighbors never said a word, obviously. It is 

somewhat mystifying to me that her physician did not somehow want to 

explore even perhaps a neglect allegation because she wasn’t growing. 

 So it is one of the issues in Masha’s case that is particularly troubling 

is that this child was failed by literally everyone that could have 

protected her. 

 MR. WALDEN. Well, Masha, thank you, and thanks to all of you on 

our panel, and to my colleague for the work that you are doing to bring 

light to this problem. Hopefully we can bring a little legislation to this 

problem, get a handle on it. 

 So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

 Mr. Chairman, Chairman Barton, do you have any questions for this 

panel? 
466

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Not for this panel. I am here to support this 

panel, and I have questions for the second panel. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

 Well, I want to thank those of you on the first panel. Masha, we 

once again appreciate very much your coming forward. You have been 

immensely helpful. Mr. Marsh, Ms. Flatley, we will continue to stay in 

touch with you. Ms. Allen, best wishes to you, and Congressman 

Gingrey, thank you very much for being with us today, and for your 

legislation as well. This panel is dismissed. 

 MR. MARSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. At this time, we will call the second panel. First, 

we have the Honorable Alice Fisher, who is Assistant Attorney General 

for the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; 

and Mr. Raul Roldan, who is the Section Chief for the Cyber Crimes 

Section of the Cyber Division, FBI, U.S. Department of Justice. And we 

have Mr. Arnold Bell, who is the Unit Chief, Innocent Images Unit, FBI, 

U.S. Department of Justice. They are also joined by Mr. Swecker from 

the FBI. 

 As you all--I want to apologize to this panel as well. I know when 

you arrived at 2:00 you thought you would probably be home by 6:00, 

but we had a lot of interruptions, and thank you for your patience. We 

appreciate your being here. 

 You are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing, 

and when doing so, we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. 

Do any of you have any objection to testifying under oath? And of 

course, under the rules of the House and rules of the committee, you are 

entitled to be advised by counsel. Probably all of you are lawyers, so I 

am assuming you don’t need to be advised by counsel. 

 So if you would please stand and raise your right hand, I would like 

to swear you in. 

 [Witnesses sworn.] 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. You are now under oath. Ms. Fisher, 

you may give your 5-minute opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF ALICE S. FISHER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND RAUL ROLDAN, 

SECTION CHIEF, CYBER CRIME SECTION OF THE 

CYBER DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 
467

MS. FISHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, 

Chairman Barton, and other distinguished members of this committee. 

Thank you for inviting me here to testify before you today about the 

Department of Justice’s efforts to protect children from sexual 

exploitation on the Internet, and thank you for having these hearings that 

shine light on this horrific growing problem. 

 The anonymity of the Internet has provided opportunities for 

criminals who prey upon our children. Our children face a threat from 

molesters who troll the Internet, looking for young victims so they can 

lure and molest. Other criminal elements sponsor sex tourism aimed at 

children and facilitated by the Internet, but the most pervasive crime 

against children perpetrated on the Internet is child pornography. The 

mere thought, yet alone depictions, of children, some still in their 

infancy, being subjected to such degrading treatment turns the stomach 

and boggles the mind. Despicable, unconscionable, intolerable, 

sickening. These are words you have used over the past weeks 

describing this problem, and I could not agree with you more. 

 In my role at the Department of Justice and as a mother of two boys, 

4 and 8, I would like to see all child predators put behind bars. I am 

committed to doing what we can for this problem. 

 You have heard testimony about the scope of the problem, which is 

enormous, but make no mistake, the investigation and prosecution of 

those who generate, traffic in, and possess child pornography is a top 

priority of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General has 

reiterated this time and again, and he is personally committed. 

 The Department of Justice prosecutes these cases in all 94 U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices across the Nation. The Criminal Division also 

through its Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section coordinates 

nationwide investigations, takedowns, and also prosecutes these cases. 

These career prosecutors, as well as State prosecutors, as well as Federal 

and State law enforcement, I thank them all for their service, for they 

have one of the hardest jobs. I can tell you that I am still haunted today 

by some of the materials which I have reviewed, but these professionals 

who work day in and day out to protect our children are exposed to and 

are forced to review these horrific materials, photos, videos, every day, 

and then come home to their own children. These professionals come to 

work every day because they are committed to making a difference and 

protecting our children, and stopping the pain that we have heard so 

much about over these weeks at your hearings. 

 The Department has made great progress, and I want to take a 

moment just to give you a few examples of some of our recent 

prosecutions and takedowns. First, an example of trading in child 

pornography. The Internet, as you know, has allowed predators who 
468

create and traffic in child pornography to create a virtual community 

where they can share and trade in these disgusting images. One such 

community, a chat room that went by the name “Kiddypics & 

Kiddyvids” allegedly included among the images, a live streaming video 

of one member sexually molesting an infant. Law enforcement 

conducted an undercover operation resulting in charges against 27 

individuals in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, and seven 

child victims of sexual molestation were identified. 

 Second, an example of sexual abuse of children. Child predators 

have also used the Internet to provide so-called molestation on demand. 

In one case, a predator took scripts here in this country, so-called orders, 

then went to Cuba and to Ecuador and paid poverty-stricken families to 

let him molest their children, some of whom were under the age of 12. 

He would then send those pictures back over the video of him playing 

out these sick fantasies. We caught that man responsible for this ring. 

We prosecuted him and his co-conspirators, and he received a 100-year 

prison term. 

 But our efforts did not stop there. We launched Operation Lost 

Innocence to target Mariscal’s customers across the country, and to date, 

that operation has resulted in 107 searches, 55 arrests, and 44 

convictions. 

 Third, we also prosecute, as we must, the financial facilitators. We 

pursue the companies that provide the means by which these predators 

can create, market, and sell these horrendous images. In the Regpay 

case, for example, we prosecuted the Belarus company that had provided 

credit card processing services to hundreds of child pornography sites. 

We secured guilty pleas from the executives, but again, that was only the 

beginning. That Regpay case gave rise to a follow-on investigation, 

which resulted in 341 domestic and approximately 703 foreign arrests, 

254 indictments, and 241 convictions. 

 I could go on all day with examples like these, successful 

prosecutions of horrendous crimes. Prosecuting child predators is and 

remains a top priority for the Department of Justice. The Attorney 

General made this clear when he announced the Project Safe Childhood 

Initiative, which seeks to integrate Federal, State, and local efforts to 

prosecute child pornography, to educate the communities, and to provide 

enhanced training for law enforcement, and $14 million will go out this 

year to support ICECs across the country who prosecute these things on a 

State and local level. 

 Federal prosecutions, investigations, and caseloads in these matters 

have dramatically increased in the last decade, and the Department is 

working aggressively, but is it enough? You heard from Ernie Allen of 

NCMEC last week who told you that 1,500 leads come into the Cyber 
469

TipLine every week, and 50 percent of those come from ISPs, but it will 

take all of us to combat this problem. I pledge to you, as the Attorney 

General has pledged, that the Department is committed and dedicated to 

this task. 

 Congressman Barton said he had never been more revolted in 

preparing for a hearing than having to read the material about these 

predators who prey on our most vulnerable, our children. I have looked 

at the pictures and I have looked at the videos, and sir, you are right. 

 I thank you for this hearing, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Alice S. Fisher follows:] 
470

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALICE S. FISHER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,

CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Ms. Fisher. 

 At this time, I recognize Mr. Roldan for his opening statement. 

MR. ROLDAN. Thank you, chairman. 

 Good evening Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and members of 

the subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank you for 

this opportunity to address the FBI’s role in combating the sexual 

exploitation of children through the use of the Internet. 
486

 I will start with the personnel involved in this particular program. 

The number of funded positions assigned to the FBI’s Innocent Images 

program is 127. Due to the seriousness of these matters, however, the 

FBI has consistently utilized the equivalent of 242 agents working child 

exploitation matters. Let me emphasize something, too, that is just not 

the agents. We have many other employees involved in this. I don’t 

give you the numbers because there are so many analysts, people 

involved in the forensic analysis, secretaries that are supporting this 

particular program, so it is just not the agents. 

 The men and women involved in the Innocent Images program are 

some of the most dedicated and hardworking people in the Federal 

government. They enjoy my respect and sincere appreciation for the 

work they do every day. I can tell you this: I have been assigned here for 

approximately 10 months. I have been in the FBI for over 18 years, and 

I have met some of the most committed individuals that I have worked 

with anywhere and anyplace. So I am very proud to be among them. 

 At any one time, the FBI has more than 2,400 active child sexual 

exploitation investigations. Because of the magnitude of the crime 

problem, our primary focus is on complex investigations targeting 

organized criminal groups, financiers, and illegal websites, individuals, 

or groups who engage in the production of child abuse images, sexual 

predators who travel from one jurisdiction to another, and persons with 

large collections of child abuse images. As an example, I would like to 

describe how we work a typical sexual abuse website investigation. 

 First, we must locate the server where the website content is 

physically located. Once the server is located, and upon finding probable 

cause, a search warrant is requested. Once a search warrant is executed, 

the media containing the illegal content is seized for forensic analysis. 

Once a computer analysis is completed, the targets of the investigation 

are prioritized. I want to state unequivocally that any information that 

would lead us to a child who is being sexually abused is treated as a top 

priority, and not only as a top priority, but as an urgency. That includes 

expediting the forensic analysis. Then after we identify the website 

administrators, the producers of the images, and the financiers of the 

website. Once the illegal website and the organizations managing, 

financing, and producing the child pornography have been taken out of 

business, the information associated with the customers paying for access 

to the website is analyzed and acted upon. However, this endeavor is 

very complex. 

 First, we must attempt to accurately identify each and every 

customer accessing the website. This piece of the investigation requires 

vast resources. Child sexual abuse websites investigated by the FBI have 

been found to contain anywhere from 9,000 to more than 30,000 
487

different customer entries. The most useful data utilized to identify the 

customers at this time is the credit card information. In order to obtain 

credit card information from a financial institution, the FBI must seek a 

Federal Grand Jury subpoena for each bank who issued a credit card use 

for the website customers. The information obtained can then be utilized 

to identify each and every individual account holder who paid to enter 

the illegal website. Even after all of the financial information is 

obtained, and a thorough analysis of all of the information is conducted, 

there is not enough probable cause established to request a search 

warrant on the customer’s residence. The only option that remains is 

knocking on the customer’s doors and asking for consent to access their 

computers. If this consent is not granted, the investigation cannot 

proceed until additional incriminating evidence is uncovered. This 

whole process is labor intensive and takes an excessive amount of time. 

In addition, it would also take more than 11 special agent hours to 

accomplish what we would call a knock and talk type of investigation on 

each illegal website customer. 

 In contrast, another totally separate investigative technique that the 

FBI currently utilizes addresses child sexual abuse matters in a peer-topeer investigation. It allows for us to capture the child sexual abuse 

images as they are being transmitted real time and collect identifying 

information on the perpetrators the instant the crime occurs. 

Immediately thereafter we can obtain search warrants and seize the 

evidence. One such investigative initiative resulted in over 400 cases 

open, 300 search warrants, 50 convictions, and 14 victim children 

identified and rescued. 

 In conclusion, we would like nothing more than to knock on each 

person that is involved as a customer in child sexual abuse websites, but 

again, those are the resources that are required, for example, in a case of 

30,000. That is how many people we would require to send out. My 

comments today are intended to reassure the subcommittee and the 

American people that the FBI takes this matter very seriously, and has a 

very aggressive program assigned to address child sexual exploitation. 

 I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for 

addressing this very serious issue. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Raul Roldan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAUL ROLDAN, SECTION CHIEF, CYBER CRIME SECTION, CYBER 

DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to 

address the FBI’s role in combating the sexual exploitation of children through the use of 
488

the Internet. Specifically, I would like to explain to the Subcommittee how the FBI 

manages the Innocent Images National Initiative on a national and an international level. 

Two weeks ago, the Subcommittee heard the testimony of Acting Executive 

Assistant Director Chris Swecker which described this initiative and its accomplishments. 

As he testified, over the past 10 years, the Innocent Images program has grown 

exponentially. Between fiscal years 1996 and 2005, there has been a 2050% increase in 

cases opened (113 to 2500). During this ten-year period, the program has recorded over 

15,556 investigations opened; 4,784 criminals being charged; 6,145 subjects being 

arrested, located or summoned to appear in a court of law; and 4,822 convictions 

obtained. 

The FBI’s Innocent Images Unit is responsible for the creation and implementation 

of national and international initiatives targeting those who use the Internet to sexually 

exploit defenseless children. The unit, housed in Calverton, Maryland, also works 

closely with and has a sizable contingent assigned to the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children. The Innocent Images Unit serves as a central location for addressing 

major cases such as the sexual exploitation of children through pornographic websites, 

distributing investigative leads to our field divisions and Legal Attaché offices, and 

managing the FBI’s national program. Its responsibilities include developing and 

publishing policy, managing program funds, certifying undercover operations, and the 

training of FBI employees, state, local and international partners. 

The number of funded positions for the Innocent Images program is 127 positions. 

Due to the seriousness of these matters, however, the FBI has consistently utilized 

personnel resources at a higher level than those funded. We currently have the equivalent 

of 242 Agents working child sexual exploitation matters. Not just anyone can do this 

work. Our dedicated men and women are exposed to the most graphic and disturbing 

images and movies that you could possibly imagine. They wade through thousands of 

pieces of material every day, all day, and then they go home and tuck their own children 

into bed. However, the men and women of the Innocent Images Unit, and those involved 

in investigating the sexual exploitation of children in our field offices, are some of the 

most dedicated and hard working people in the federal government. They enjoy my 

respect and sincere appreciation for the work that they do everyday. They are some of 

the most dedicated and passionate employees I have met in my 18-year career as a 

Special Agent of the FBI. 

At any one time, the FBI has more than 2,400 active child sexual exploitation 

investigations. Because of the magnitude of the crime problem, and in an effort to 

capitalize on the FBI’s intelligence collection, analysis, and investigative strengths, our 

primary focus is on complex investigations targeting organized criminal groups involved 

in commercial child sexual abuse websites. As Mr. Swecker testified, these 

investigations almost always span multiple jurisdictions and usually expand beyond the 

borders of the United States. In an effort to reach beyond the borders of the United 

States in a more efficient manner, the FBI has partnered with law enforcement officials 

from several countries who work side by side with FBI agents in Calverton, Maryland in 

a task-force setting. 

Other areas where the FBI makes a major impact include investigating the financiers 

of illegal websites, as well as individuals or groups who engage in the production of child 

sexual abuse images. The FBI also investigates sexual predators that travel from one 

jurisdiction to another to engage in sex with minors. Finally, we target persons with large 

collections of child sexual abuse images. These individuals represent a real danger as we 

find a large percentage of those we arrest for possession of images of child sexual abuse 

are also committing contact offenses. Our investigative efforts attempt to maximize the 

impact the FBI can have on this very serious crime problem. I would like to describe 

how we work a typical case, such as a child sexual abuse website investigation. 
489

An investigation may sometimes be initiated from a referral by the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children. We utilize a variety of investigative techniques, to 

include administrative subpoenas and data base checks, to capture evidence in an attempt 

to locate the server where the website contents are physically located. Once the server is 

located and upon finding probable cause, a search warrant is requested and issued. In 

many cases the company that runs the server is not aware that its computers contain 

illegal content as they may also host hundreds of legitimate websites. Once the search 

warrant is executed, the media containing the illegal content is seized and delivered to 

our Computer Analysis and Research Teams (CART) for forensic analysis. Given the 

tremendous amount of digital data seized by the FBI, this analysis could take months to 

accomplish, as these teams are responsible for the forensic examination of digital data in 

all of the FBI’s investigative programs, to include counterterrorism investigations and 

other high priority matters. 

Once the computer analysis is completed, the targets of the investigation are 

prioritized in partnership with prosecutors from the Department of Justice. I want to 

state unequivocally that any information that would lead us to a child who is being 

sexually abused is treated not only as a top priority, but also as a matter of great urgency. 

Our second priority is the identification of the website administrators. Generally, these 

individuals administer more than one child sexual abuse website. Thereafter, the 

producer of the images is identified, as these images represent evidence of the actual 

sexual molestation of a child. Next the funding vehicle and the financiers of the website 

are identified. 

Once the illegal website and the organizations managing, financing, and producing 

the child sexual abuse and exploitation images have been taken out of business, the 

information associated with the customers paying for access to the illegal website is 

analyzed and acted upon. Of course we recognize that the customers of the websites may 

also be sexually exploiting children and we do everything possible to investigate these 

individuals. But this endeavor is complex and labor intensive. First, we must accurately 

identify the customers accessing the website. I must reemphasize the word accurately, 

because in order for us to initiate an investigation, each and every one of the perpetrators 

must first be accurately identified. This phase of the investigation is very lengthy and 

requires vast resources as child sexual abuse websites investigated by the FBI have been 

found to contain anywhere from 9,000 to more than 30,000 different customers entries. 

Another issue to consider is the fact that most illegal-website customer entries are 

normally years old. Once outdated, this information cannot be utilized to show probable 

cause, request search warrants, or acquire the appropriate evidence to proceed with an 

investigation. 

The most useful data for the purpose of attempting to identify the customer is the 

credit card numbers. In order to obtain credit card information from a financial 

institution on these types of investigations the FBI must seek a Federal Grand Jury 

subpoena. Currently this requires a presentation to a Grand Jury to request a subpoena 

for each individual bank in order to identify each and every individual account holder 

who paid to enter the illegal website. Even after all of the financial information is 

obtained through these subpoenas, and a thorough analysis of all of the information is 

conducted, there is rarely enough probable cause established to request a search warrant 

on the customers’ residences. The only option that remains is knocking on the 

customers’ doors and asking for consent to access to their computers. If this consent is 

not granted, the investigation cannot proceed any further until additional incriminating 

evidence is uncovered through other investigations. Under our current process, it takes 

an excessive amount of time for a team of intelligence analysts to process and analyze a 

customer list on an average child pornography website. It would also take more than 11 

special-agent-hours to accomplish a knock-and-talk type of investigation on each illegalwebsite customer. Again, let us remember that every illegal-website investigation will 
490

have a minimum of thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of customers. We 

are exploring ways to expedite this process, but there are numerous hurdles to overcome. 

In contrast, another totally separate investigative technique currently being utilized 

by the FBI to address child sexual abuse matters through Peer-to-Peer investigations, 

allows for us to capture child sexual abuse and exploitation images as they are being 

exchanged by pedophiles, and collect identifying information on the perpetrators the 

instant the crime is occurring. Immediately thereafter, we can obtain search warrants, 

and have the authorities go in and seize evidence in as little as a one-week time period. 

Using the technique I just described, and others also currently available, the FBI makes 

hundreds of arrests and prosecutable cases every year. For example, one such 

investigative effort resulted in over 400 cases opened, 300 search warrants, over 50 

convictions to date, and 14 victim children identified and rescued. 

This example was presented to you in order to better describe how the FBI has to 

prioritize not only who must be targeted in an investigation, but also what investigative 

tools must be utilized in order to maximize investigative results by making a serious 

impact on the overall crime problem, and putting the most egregious sexual offenders 

behind bars. 

My comments today are intended to reassure the Subcommittee and the American 

people that the FBI takes this matter very seriously and has a very aggressive program 

designed to address child sexual exploitation. In closing, the FBI looks forward to 

working with other law enforcement agencies, private industry, and the Department of 

Justice in continuing to combat this very serious crime problem. The protection of our 

children requires the combined efforts of all sectors of our society. I would like to 

express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for addressing this very serious issue, and I 

would also like to thank Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and the 

Subcommittee for the privilege of appearing before you today. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Roldan and Ms. Fisher both. 

The committee values your testimony and certainly the input the FBI and 

the great job that you do in trying to bring perpetrators of these crimes to 

justice. 

 As you know, when we first started these hearings we got off on a 

little bit of a rough edge, I guess, with the Bureau, the FBI, and the 

Department of Justice, and I think a lot of that stemmed from the fact 

that it appeared to us that in the Justin Berry case that there was some 

bias against Justin Berry. There was some relationship there that just did 

not work out with the FBI and the Department of Justice, and many of us 

felt--whether we are correct in that perception or not, but we felt that 

valuable information that was given to the Department was not followed 

up on in an expedited way and a timely way and that, in effect, 

jeopardized the opportunity to catch some perpetrators that you had some 

very hard evidence on. 

 So I would make that comment just starting off, and we will get into 

some of this later, but I know Ms. Fisher, for example, you had a meeting 

recently with some Internet service providers, and one of the issues that 

we have heard a lot about is maintaining those records for a length of 

time that would facilitate an investigation by the Bureau or other law 
491

enforcement agencies. Could you tell us how your meeting with the 

Internet service providers went? 

 MS. FISHER. I would be happy to. 

 I think the data retention issue that was raised by the 

Congresswoman is a very important one, because law enforcement does 

need data to track down ISPs and track down some of these perpetrators, 

but it is also, as I learned from the ISPs, a very complex one, and I am 

glad that you will be hearing from them directly next week as to how 

data is stored and how you can retrieve it and those issues. 

 Many of the service providers retain it for a certain period of time, 

90 days or longer. Some retain it for much less periods of time, some 14 

days. So I think it is important that we all look at this issue. The 

Attorney General, in a speech that he gave at the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children just last week or the week before, said 

that he wanted the Department to look at this issue and has set forth an 

expert group to deal with this issue, both with the policy people and 

people that understand the technology. That working group has already 

been meeting and those meetings are going to go forward. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Now, do you have any information that would lead 

you to believe that some of the Internet service providers and remote 

computing services are not reporting apparent child pornography on their 

network that they know about? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, I know that there are several, about 217 ISPs that 

are reporting to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 

and have reported evidence of these crimes. Those go into the database, 

and then of course NCMEC sends it out to law enforcement so it can be 

acted on, whether it is in the State, local, Federal level. 

 Whether there are others out there that are not reporting on evidence 

of these crimes is something that we are on the lookout for. One thing 

that I would like to point out to you, because now we are into talking 

about the statute that you have, 13032, that requires ISPs to report when 

they have this kind of evidence, and in that statute it talks about liability 

when ISPs don’t report. We just cleared today, the Administration just 

cleared today a proposal that would add and enhance, I believe, 

significant penalties for ISPs to report in the following way. Right now 

the statute provides that the penalties exist for people who willfully and 

knowingly fail to report. This new proposal which we have talked to 

your staff about just this morning, because it just got cleared, this new 

proposal would allow for civil penalties for people who negligently fail 

to report evidence of the crime. That, I believe, enhances our efforts and 

our ability to go after those who aren’t reporting when we discover that 

they aren’t reporting. 
492

 MR. WHITFIELD. Have you all ever prosecuted anybody under the 

existing statute? 

 MS. FISHER. To date we have not prosecuted anyone under the 

existing statute, but that certainly shouldn’t imply that we wouldn’t, and 

it came to our attention that there were ISPs out there that were willfully 

and knowingly not reporting to NCMEC. We are on the lookout for that 

and we would prosecute under the statute. 

 We want to enforce all the laws in this area and we want to enforce 

them aggressively and we want to use the sentences and the penalties that 

Congress has given us under the PROTECT Act and others to put these 

people behind bars. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. I would ask you and Mr. Roldan both this question 

as people involved in law enforcement and prosecuting what I would 

consider some of the worst crimes that could be committed. What is the 

most frustrating aspect of this whole process from your perspective, and 

what frustrates you the most in bringing people to justice for committing 

these crimes? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, when we actually bring them to justice and get 

them convicted, that doesn’t frustrate me. That is a good thing. But 

what I think, as these hearings have demonstrated, what is frustrating is 

that this problem continues to grow, and it is going to take all of us 

working together. Law enforcement alone is not the answer. It is going 

to take Congress, it is going to take educators, it is going to take parents, 

and that is why I think the visibility of these hearings and making people 

aware of what happens when there are children going on the Internet is 

so important. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. It is so pervasive. I know I was reading an article 

just yesterday that a gentleman from Saudi Arabia, 37 years old, flew to 

California and he had been involved in the Internet and he thought he 

was in a conversation with the father of a two and a half year old child, 

and he flew to California for the purpose of molesting this child and was 

paying the parents. Of course, when he arrived, it was law enforcement 

that had set him up. But this was a 37-year-old psychiatrist from Saudi 

Arabia who flew to California for this purpose. 

 Mr. Roldan, in your testimony you indicated that from ‘96 to 2005 

that the FBI had opened something like 15,500 some odd cases in this 

area, but had obtained like 4,800 convictions. I was just curious what 

happened in those other cases. The evidence just was not good enough 

to convict, or-- 

 MR. ROLDAN. There is a variety of reasons. I am going to go ahead 

and defer to Mr. Bell because he has worked most of those cases. 

Arnold, please? 
493

 MR. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my remarks, I 

would like to thank the committee for bringing this issue to light, and 

thanks for the opportunity to be here this evening. 

 In cases that we investigate, oftentimes the evidence either is not 

there to have a successful prosecution, or in some instances, cases are 

deferred to other agencies or deferred to a State authority, and we don’t 

capture some of those statistics. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, you all presented a legislative 

proposal just in the last couple of days that you feel like would assist the 

Department, is that correct? 

 MS. FISHER. That is correct. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. And could you briefly cover some of the 

provisions of that legislation that you think would be particularly 

helpful? 

 MS. FISHER. Are you referring to the legislation that was sent up last 

week and this is included in that-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MS. FISHER. And this relates to ISP reporting. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

 MS. FISHER. There is also some other legislation that I thank the 

House for passing on child safety and that is now with the Senate, but 

that is important. The PROTECT Act was very important to this effort. 

 What this new legislation does is again, for ISPs that fail to report it 

increases the penalties for those who willfully and knowingly fail to 

report, and in addition, it now allows us to set up a regulatory scheme 

where ISPs that negligently fail to report will also be fined $50,000 for 

the first time, $100,000 for each subsequent time. 

 We look forward to working with this committee and with Congress 

in any other ideas in this area to move forward, and we are constantly 

looking for new ideas. I think it is important, again, to make sure that we 

have all the tools to fight this problem. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Well, do you feel like there is any specific way 

that this committee can help or-- 

 MS. FISHER. Well like I said, I think you are already helping. I think 

the fact that the House passed the Child Safety Act helped. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

 MS. FISHER. I would note also on sentencing, you know, sentencing 

reform is an issue that the Department is very concerned about. The 

Sentencing Commission just did a look at what has happened in the postBooker world, after the Supreme Court came out and said that the 

sentencing guidelines were advisory instead of mandatory. And one 

important thing that they noted was that in child sexual abuse cases they 

are seeing more downward departures, meaning more sentences given by 
494

judges under the guidelines. So sentencing reform is another thing that 

should be focused on here. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, I see my time is about expired, so I 

am going to recognize Mr. Stupak, but I think he is yielding his time to 

Ms. DeGette, so Ms. DeGette. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working together 

because we both have scheduling constraints, so I will just take a few 

minutes and then I will yield the rest of the time to Mr. Stupak. 

 I want to thank all of you for coming and I have a few questions. 

One of them, my main issue as I discussed in my opening statement is 

this concept of retention of subscriber information by ISPs, not, in fact, 

the communications, but rather the subscriber information. I am 

wondering if all of you in law enforcement--and I know, believe you me, 

Ms. Fisher, I have been meeting with these ISPs, too, and I know all of 

the explanations and the excuses and everything else, but the fact is, 

these ISPs retain subscriber information now. What we would really be 

talking about is accounts that had been closed, because if it was an 

ongoing account and law enforcement tried to subpoena that, it would be 

available because it is an existing account. So what you are really 

talking about is closed accounts, and I think that having that retained so 

if there was probable cause to think that a crime had been committed by 

that subscriber, law enforcement could subpoena that and it would be 

useful in the investigation. Don’t you think that that would be helpful to 

investigators? Maybe I should ask some of the investigators. 

 Mr. Swecker, I think you testified before that that would be useful. 

 MR. SWECKER. It would be. We find that the information is often 

stale by the time we get the information, if we get it. Most of the major 

ISPs are keeping it for about 90 days, but you are right on the money 

when you talk about retaining at least the ISP. Maybe not necessarily the 

content, but at bare minimum at least the ISP addresses. 

 MS. DEGETTE. I just keep thinking about that investigator who we 

have talked to quite a bit in my office who talked about the child who 

was being raped online, and then by the time they got to Colorado the 

data was gone. Mr. Roldan or Mr. Bell, do you have any sense of how 

helpful do you think that would be towards investigation of these cases? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Yes, if you notice from my testimony, the process is 

very long to initially identify the individuals, the customers that are 

entering the illegal websites, and obviously the IP address would provide 

the first information. The more information we have, the more helpful it 

is to the investigation. 

 MS. DEGETTE. And because it does take some time to identify the 

perpetrator, you can’t always subpoena that information within 14 or 30 

days, correct? 
495

 MR. ROLDAN. And there is also a difference in the subpoenas that 

are available. On the credit cards, we have to go through a grand jury. 

On the ISPs for the IP address, we go through-- 

 MS. DEGETTE. It is administrative, right. 

 I have a couple more questions, and then I will yield to Mr. Stupak, 

about the search warrants. In the Larry Walt case in Missouri, there was 

a Sergeant Michael Ziglefa who was involved in that case, the local FBI 

office got a warrant with an e-mail address and an IP address, which led 

to a physical address for the defendant, which was obtained from the ISP. 

Nobody knew whether the computer was at that address or not, but the 

FBI got a search warrant anyway, and the judge said that probable cause 

for the issuance of a search warrant exists when there is “a fair 

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a 

particular place.” Any of you who know the answer to this, is that the 

criteria used by the Justice Department and the FBI when requesting 

search warrants for child pornography? 

 MS. FISHER. Certainly, all of the cases depend on the facts and 

circumstances, and I am not sure about the facts in that case. But you 

have cited the right standard for probable cause. Now, what is going to 

allow you to get a search warrant with your judges in that district is 

going to be best known by the prosecutors in that district, as far as what 

more you are going to need. If you have an ISP address that takes you 

back to a computer and you have evidence that somebody is in the house 

using that computer, what do you know about that person, are they living 

there, et cetera. But all of those facts and circumstances are going to be 

looked at I believe that the prosecutors that I work with are going to look 

for that first opportunity to get that search warrant. 

 MS. DEGETTE. So you wouldn’t have to prove that the computer 

was actually there, just that there was a fair probability? That is the 

definition of probable cause, right? 

 MS. FISHER. Well again, yes, but you would have to look at the 

whole facts and circumstances. 

 MS. DEGETTE. Exactly. Thank you very much, and I will yield to 

Mr. Stupak. Thank you for your comity, Mr. Stupak. 

 MR. STUPAK. Ms. Fisher, you indicated that these new provisions 

have been sent up here on Section 13032, had there been any 

prosecutions? You said no. Have any efforts been made to prosecute 

anyone under 13032? 

 MS. FISHER. I know that there have not been any prosecutions. 

 MR. STUPAK. Have any efforts been made to seek any prosecutions 

under 13032? 
496

 MS. FISHER. Well, certainly we are on the lookout for it, and if we 

found evidence of that. I can’t tell you how far certain investigations 

have gone, but I can assure you, Congressman-- 

 MR. STUPAK. 13032 was an act in ‘99 by the Congress, right? 

 MS. FISHER. That is correct, sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. And in 2000, the Clinton Administration put forth the 

regulations to implement the law, is that correct? 

 MS. FISHER. I believe there were some regulations that did go out, 

sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. And then since then, nothing has been done to use this 

law to apply it to any cases, isn’t that correct? 

 MS. FISHER. I can’t say that nothing has been done, but I will agree 

with you, sir, that there have been no prosecutions under the standard 

that is put forth in the statute. With regard to ISPs, again, with regard to 

ISPs who have not reported-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Has the Justice Department or you or anyone ever 

come to Congress and say we don’t feel your law is enforceable, and 

therefore we have to make some changes until today? 

 MS. FISHER. No, I am not aware of that. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, we had testimony at the last hearing from the 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children that you weren’t using the 

law because you didn’t think that it was enforceable, that the Department 

of Justice didn’t think it was enforceable. 

 MS. FISHER. There is nothing that strikes me about this law that is 

not enforceable. 

 MR. STUPAK. Then why are you recommending changes to it? 

 MS. FISHER. We believe that we are going to make it more 

enhanced, because now we will be-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, how would you know if it needed to be 

enhanced if you have never used it? 

 MS. FISHER. Sir, we have never prosecuted a case under that. I can’t 

say that we have never used the statute. 

 MR. STUPAK. So why would you want-- 

 MS. FISHER. In fact, I think the whole-- 

 MR. STUPAK. The law has never been used for prosecution, why 

would it have to be changed? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, this act has a lot of provisions that have been 

used with regard to reporting in, and I am sure, as you know, you heard 

from NCMEC, the reporting in is a success story. There are over 200 

ISPs that are reporting-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Out of how many ISPs are there? 

 MS. FISHER. I don’t know the answer to that, sir, but Congressman-- 
497

 MR. STUPAK. And they don’t report underneath this law. They 

report under a different law. 

 MS. FISHER. There are over 217 ISPs that are now reporting to 

NCMEC. This deals with ISPs that are not reporting and willfully and 

knowingly not reporting. That is correct. 

 MR. STUPAK. So why isn’t this law being enforced? 

 MS. FISHER. I can’t say that it is not being enforced. I think we are 

talking past each other for there has not been a prosecution under this 

law. That does not mean that it hasn’t been investigated. That does not 

mean that we don’t stand ready, that when-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Wait a minute. We already had testimony that it 

hasn’t been used at all. Are you saying that the people who testified 

before did not tell the truth before this committee? 

 MS. FISHER. No, absolutely not. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, one of you-- 

 MS. FISHER. I think I am being completely consistent. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, either Justice is not telling us the truth, or the 

other people who testified are not telling the truth. We can’t have the 

same reading or the same understanding of the same law. 

 Let me ask you this question. Isn’t it true, with your so-called 

changes today, you are really shifting your responsibility, Justice 

Department’s responsibility, to the Federal Communications 

Commission? 

 MS. FISHER. Absolutely not. 

 MR. STUPAK. Well, under Section C, the purpose of this paragraph, 

“The Federal Communications Commission shall have the authority to 

levy civil fines under it and shall promulgate the rules and consultation 

with the Attorney General to effectuate the purposes of subparagraph B 

and to provide the appropriate administrative review of civil penalties.” 

To some of us sitting up here, it looks like you are shifting this 

responsibility from Justice to the FCC. 

 MS. FISHER. Absolutely not. The criminal penalties for willful and 

knowing failure to report will still be prosecuted by the Department of 

Justice. The civil penalties in the civil regime as under this bill will be 

administered by the FCC, but now, what is great about this is that we can 

get both. We can get people who negligently failed to report, but we can 

also get people who willfully and knowingly failed to report. 

 MR. STUPAK. Have you ever used it? 

 MS. FISHER. We stand by--it has not been prosecuted. There is-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Can you tell me a case where you have used it? 

 MS. FISHER. No, sir, I agree with you. This statute has not been 

used to prosecute an ISP for failing to report. 
498

 MR. STUPAK. And I will bet you if we never would have brought up 

these hearings, we wouldn’t have these so-called enhancements of this 

law unless we had these hearings, correct? 

 MS. FISHER. I don’t know when exactly these enhancements were 

starting to be discussed at the Justice Department. I can tell you that we 

are always looking at enhancements on reporting and looking at 

enhancements to laws that combat this horrific problem. I thank you for 

these hearings. 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you about Operation Falcon. You 

discussed in your testimony, you said it resulted in 372 open 

investigations, 579 search warrants, 341 domestic arrests, 254 

indictments, and 241 convictions. ISIS told us that they, as well as State 

and local law enforcement, verified the names, credit card information, 

and physical addresses of over 21,000 individuals in the United States 

that paid to download images of the rape and torture of children. You 

have testimony that at least one-third, as much as three-fourths of these 

individuals have or will engage in such horrible acts themselves. There 

are at least 20,000 individuals known to the Department of Justice that 

are a threat to the safety of children where no attempt has been made to 

remove them from the community. Are you content that CEOS has done 

everything it can to prosecute these individuals, these remaining 20,000? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, I certainly, as I said, want all child predators put 

behind bars. That-- 

 MR. STUPAK. I am just going off the 20,000. 

 MS. FISHER. This investigation, like many others, continue, and 

hopefully we will find and prosecute the people that are committing 

these horrible acts on our children. 

 MR. STUPAK. So it is your testimony you can’t find the 20,000? 

You have the names and addresses-- 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Stupak, your 10 minutes have expired. I am 

going to go to the full committee Chairman, and then we will come back. 

Very good. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you, but if Mr. Stupak 

wants to conclude that, I am happy to defer until he has concluded that 

particular line. 

 MR. STUPAK. What happened to the other 20,000? You had the 

credit card information, their names, and their physical addresses, so 

what happened to 20,000? You said you couldn’t find them. 

 MS. FISHER. I never said I couldn’t find them. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

 MS. FISHER. I said that the investigation continues. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay. So you are still working on it? 
499

 MS. FISHER. Absolutely. We are still working on all of these 

investigations and these operations. 

 MR. STUPAK. Is that since we have had these hearings or-- 

 MS. FISHER. No, sir. 

 MR. STUPAK. I just wondered if it was like the statute, that is all. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to my 5 minutes later. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for 

holding this hearing. I am going to start off thanking all you witnesses 

for being here. I mean that. One of you has been here before, in a little 

bit of a difficult situation. The other three of you have gotten here in a 

somewhat unusual fashion, but the truth is, you are here and we are 

happy you are here. I want this to be a positive hearing. I have not 

normally had the Attorney General of the United States walk into my 

office and say that either he would come or you folks would come, and 

so I thank Attorney General Gonzalez for making that commitment, and I 

have not often had to call the Director of the FBI and have the kind of 

conversation I had with him to get some of our FBI witnesses here. So I 

am sincere in saying we appreciate it and I think we are on the same 

team. Congress wants to bring these folks to justice, these child 

predators, and you folks obviously do. You all have dedicated a large 

part of your professional career to that. 

 So I want to start off by kind of reestablishing what the problem is, 

and I guess, Ms. Fisher, I go to you since you are the senior Department 

of Justice official here. How many perpetrators do we think there are in 

the country that engage in child pornography and preying on children for 

pornographic purposes? Does the Department of Justice have an 

estimate of that? 

 MS. FISHER. I don’t have an estimate with me, but it is hundreds of 

thousands. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Hundreds of thousands. Mr. Swecker, as the 

FBI senior person, would you agree with that? 

 MR. SWECKER. I would. I mean, it is very difficult. There are 

different categories, if you will, possessors versus people who are 

actually producing and abusing the children. So there are different--as 

you well know, there are different categories, but there are a lot of them 

out there and I think-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So you wouldn’t disagree with the order of 

magnitude? 

 MR. SWECKER. No, not at all. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. Do we have an estimate of the number 

of commercial child pornographic sites there are on the Internet on any 

given day? Anybody? 
500

 MR. BELL. I don’t know if there is a way to determine with certainty 

a number like that. I did a simple Google search on some terms that I 

know, and I had 130,000 hits. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. One hundred thirty thousand? 

 MR. BELL. Right, and that was on one search term. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. So we have hundreds of thousands of potential 

if not actual predators. We have hundreds of thousands of commercial 

sites. What is our estimate on number of victims then, the actual 

children themselves, based on that? Would that also be in the hundreds 

of thousands, the millions, the tens of thousands? Just kind of a general 

order of magnitude, what would it be? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Sir, it would have to be in the hundreds of thousands-

- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Hundreds of thousands. 

 MR. ROLDAN. --because every time we arrest someone, there is 

more than one victim. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Okay. 

 Now, at our previous hearing, one of our witnesses from law 

enforcement made the point that I thought was rather telling, that this 

wasn’t just a law enforcement problem, and I agree with that. I mean, 

with this kind of an order of magnitude, we cannot ask a handful of 

Federal officials backed up by State and local--I mean, this is a huge 

problem. My first question, and I will direct this to Ms. Fisher, given the 

order of magnitude, when I look at the number of officials at the 

Department of Justice and the number of agents at the FBI that are 

dedicated to this problem, it is in the dozens at DOJ, and at the FBI, it is 

several hundred. What does the Congress need to do to significantly 

increase the personnel and the financial resources that are being 

dedicated to tracking this problem? I have no doubt that everybody that 

is assigned is absolutely committed to bringing to justice these fiends, 

but I am a little puzzled as to why given the order of magnitude that we 

all understand in general terms, there hasn’t been a huge request to put 

more agents, more prosecutors, more resources into combating the 

problem? We are fighting a forest fire with a can of aerosol spray or 

something. Is it a Congressional problem that we are unwilling to work 

to increase the resources, or is it there are so many other problems that 

you just don’t feel like you can put more resources into it? 

 MS. FISHER. I think you can always put more resources to attack this 

problem. One of the things that we have tried to do in the Department of 

Justice, and I will let the FBI follow me, because I know that they put a 

great deal of resources on this. We use all 94 of our U.S. Attorney’s 

offices to prosecute this. Second, the Attorney General himself has told 

the prosecutors and told the U.S. Attorneys this is our priority. Third, we 
501

have this new initiative called Project Safe Childhood, and what that 

does is it makes us link up with the State and locals who also have 

resources to prosecute these crimes, to train them, to give them money to 

prosecute. I think $14 million is going out to ISIS this year, and to 

enhance community awareness. 

 So those are some of the things that we are trying to do to address the 

problem, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here. The 

young man who was the primary witness at the last hearing who had 

been sexually abused indicated that the website that he was operating, his 

one website, if I understand, that one website took in $1 million a month. 

We estimate that the national take on child pornography in the United 

States through the Internet is upwards of $20 billion a year, $20 billion. 

And we are talking about a $14 million upgrade? A million million, a 

thousand million is a billion. I think the Congress will work with the 

Administration to find a way, instead of having a couple of hundred FBI 

agents, a dozen or so specialists at DOJ, or even--so let us put thousands. 

If we are serious about this, let us put some real muscle in. Again, I am 

not negative on what you are doing, but if I have got to put out a major 

forest fire, I don’t send out one firefighter, no matter how good he is. 

You know, I mobilize the entire operation. 

 My next point. The gentleman on the end here, Mr. Bell, said that he 

put in a phrase and he got 130,000 hits that there was--he thinks there 

may be a commercial site on the Internet for child pornography. Now, it 

is illegal to engage in child pornography. Why wouldn’t it be possible, 

and if we need to change the law, if you can prove that that is a site that 

is a child pornographic trafficker, shut it down immediately? Why can’t 

you do that? It is an illegal act, it is engaged in illegal activity. Why 

don’t we just take it off as soon as we know it is there? 

 MR. BELL. The difficulty in addressing the commercial websites in 

particular is there are several mechanisms for masking where they 

actually are. We have to identify where the host server is. Oftentimes, 

that is not in the United States. Oftentimes, these websites are 

administered by people who are not in the United States. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Is there anyplace in the world where child 

pornography is legal? 

 MR. BELL. Not that I am aware of, but I think as you mentioned 

there are 90-some countries where it is not--I am sorry, there are 94 

countries where it is not illegal, we heard testimony today. Some of the 

guys that are doing this that are doing it for profit and as a business are 

situating themselves in those places where they kind of have safe 

harbors. We have tried to address this through international cooperation. 

We have an international task force. I think some of your staff members 
502

have met some of the officers that we have from overseas that are 

working with us, and we are trying hard to address these sites, wherever 

they might be in the world. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I might just make a comment, 

though, that 94 countries do not have any laws on child pornography, but 

I have been told that it is estimated that 40 percent of all the sites are 

right here in the U.S. 

 MR. BELL. What we found through some of our investigation is that 

oftentimes when we finalize our investigations, we find the services to be 

housed in the U.S. are in Western European modernized countries and 

the reason for that, we believe, is that the infrastructure is so much better 

here for high speed broadband and such. 

 So the guys--the subjects who are administering these sites tend to be 

offshore, but the mechanisms are here. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Do we have the technical capability, if it were 

legal, if I put up a child pornography site called Kiddyporn.barton--or 

Bartonkiddyporn.com, and I am engaged in illegal transactions for child 

pornography, it is technically possible to shut my site down and not let it 

be accessed. Is that not correct? 

 MR. BELL. It is possible. It is possible to shut the site down, but 

what happens is sites are generally hosted in several locations at one 

time. The analogy I like to use is owning four homes. If you are a drug 

dealer and you own four homes and the police raid one of your homes, 

you just go to the next home. What we are finding in our investigations 

is that sites are located in multiple servers in multiple locations. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. But my point is, if we have detective 

capability to shut these sites down, why don’t we make sure you have the 

constitutional and legal ability to just do it if you can prove by accessing 

it there is child pornography on that site. Boom, shut it down, just do it. 

Make it tough on these guys, you know, make it tough on them. There 

are not that many of you, so just--I mean, I think we will back you up. I 

don’t believe anybody on either side of the aisle this is the committee of 

jurisdiction for the Internet. Now, we don’t have criminal penalty 

enforcement. That is your friends on the Judiciary Committee. But if 

you need--I mean, what the Attorney General has sent up in terms of a 

legislative package I think is a step in the right direction, but it appears to 

me that there is so much that we could do if we are serious about this, 

and we just are not doing it. 

 And so my plea is let us think big. Let us think as big as the 

traffickers think. They are having hundreds of thousands of sites, 

hundreds of thousands of perpetrators, and we are fighting that with, you 

know, just a handful of people. 
503

 I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but my time is expired. 

I do want Mr. Roldan’s thoughts in writing and will give him a question 

in writing. He says the best way to get at these folks is through credit 

card information, but they have to go on a case-by-case basis to a Grand 

Jury to get a subpoena to get that identification of the individual with the 

credit card number. I would like to see what we need to do to make it 

possible to access those credit cards without having to go on a case-bycase basis. Again, if you can prove that that credit card has been used at 

a site that traffics in commercial child pornography, I would be willing to 

vote for a bill that makes it an automatic that you can go to the bank and 

get the identification of that credit card holder. If you prove that they 

purchased child pornography or accessed a site and paid to go to a site 

where child pornography was there, that would be prima facie evidence 

that they are engaged in it and you can get their name. You don’t have to 

spend all the time to go to do th--and again, I don’t want to violate 

anybody’s constitutional rights, but I would think if you can prove that 

that credit card has been used, you ought to be able to get the name of the 

person using it without having to do all the effort that the FBI and the 

State law enforcement people are having to do. 

 Thank you folks for coming, and again, Mr. Whitfield, thank you, 

and Mr. Stupak for doing this investigation. 

 Lastly, I am told that the million dollars a month was not a site that 

was operated by Justin Berry, it was another case, the Reedy case. 

Thank you. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 At this time, I recognize Mr. Stupak for his remaining 6 minutes. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Ms. Fisher, you said in your response to the Chairman that 94 DA’s 

are all working on this and it is a priority with the Attorney General to 

prosecute these cases. Then what happened last July when Justin Berry 

came to the Justice Department with some current IP addresses, physical 

addresses, credit card information of persons who were subscribers to his 

website, but neither the FBI nor Justice has used this information to 

obtain search warrants? What happened there? 

 MS. FISHER. Of course because this is a pending investigation there 

is some stuff that is public that I can talk about and there is material that 

is not public with regard to the investigation that I can’t talk about. What 

is public is that there has been two people charged with regard to this 

investigation, Mr. Mitchel and Mr. Richards-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Two out of 1,500 I believe it is, right? Wasn’t there 

1,500? 

 MS. FISHER. There have been two people charged. One has been 

convicted, one is pending trial. There have been--the website itself has 
504

been taken down. There have been search warrants. It would be 

inappropriate for me--that is public and that is what I can tell you about 

the investigation. 

 MR. STUPAK. Wait a minute. You guys didn’t do anything to shut 

down this server. The guy fled the country. 

 MS. FISHER. I am sorry. There were search warrants that were done 

that have taken down that commercial website. 

 MR. STUPAK. Tell me, what was done to put down this website 

then? 

 MS. FISHER. I will leave that to the FBI. 

 MR. STUPAK. Okay, someone tell me. 

 MR. SWECKER. I can just say that all the information that was given 

to us is being aggressively pursued, very aggressively pursued with 

substantial resources. Without going into the details-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Sure. So are there going to be more indictments or 

what? You have 1,500 names and addresses, credit card information, 

physical addresses, IP addresses. Do you anticipate more indictments or 

anything on this case? It has been 8 months. 

 MR. SWECKER. It is ongoing, but what I would like to do is have Mr. 

Bell just generically go over-- 

 MR. STUPAK. We all sit here and talk about the courage of these 

young people coming here, and when they give you the information and 

it is 8 months and you get two out of 1,500, their confidence is rather 

shaken. I think we do more harm to these young people who are willing 

to step forward if we take the information and it is such a slow process. 

The website, the person fled the country. That is a given, right? The 

operator fled the country by the time you got around to it. 

 MR. SWECKER. The agents working this case, the prosecutors 

working this case are aggressively pursuing every lead in this case. 

 MR. STUPAK. Understood, and I have heard that so much today, but 

the point I hope you understand as we sit up here and these young people 

who are willing to come forward, and we hear oh, we are aggressively 

pursuing this case. Justin Berry has gone to you a couple times and 

asked for information, and no one would give him information. Don’t 

you think you at least owe him an explanation what is going on, other 

than can’t talk about it or ongoing pending case? 

 MR. SWECKER. Sir, I know you have a law enforcement background 

and I know that you know that we don’t discuss cases with witnesses in 

terms of the details of the case. 

 MR. STUPAK. But you certainly discuss cases with the victim, 

because they have the right to know. 

 Let me ask this one. The Chairman was making an excellent point, 

Chairman Barton. In the UK, Internet service providers have a process 
505

for identifying websites that contain this filth and remove those images 

48 hours after identification, unless law enforcement requests otherwise. 

I understand that is a voluntary regulatory system that will not work here, 

as most of our ISPs are unwilling to even use the NCMEC reporting 

forms. The UK reduced the percentage of its images located on their 

servers from 18 percent of the worldwide total to four tenths of one 

percent in 2005. In 2 years, they went from 18 percent to four tenths of 

one percent. Of course, that doesn’t count the U.S. part. 

 So has the Department thought about requesting from the Congress 

some legislation that would create a mechanism to notify ISPs of 

violation or sites that may be violating and mandate removal of these 

sites from our servers within 48 hours of notification from either 

NCMEC or from law enforcement? Have you thought about that? 

 MS. FISHER. Congressman, just last week when I met with the ISPs I 

raised this issue with them, and I know they are coming in next week to 

talk about this. In fact, one of the ones that I met with is AOL, who has 

been a very good reporter to NCMEC, but they, I believe, are on the 

board of that entity in the UK, and so I think that they would be better 

seen to address that particular issue, but I can tell you that we constantly 

work with the ISPs and with NCMEC to do everything that we can. 

 MR. STUPAK. All right, I guess we will talk to the ISPs. 

 Do you have any suggestions? We heard administrative warrants 

last hearing on how we crack down on this, other than talk to the ISPs? 

We heard administrative warrants, which I thought was a good idea. We 

will work on that. Do you have any other comments for us or this 

proposal that you gave us today where you shifted to the Federal 

Communications Commission? Any other suggestions? 

 MS. FISHER. I applaud the legislation that was passed by the House 

that is now pending with the Senate. I think that you should look at 

sentencing reform with regard to the downward departures, that is an 

issue. There is something called the cyber convention that is now 

pending also in the Senate that tries to get our foreign countries that sign 

on to that cyber crime treaty to have data retention in place so we can 

work with our international partners. I think any-- 

 MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this idea. How about if we pay 

overtime to local law enforcement who work this area? You do it 

Justice-based terrorism task force and violent crime task force, because 

the sergeant who really broke Masha’s case doesn’t do it anymore 

because his jurisdiction can no longer afford the overtime. So why 

doesn’t Justice use some of that money and pay overtime to local law 

enforcement who seem to be ahead of this problem, or trying to stay 

ahead of this problem? Would that be an idea? 
506

 MS. FISHER. Certainly. We do send money out through the ICECs 

to help the local efforts. The State and locals do such an amazing job at 

combating child exploitation, and I commend them for their work. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

 At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes. 

 MR. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

 Ms. Fisher, at our hearing on April 4, concerns were raised by Justin 

Berry and his attorney, Steve Ryan, about the handling of Justin’s case 

by Department of Justice. I am sure you are aware of our hearing. In 

particular, Justin and Mr. Ryan described how an affidavit was unsealed 

in the case involving Gregory Mitchel, a man we understand allegedly 

molested Justin and also was engaged in a commercial enterprise 

involving the production of sexually exploitative images of children. 

The unsealing of this affidavit was particularly detrimental to Justin 

because it was only partially redacted and contained information that 

other child predators involved with Mr. Mitchel in this commercial 

enterprise would realize came from Justin. In effect, it altered--it alerted, 

I should say, other potential perpetrators that Justin was a government 

witness. 

 Mr. Ryan, Justin’s attorney, testified under oath that he had been 

assured the day before the unsealing of Mr. Mitchel’s affidavit by Mr. 

Andrew Oosterbaan, head of the CEOS section, that the affidavit would 

remain sealed. Subsequently, we learned that an error was made and the 

affidavit was unsealed. I understand that those sorts of mistakes can 

happen. However, I asked Justin’s attorney, Steve Ryan, while he was 

under oath, whether he, on behalf of Justin, ever requested the Justice 

Department reseal the affidavit. Mr. Ryan said that he would get back to 

us on that question because he wanted to make sure he gave us an 

accurate response. I have an e-mail that was forwarded from Mr. Ryan 

to staff the following day. There should be a copy of it on the dais for 

you if you want to read it. 

 MS. FISHER. That is okay. 

 MR. WALDEN. We can share it with you. I don’t know if somebody 

is able to do that. 

 I would like to move that the e-mail be entered into our record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

 [The information follows:] 
507

 MR. WALDEN. The e-mail he forwarded staff is an e-mail dated 

September 15 of 2005 from Holly Roth, an attorney working with Mr. 

Ryan and Justin, to Mr. Andrew Oosterbaan, Sherri Stephan of DOJ, and 

Stephanie Thacker of DOJ. In this e-mail, Ms. Roth writes, and I quote 

“Drew: Reserving all of our rights in light of what has happened, we 

would like you to take every possible action to get the warrant affidavit 

back under seal. Please advise us right away of your position on this.” 

We note this affidavit remains unsealed. Can you explain to us why this 

affidavit was not resealed? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, I can. When this e-mail was sent about resealing 

the affidavit, which the complaint underlying arrest warrant affidavit that 
508

describes all the facts that was unsealed in a redacted form by the court, 

that affidavit was already in the public realm, and according to the U.S. 

Attorney, the press already had that affidavit. So the judgment was made 

that they would offer protection for Justin, and I believe that that offer-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Physical protection? 

 MS. FISHER. Yes, physical protection and any other kind of 

protection, and that was made. Of course, because the Mitchel case was 

ongoing, he had already had his initial appearance and he was going 

forward, that affidavit at some point was going to become unsealed, but 

at that period of time after this Thursday e-mail, that is the event that 

took place. 

 MR. WALDEN. But is that sort of standard procedure in these types 

of cases? 

 MS. FISHER. Eventually, yes. The complaint and the affidavit--if 

there is a complaint and an affidavit, they are unsealed as to the 

defendant because the defendant gets to know the charges against him. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MS. FISHER. And then as the case progresses, sometimes it is 30 

days, sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is a little bit later, those 

documents are unsealed because the case is going on and the defendant is 

making further appearances, and of course, our court proceedings are 

public. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 MS. FISHER. But let me assure you, Congressman, because I think 

this gets at the issue. There would never be a deliberate attempt by the 

Justice Department to put a victim or a cooperating witness in harm’s 

way. There certainly was no attempt to do that here. We want to protect 

our victims and we want to protect our investigation and our case. 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure, but when Mr. Ryan asked that it be resealed, 

why was it--that just didn’t matter at that point? 

 MS. FISHER. It is not that it didn’t matter at all. Unfortunately, it 

was already in the public realm and so resealing would have been 

ineffective, so the judgment was made at the time by the people on the 

ground to offer him protection. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. And when you say it is already in the public 

realm, does that mean that it was at one time open and available but 

could it--I am not an attorney, so you are going to have to work with me 

on this. But resealing it, would that take it out of the public realm? 

 MS. FISHER. Well, when I said it was already in the public realm, 

the press in Roanoke already had a copy of the affidavit and had called 

the U.S. Attorney in Roanoke, according to my conversations with the 

U.S. Attorney in looking into this. And so it was already in the public 

realm, and of course, it had been made-- 
509

 MR. WALDEN. But it was like one reporter in Roanoke had it? 

 MS. FISHER. I believe that is right but I am not sure that they knew 

that at the time. But I think that when they were considering whether 

resealing would be effective, and of course, it would only have remained 

resealed for a certain period of time-- 

 MR. WALDEN. How long would that be, normally, in a case? 

 MS. FISHER. It would depend on the local rules in the courthouse 

down there. Sometimes it is 15 days, sometimes it is longer. It depends 

on your relationship with the court and the motions that are filed. But 

this was not done on purpose. We want to protect our victims. I am 

sorry that it happened. I believe everybody is sorry that it happened. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 Mr. Roldan, what is the current budget for the Innocent Images Unit? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Sir, I can break it down for you, but-- 

 MR. WALDEN. You need to turn your mic on there if you would. 

Thank you, sir. 

 MR. ROLDAN. I can break it down for you, sir, but right now it is a 

little bit less than $20 million. 

 MR. WALDEN. And is it-- 

 MR. ROLDAN. Including personnel. 

 MR. WALDEN. And has the Unit’s budget been the same since its 

inception? 

 MR. ROLDAN. No, sir. It started in 1998 and we received 60 

positions equivalent to $5.8 million. 

 MR. WALDEN. That was in ‘98? 

 MR. ROLDAN. In 1998. We also received-- 

 MR. WALDEN. And what is it today? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Total in personnel or non-personnel. I will give you 

the whole--1998, 60 positions, equivalent $5.8 million. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 MR. ROLDAN. In addition, non-personnel $4.2 million. In 1999, 45 

positions equivalent to $5.2 million. 

 MR. WALDEN. So it has gone down? 

 MR. ROLDAN. No, in addition. This is reoccurring. So in addition 

to the 60 positions, we received an additional 45 positions. 

 MR. WALDEN. You got an additional 45 positions. 

 MR. ROLDAN. Yes, sir. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. 

 MR. ROLDAN. And in 2005, in addition to the $4.2 million nonpersonnel, we received an additional $3 million non-personnel. No 

additional positions, but we received $3 million in non-personnel. So 

now we are up to $7.2 million reoccurring. It will reoccur every year. 
510

And then in 2006, we received an additional 22 positions, which is 

approximately $2.69 million. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. Do you believe that is adequate to keep up 

with the volumes we are hearing about here? 

 MR. ROLDAN. We could use more resources in this particular matter, 

obviously, from the numbers we are getting. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. 

 Within the cyber crimes section, what priority is placed on Innocent 

Images investigations as opposed to intellectual property crimes, such as 

downloading music from the Internet, for example? How many positions 

do you have on these intellectual property cases? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Minimal, sir. As a matter of fact, the Innocent 

Images program is just below the intrusion matters, which address 

counterterrorism and counterintelligence. 

 This was just recently changed, too, by the way. 

 MR. WALDEN. When? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Most recently, we started working on a national 

strategy approximately a year ago or a little less than a year ago, and that 

national strategy was recently signed. That is where the changes were 

made. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay, because it used to be like third in your priority, 

didn’t it? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Yes, sir, you are correct. 

 MR. WALDEN. After intellectual property cases, after hacking, and 

after intrusion? 

 MR. ROLDAN. Yes, sir, you are correct. 

 MR. WALDEN. Okay. All right. 

 Ms. Fisher, one final question on this affidavit issue. Have you ever 

resealed an affidavit in a case? 

 MS. FISHER. No, sir. I have not had occasion to do so. 

 MR. WALDEN. Does it ever happen in--I meant the Justice 

Department in general, not necessarily you personally. 

 MS. FISHER. The Justice Department, I couldn’t say for the entire 

Justice Department. I think it unusual, but I would never say that it 

couldn’t happen or wouldn’t happen. It would be up to the court, 

obviously. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. 

 MS. FISHER. Could I clarify one thing-- 

 MR. WALDEN. Sure. 

 MS. FISHER. --Mr. Chairman? I think I mentioned the cyber crime 

treaty earlier as something that could be done and could be worked on 

that is in the Senate right now, and I mentioned it in regards to data 

retention. It actually helps us with international cooperation and 
511

information sharing, not data retention, so I apologize for that. I just 

wanted to clarify that for the record. 

 MR. WALDEN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is 

expired. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

 At this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for 10 minutes. 

 MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being out 

of the room for a while during part of the testimony. 

 When evidence comes to light that some of this activity has been 

going on, but it comes to you late, does it reach a point where the 

evidence is just too stale to pursue an investigation or a search warrant? 

 MS. FISHER. There could be a staleness problem with regard to 

search warrants, but as far as the investigation goes, I would defer that to 

Mr. Swecker. 

 MR. SWECKER. Can you repeat that question? 

 MR. BURGESS. If you don’t catch something right away, is there an 

expiration date on the ability to investigate it and pursue a search 

warrant? 

 MR. SWECKER. The answer is yes, because data can become stale 

and you can’t use it in a search warrant, for example, because it is not 

current enough. We often get information that is a year, 2 years old, and 

unless you can update that information and get it to the point where it is 

fresh enough to get a search warrant, you can’t act on it without just 

knocking on the door and doing the knock and talk that I think Raul 

discussed earlier. 

 MR. BURGESS. So then what happens? Does the case just get 

dropped? 

 MR. SWECKER. No. I mean, if you have a list of subscribers that are 

2 years old, for example, you continue with the investigation. It goes 

into a database. If you do get to the names of the subscribers and you get 

the information on it, that goes into the Innocent Images database and 

usually we run across these folks again. 

 So it doesn’t just die, I mean, the investigation continues on. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is there any tool that we could give you here that 

would help you with the staleness problem? Is there any legislative tool 

that Congress could supply you? 

 MR. SWECKER. I will defer to Justice on that one. I mean, we like 

data retention. It is a question of how long and how much data is going 

to be retained. There is an issue with our regional forensic labs, frankly. 

There is a bottleneck there. Innocent Images cases, as we refer to them, 

have to take a backseat to terrorism exploitation with respect to our 

computer forensic examinations. There are only about nine labs, I 

believe, forensic labs around the country right now, and these are labs 
512

that are shared by State and local and FBI and other Federal agencies. 

There are times when we can’t get to this information because of the 

press of terrorism, counterintelligence cases, and other cases that the 

Director has stated, and rightfully so, that are higher priorities. So more 

forensic labs would help. 

 MR. BURGESS. I have a hard time differentiating between this type 

of terrorism and some of the other types that you pursue, but I understand 

what you are saying. 

 So you will try to pursue a case even though some of the information 

has become quite dated? 

 MR. SWECKER. Yes. Arnold, can you elaborate on that a little bit? 

 MR. BELL. Yes, sir. 

 Even when we receive dated information, we have several databases 

that are contained in house. In addition, we have databases that are 

available to us at the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children. We will take the names of the individuals that we have, we 

will take whatever information we have, and we will bounce it off those 

databases. Sometimes we find people that we have encountered before, 

sometimes we find people that we already have active investigations on, 

or when we go through the National Center, some other agency may 

have active investigations on. The information that we have, if someone 

else has an investigation, our information generally will bolster some 

other investigation or allow us to continue on with investigations we 

might already have ongoing on a particular subject. For example, on a 

website case we might have 10,000 such leads, but all that information 

might be 2 or 3 years old. We bounce that off of all the databases that 

are available to us. 

 MR. BURGESS. So you have someone who is continually working on 

those? 

 MR. BELL. We do those regularly. 

 MR. BURGESS. Do you have any--I mean, are there success stories 

from successful prosecutions from that? 

 MR. BELL. You know what, I can’t think of any that came 

specifically from some data of that age right now. I am sure there are. I 

can get back to the committee if it is necessary. 

 MR. BURGESS. Well, I am sure all of you were in the room when we 

heard the testimony from the pervious panel. I have just got to tell you, I 

am really bothered by human traffickers masquerading as adoption 

agencies. I mean, I had no idea that that sort of thing could even happen. 

 Is there any role for the Department of Justice or the FBI in working 

up these cases and pursuing these individuals? I mean, that is really at 

the heart of what we are talking about, from the standpoint of the 

Internet. The Internet has put all of this stuff on steroids. At the heart of 
513

it, you had a pedophile go overseas and adopt a baby, and went through 

three agencies in order to do it. Is that possible? 

 MS. FISHER. It was such a sad and horrific story that she told, and 

she is such a brave girl. 

 I was thinking that same thing as she was testifying, is there 

something-- 

 MR. BURGESS. Well, are you guys investigating-- 

 MS. FISHER. --for the Department-- 

 MR. BURGESS. Go ahead--aspects of those adoption agencies? I 

mean, I don’t want to come down hard on international adoption 

agencies that are doing good work and providing people the children 

they have always longed for, but this is so heinous. Surely, the FBI is 

investigating adoption agencies, international adoption agencies, after 

seeing this kind of information, because as someone on the previous 

panel said, there have got to be other Mashas out there. We just haven’t 

found them yet. 

 MR. SWECKER. Can I address that? 

 MR. BURGESS. Sure, I wish you would. 

 MR. SWECKER. You hit it right on the head. It is a human 

trafficking case, and we address human trafficking cases. We have a 

pretty sizeable inventory of human trafficking cases. We can get back to 

you as to how many of those that would involve adoption agencies. As 

you know, we played a role in this case, although it was first scoped out 

by a local officer. He came to the FBI for some additional help in getting 

the search warrant put together and actually conducting the raid. 

 But to answer your question, we do have a role to play. 

 MR. BURGESS. Are any of the people who were involved in this case 

that was before us today, any of the adoption agency people in jail, on 

trial, awaiting trial? Has anyone been punished for what happened to 

this 5-year-old? 

 MR. SWECKER. Not that I am aware of. 

 MS. FISHER. Other than the defendant, her adoptive father who is in 

prison, I am not aware of any others. 

 MR. BURGESS. And I mean, the failures are--her teachers, I don’t 

know whether she got medical care during her 5 years with this guy. I 

don’t know whether he took her in for her immunizations. If she went to 

school, I presume she had immunizations. I presume she was weighed 

by a nurse and someone should have noted that her weight was lower 

than the 20th percentile for a 10-year-old. I mean, it is just hard to 

imagine how this was missed over and over and over again. The failings 

of our system are just rampant in this case. 

 The Toronto police department spent considerable time and 

resources to find this child, only to learn that her identify had been--or 
514

that she had been found 2 years earlier by the FBI working with the 

Chicago police department. Do you have things in place internationally 

now to try to help that? What is being done amongst Federal law 

enforcement agencies and the Justice Department? 

 MR. SWECKER. The answer is yes. Our database has been merged 

with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children database, 

which is actually when the match was made in this case two years after 

she was recovered. NCMEC has put out a list of protocols that need to 

be followed in these types of cases, and as a last resort, placing the 

child’s picture out on the public domain. That protocol wasn’t followed 

in this case, and I will let Arnold follow up on that, but we can’t force 

other international law enforcement agencies to follow those protocols. 

They are really advisory in nature. Most countries do. 

 MR. BURGESS. How do our efforts compare with that of other 

countries? Are we keeping up? 

 MR. SWECKER. We do. We have recovered--in comparison to the 

international law enforcement agencies, we have recovered 124 children 

versus the combined efforts of 181 other countries in the recovery of 

about 257 children. So one agency has recovered 124; combined, 181 

agencies have recovered 250. So we compare, I mean, we lead the world 

in these types of investigations in terms of recovered children. 

 MR. BURGESS. Is there any idea how big the universe of children 

who are exploited by child predators is? I mean, how does that figure of 

187 compare with-- 

 MR. SWECKER. We tried to take a stab at that a little earlier, and we 

think it is hundreds of thousands internationally, probably tens of 

thousands-- 

 MR. BURGESS. Probably not a great figure. 

 MR. SWECKER. --nationally. 

 MR. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day. This is an 

emotionally exhausting topic. I am going to yield back the balance of 

my time. 

 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. 

 Once again, I want to thank the panel. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you as we continue efforts in this area. The 

record will remain open for 30 days and the documents and these records 

will be submitted in to be formally a part of the record. 

 [The information follows:] 
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581

 

MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Roldan, I think Chairman Barton indicated he 

would be getting a question to you, and we would appreciate an answer 

on that. 

 I hope you all enjoyed being with the Energy and Commerce 

Oversight Subcommittee this afternoon. With that, the hearing is 

adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 7:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
582

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY THE HON. ALICE S. FISHER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
583
584
585

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY JAMES R. MARSH, ESQ. 
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY FAITH ALLEN
617
618

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY RAUL ROLDAN, SECTION CHIEF, CYBER CRIME SECTION,

CYBER DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE
619
620
621

○