U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–330 PDF 2014

INNOCENCE FOR SALE: 

DOMESTIC MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 26, 2014 

Serial No. 113–80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 26, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ................................................ 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations ................................................ 2 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 5 

WITNESSES 

Michael T. Harpster, Acting Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division, Branch 1, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

Withelma ‘‘T’’ Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, Human Rights Project for Girls 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

Christopher Heid, Corporal, Child Recovery Unit, Maryland State Police 

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

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

The Honorable Donna Quigley Groman, Supervising Judge, Kenyon Juvenile 

Justice Center, Los Angeles County Juvenile Delinquency Court 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

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

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of Tina Frundt, Founder, Courtney’s House ...................... 54 

(1) 

INNOCENCE FOR SALE: 

DOMESTIC MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Gohmert, 

Coble, Bachus, Forbes, Scott, Conyers, and Bass. 

Also Present: Representatives Poe and Jackson Lee. 

Staff present: (Majority) Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & 

General Counsel; Sarah Allen, Counsel; Alicia Church, Clerk; and 

(Minority) Ron LeGrand, Counsel. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Before making an opening statement, let me reiterate the position of 

the Chairman and the Committee about non-Subcommittee Member participation, which is as follows. 

A Judiciary Committee Member who is not a Member of a Subcommittee may attend a hearing and sit on the dais. That Member 

may also ask questions of the witnesses, but only if yielded time 

by a Member of the Subcommittee who is present at the hearing. 

It will remain the policy of the Committee that we do not allow 

Members to participate in our hearings if they are not Members of 

the full Judiciary Committee. 

Without objection, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, and the 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, will be permitted to sit 

on the dais for this hearing and may ask questions of the witnesses 

if yielded time by a Member of the Subcommittee. And without objection, so ordered. 

I yield myself 5 minutes. 

We are honored today to have a varied and distinguished panel 

of witnesses here to discuss a difficult, but critically important, 

topic, the growing crisis of minor sex trafficking in the United 

States. Now, let me say that this is something I do not think has 

received enough congressional and public attention. There is a 

study that has been done by the FBI that says that over 290,000 
2 

American youth are at risk of becoming victims of sex trafficking, 

and that includes one out of seven runaways from home. 

These kids, and I will call them kids, are usually between 12 and 

14 years, and what is happening here is that their innocence is 

being bought and sold for the profit of criminals. And it is something that we have to get public attention to, that we need to legislate more strictly and firmly against. And law enforcement has to 

be given more tools to be able to track down those who are responsible for this heinous and disgusting crime, prosecute them, and to 

put them behind bars. 

Now, as a result of technology advances, the growth of the Internet and mobile smart phones have greatly facilitated people who 

want to perpetrate these crimes. So using the Internet for law enforcement purposes I think is absolutely essential. There have been 

online advertisements as the primary platform for buying and selling sex with minors, and there have been almost 3,000 minor victims that were advertised online for this disgusting practice. That, 

too, has to stop, and those who put these advertisements online 

have got to be prosecuted. Online advertisements for prostitution have created about $45 

million of revenue last year, you know, again revenue used in the 

furtherance of a crime and in the furtherance of selling the innocence of minors for a profit. And I hope that Ms. Pettigrew, who 

is a survivor of this crime, who has courageously dedicated herself 

to shining a light on this dark issue, she can help us better understand the unique needs of minor victims of sex trafficking because 

not only do we have to go after those who perpetrate the crime, but 

we have to give all the counseling that is necessary to bring the 

victims back to being able to live a normal, functional, and productive lifestyle. 

So this is really an important hearing. It is something that I 

think that the Subcommittee should devote much of its time and 

energy to for the rest of this Congress. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott of Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing. While many Americans know that children are 

sold for sex overseas, too many believe that our country is immune. 

There remains a tragic reality and growing problem here as well. 

We must understand the term ‘‘domestic minor sex trafficking’’ is 

the commercial exploitation of children through prostitution, pornography, and sexual performance. It is the sex slavery and rape 

of children for profit. 

In its 2006 report, Shared Hope International reminded us that 

the status of a sex trafficked child is that of a victim, not a criminal. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable, the traumatized, exploited children in need of specialized services and understanding. We need to train law enforcement officials to correctly 

identify the trafficked children as victims and treat them accordingly. Categorizing sex trafficked children as criminals prevents 

them from receiving the care they need and re-victimizes them by 

arresting and charging them for criminal acts done against their 

will. It also complicates the prosecution of the real criminals, the 

pimps and johns. 
3 

A victim-centric approach is essential to properly crafting the delivery of services for survivors of sex trafficking. Nationally, an estimated 450,000 children run away from home every year, and it 

is estimated that one out of three teens on the street will be lured 

toward prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home. This means 

that statistically, about 150,000 children are lured into prostitution 

each year, and some estimates put that number closer to 300,000. 

These children come from all races, ethnic groups, and religious 

backgrounds. They span all gender identities, ages, and socioeconomic classes, and they come from abusive households. One 

study found that almost 60 percent of minors arrested for prostitution in Las Vegas had been molested by family members or were 

victims of sexual assault, and three-fourths had run away from 

home prior to arrest. 

The trafficked children are often exposed to many immediate and 

long-term harms, including violence and intimidation, homelessness, addiction to drugs, unplanned pregnancy, impaired health 

and life span, decreased lifetime earnings, and welfare dependency. 

These harms come at a cost to the State and local governments, 

which increases the length of time an individual is exploited by sex 

traffickers. 

Four years ago, this Subcommittee held hearings on this very 

issue. Now, 4 years later, the need for a comprehensive victim-centric approach to dealing with sex trafficking of children remains. 

Survivors of these heinous crimes need shelter and rehabilitative 

services tailored to their unique needs. 

Of more than 2,200 children trafficked annually in New York 

City, only 20 beds exist to shelter the survivors. And we need to 

increase funding for a national crime information center so we can 

improve the database on missing and exploited children. 

More importantly, we need to do more to rescue these children 

in the first place. Since its inception more than 10 years ago, the 

FBI’s Innocence Lost Initiative has rescued more than 3,100 child 

victims and initiated about 2,100 cases resulting in 1,400 convictions of sex traffickers. Now, let us put that in perspective. That 

is 31 children rescued over a 10-year period compared to an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 victims added every year. I commend the 

FBI and its partners and the U.S. Department of Justice and the 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children for their rescue efforts. 

However, this gap remains too large. I am hoping that our witness 

from the FBI will be able to tell us what is needed to increase the 

number of rescues. 

Now, representatives from Craigslist testified at a previous hearing about the company’s decision to remove its adult services section. At that time, we understand that the real issue was not 

Craigslist, but rather the issue was and still is the extent of the 

Internet’s role in facilitating the sex trafficking of children. 

What we have learned is much like drug trafficking, when one 

kingpin falls, another is standing in the wings waiting to take over. 

And such has been the case with the Internet. Craigslist removal 

of adult services only made it easier for other sites to facilitate sex 

trafficking. 

Some argue that legislation would curtail or otherwise limit such 

websites’ ability to promote these services, but we can and must 
4 

take more immediate action. We can certainly enforce the laws that 

are already on the books to prosecute sex traffickers and johns. We 

also need to improve underlying social conditions so children do not 

become victims in the first place. Among other things, we can do 

this by educating parents about the dangers of Internet predators, 

and we can help rescued children to get their lives back by providing them with safe housing, schooling, physical and mental 

health services, and, if appropriate, reuniting them with their families. 

Human trafficking is the second fastest-growing criminal industry in the world, and the United States has a real opportunity to 

lead the way against domestic minor sex trafficking through a comprehensive victim-centric approach on the issue. Societal costs of 

the domestic sex trafficking industry is too great to be ignored. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the 

full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to 

take part in this important hearing on the growing scourge of sex 

trafficking of minors in the United States. When criminals exploit 

children for their own financial gain or personal pleasure, they rob 

them of their innocence and destroy their childhood. Pimps and the 

adults who purchase these services, both more accurately referred 

to as traffickers, sexually exploit children through street prostitution and in adult strip clubs, brothels, hotel rooms, and other locations. 

It goes without saying that no child should be subjected to this 

horrifying and inhumane violence. Sadly, it happens across the 

country every single day. The demand for the prostitution of children and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of minors 

is steadily growing. While some traffickers are individuals working 

for themselves, minor sex trafficking is more often perpetrated by 

broader criminal syndicates or gangs that have realized it is more 

profitable to prostitute a child than to commit other crimes. For example, drugs can only be sold once, whereas minor children can be 

sold multiple times each day. Because of this growth, it is estimated that human trafficking in the United States is now a $9.8 

billion industry. We must work together to put this detestable industry out of business. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to discuss 

this difficult subject. I hope to hear about some of the recent successes in this area. For example, just this February, the FBI 

worked with State and local law enforcement to arrest more than 

45 traffickers in a sting operation at the Super Bowl. Even more 

importantly, this operation rescued 16 juveniles, some as young as 

13 years old. I commend everyone involved in this endeavor. 

I also hope to hear from our witnesses about what Congress and 

the States can do to help further combat this crime. I am particularly interested in hearing about how Federal law enforcement can 

better address the online facilitation of minor sex trafficking which 

has helped to fuel this crime in recent years. I also hope to hear 

about how the various States handle minor victims, including 

whether and why victims are often treated as criminals them-
5 

selves, and how the States ensure that victims receive the critical 

services they need to move on from their trauma. 

Congress has passed a number of bills to address the crisis of 

minor sex trafficking in the United States, but our work clearly is 

not done. This hearing will help us determine what more can be 

done to end these terrible crimes, and I thank all of you for being 

here today, and look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And 

I yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair now recognizes for an opening 

statement the Chairman emeritus of the full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, former Chairman Sensenbrenner. I 

just join in welcoming the witnesses, particularly Ms. Pettigrew 

with the Human Rights Project for Girls. 

Victims, not criminals. Customers should be prosecuted. Services 

for victims not sufficient. We held a hearing similar to this 4 years 

ago, and so we are confronted with new legislation, enforcement of 

existing laws. And, of course, the traditional strategy is on the victims and not on the customers, and that Judge Poe of Texas has 

a bill that I think may help us in that regard. 

There also is the aspect of many of those exploiting children have 

them commit other crimes involving drugs, and robbery, and other 

criminal activities. And so, this is a hearing that I think we can 

get to the bottom of this. It is great to have Judge Groman with 

us today, too, because she is working with us on a daily basis. 

I will put the rest of my statement in the record and yield back 

my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. Without objection, all 

Members’ opening statements will be put in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

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

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

Today’s hearing examines the growing epidemic of minor sex trafficking, an absolutely abhorrent practice, that each year entraps more than 100,000 minors—roughly between the age 12 and 14—into prostitution or child pornography. 

Although these children come from all socio-economic classes, races, and genders, 

they all share in common their vulnerability. 

As we begin our focus on this issue, it must be recognized that these children are victims; they are not criminals, and they should not be treated so. 

Predators seize upon the insecurities and weakness of these children, whether 

they are runaways and shelter youth, kids in foster care, or just ‘‘throwaways’’ who 

have been emotionally and psychologically neglected their whole lives. 

As such, they are particularly vulnerable to pimps, predators, and sex traffickers 

through violence, coercion, and fraud. 

And, when children who have fallen prey to the sex trade are treated as criminals 

rather than victims, this just further compounds their injuries. 

They become very afraid to seek help, particularly from law enforcement because 

of the risk that they will be treated as criminals rather than victims. 

Instead of criminalizing what these children do, we must ensure that they are recognized for what they: victims. 

Second, much more needs to be done to improve how we assist these horribly 

exploited children. 

They are physically traumatized, often being sold for 10 to 15 sex acts per night. 

One child may be raped more than 5,000 times in a single year. 

The extent of the resultant emotional and psychological trauma they endure is 

hard to fathom. 

These victims—in order to regain their lives—must receive specialized counseling, 

educational services, and housing to ensure their physical and mental rehabilitation. 
6 

Without these specialized programs, these young boys and girls often run away 

to return back to their abusers because of the unique trauma bonding that occurs 

between the victim and the trafficker. 

Yet, there are far too few shelter beds available nationwide to provide for the 

unique needs of children crushed by the commercial sex trade. 

We owe it to these youngsters and to our society to help them overcome the horrors that they have been put through. 

Lastly, we must consider how technology and the Internet have enabled the 

minor sex trafficking business and what this industry can do to help law enforcement stop this crime. 

After our last hearing on minor sex trafficking in 2010, Craigslist shut down its 

‘‘adult services’’ section, which was a primary source of online advertising for the 

commercial sex trade for both adults and minors. 

However, this may have been a Pyrrhic victory. Online sex trafficking has continued, but now in a more dispersed fashion. 

For example, Backpage.com has roughly 70% of the market share of Internet advertising for the sex trade. 

It is critical that effective ways for law enforcement to collaborate with these companies be developed so that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are ultimately 

brought to justice. 

We must also consider how to rein in the use of decentralized advertising and foreign-based entities that increasingly disseminate this advertising. 

And, we must also explore how to better educate minors to avoid online predators. 

More than ever, pimps and traffickers are using social networking sites to coerce 

and cajole vulnerable children into the sex trade by preying on their insecurities. 

To conclude, I hope that this will be the beginning of a larger discussion that 

will include human trafficking and labor trafficking. 

For now, however, I am sure that we can come together in a bipartisan manner 

to address the evils of juvenile sex trafficking and to find ways that will improve 

the lives of the far too many children who have already been exploited. 

We have addressed similar issues in the past, and we should look to such legislation for guidance. For instance, we should consider effectuating a national standard 

of care for victims of juvenile sex trafficking, just as past Congresses have for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault, to ensure that the these youths receive 

proper care. 

Portions of Mr. Poe’s bill will also serve this cause well, as it recognizes the need 

to greatly improve services to children affected by the scourge of sex trafficking by 

setting up a revenue neutral fund to provide them aid and creates block grants for 

sex trafficking deterrence. 

We should also take steps to curb demand by assisting state and local agencies 

enforce laws that are already on the books when it comes to dealing with ‘‘johns’’ 

who patronize minors, as this is a key component in fighting the exploitation of minors. However, we must be careful in creating new federal laws and mandatory 

minimums in this area, as new federal mandatory minimums for ‘‘johns’’ may lead 

to unintended consequences. 

Tomorrow, the Task Force on Over-Criminalization will be holding a hearing on 

the over-federalization of criminal laws, and this is just such an instance where 

state laws that are in place may be just as, or even more effective, in combating 

demand when they are enforced than a new federal mandatory minimum. 

I know that we can work together to bring an end to the evils of juvenile sex trafficking, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And without objection, the Chair will be 

authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee during votes in 

the House. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses today. Mr. Michael Harpster is the acting deputy assistant director for Criminal 

Investigation Division Branch 1 of the FBI. In this position, Mr. 

Harpster leads one of the largest and most active branches in the 

FBI, which includes crimes against children, the transnational organized crime east and west sections, and the violent criminal 

threat section. 

Prior to being appointed as acting deputy assistant director, Mr. 

Harpster worked at FBI headquarters as section chief of the Vio-
7 

lent Crimes Against Children Section. He has had program management responsibility for 69 child exploitation task forces, and all 

matters related to crimes against children in all of the FBI field 

offices. 

He earned his bachelor of science degree in criminal justice and 

his master’s degree in public administration from Northeastern 

University. 

Ms. Withelma T. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew is a second-year student 

at Trinity Washington University. She currently serves on the National Foster Care Youth and Alumni Policy Council and is a member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Project for Girls. 

From the ages of 10 to 17, Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew survived 

being subjected to criminal sexual exploitation in the United 

States. She now uses her experience to teach, lead, and educate on 

needed reforms to address minor sex trafficking, including in the 

child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health systems. 

She is a daily mentor to other young people who have similarly 

been forced into this modern day form of slavery. In 2013, Ms. 

Ortiz Walker Pettigrew was listed as one of Time magazine’s 30 

people under 30 changing the world. She has lectured at many 

venues, and has shared her story at a national level as one of 

Glamour magazine’s 2011 women of the year. Most recently, she 

has trained law enforcement in conjunction with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and has contributed in the 

launch of the U.S. Senate Caucus to Combat Human Trafficking. 

Corporal Chris Heid is a corporal with the Maryland State Police, who has been assigned to the Child Recovery Unit for the last 

3 years. This unit investigates critically missing children, issues 

amber alerts, and investigates human trafficking primarily as it relates to juveniles. He is also a member of the FBI’s Child Exploitation Task Force. He has been a member of the Maryland State 

Police for 20 years and has held a variety of assignments, including 

road patrol and other investigative positions. He is based out of Columbia, Maryland. 

The Honorable Donna Quigley Groman is the supervising judge 

of the Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center for the Los Angeles County 

Juvenile Delinquency Court. She has served as a lawyer and a 

judge in the field of juvenile law for approximately 28 years. 

Judge Groman is active in judicial education and serves as faculty to the Center for Judicial Education and Research in California, teaching juvenile delinquency law and related topics 

through judges statewide. She has worked on issues related to domestic minor sex trafficking, successful re-entry from probation facilities, reducing the school to prison pipeline, and school discipline. 

She earned her bachelor’s degree in economics from SUNY-Stony 

Brook and her juris doctorate from the American University Washington College of Law. 

The witnesses’ written testimony will be entered in the record in 

its entirety without objection. I ask that the witnesses summarize 

his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. You will see the green, 

yellow, and red lights in front of you. I think you all know what 

they mean. 

So I would like to recognize Mr. Harpster first. Mr. Harpster, the 

floor is yours. 
8 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. HARPSTER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, 

BRANCH 1, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. HARPSTER. Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I 

am pleased to be here with you today to discuss the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s efforts to combat child sex trafficking. 

It is nearly unthinkable, but every year thousands of children become victims of crime, whether it be sexual exploitation by prostitution on the Internet, or kidnapping, violent acts, and sexual 

abuse. Over the last several years, the FBI, State and local law enforcement, and the public have become more informed about the 

methods used to exploit children, and the vulnerabilities the perpetrators seek out. More incidents of these crimes are being reported than ever before, and technology has greatly improved law 

enforcement’s ability to identify those who exploit our children. 

Between 1996 and December 2013, the number of child exploitation cases opened throughout the FBI increased substantially 

from just over 100 to more than 7,000. To combat this threat, the 

FBI’s Violent Crimes Against Children Program utilizes a victimcentered and intelligence driven investigative model. 

Our strategy involves using multidisciplinary teams to investigate and prosecute crimes that cross legal, geographical, and jurisdictional boundaries. Through the FBI’s 69 child exploitation 

task forces, task force members employ strong partnerships between law enforcement, social service agencies, and non-profit organizations in order to gather the local intelligence needed to identify 

national level enterprises responsible for the exploitation of child 

victims. 

This year marks the 11th anniversary of the FBI’s most prominent initiative established to address sex trafficking of children 

within the United States. Through the Innocence Lost National Initiative, the FBI, working with nearly 400 partner agencies, designs 

enforcement operations specifically to identify and recover child victims. To date, these operations have resulted in over 2,100 cases, 

1,400 convictions, and the recovery of 3,100 children. 

These victims come from all socioeconomic backgrounds and are 

often targeted because of individual vulnerabilities. In some cases, 

these vulnerabilities are not easily apparent to others. In many 

cases, though, victims live within an abusive or troubled family dynamic. Some come from families with very limited resources, are 

runaways, or are foster youth, or those within the juvenile justice 

system. In the hands of their traffickers, these individuals will be 

subject to numerous sexual assaults and continued abuse. 

It is important to note the FBI does more than investigate those 

who exploit victims of trafficking. The FBI’s Office for Victim Assistance along with victim specialists from the United States attorney’s offices and other non-government victim assistance service 

providers are involved in all stages of the coordination and execution of our enforcement operation in an effort to address the immediate and long-term needs of these victims. 

In addition to our domestic operations, the FBI coordinates the 

Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force. It is a 

select cadre of international law enforcement experts working to-
9 

gether to formulate and deliver a dynamic global response to incidents of child exploitation through the establishment and furtherance of strategic partnerships, the aggressive engagement of relevant law enforcement, and the extensive use of liaison operational 

support and coordination. 

Through this task force, we are working closely with our global 

partners to reduce the vulnerability of children to acts of sexual exploitation and abuse, which are facilitated through the use of computers, identify and rescue child victims, investigate and prosecute 

sexual predators who use the Internet and other online services to 

sexually exploit children, regardless of their geographical location. 

The FBI’s effort to combat child sex trafficking represents a 

multi-faceted approach to a multi-faceted problem. As a result, our 

efforts span from investigation to prosecution and are supplemented by an array of investigative training, outreach, and victim 

services carried out by a wide range of components. Simply put, we 

are proud of the work we do in this area and look forward to continuing to have a leading role in the government-wide fight against 

child sex trafficking. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will now be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harpster follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

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

Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew? 

TESTIMONY OF WITHELMA ‘‘T’’ ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW, 

HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT FOR GIRLS 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. I want to say thank you so much, 

Chairman, and to the Subcommittee and the members of the audience for allowing me to be here today. 

Suffering, isolated, helpless and tired, at the age of 15, the concrete box that represented myself in Zenoff Hall, the largest juvenile facility in Las Vegas, Nevada seemed no less invasive than the 

horror of the streets. As much of a real physical confinement that 

it was, it was not all too different than the mental confinement 

that I endured from my pimp. I was interrogated for hours on end, 

reminded that my opinions did not matter, and locked in like a dog 

in a kennel. Unless I was saying the answers to the questions that 

they wanted to hear, my voice was irrelevant. Skip ahead a few 

years later, I spent my 17th birthday within the juvenile walls in 

the State of California. 

Both times I was faced with charges of solicitation and/or prostitution, a crime that as a minor who was not of legal age to consent to sex, could not seriously be charged to commit. But yet, 

there I was facing them. I comprehended this as yet another system that failed me. This became familiar as I was raised experiencing most of my life in the foster care system, which is where I 

learned to accept and normalized being used as an object of financial gain by people who were supposed to love and care for me, got 

used to various people controlling my life, and lacked opportunities 

to gain meaningful relationships and attachments. No one cared 

and no paid much attention, so I was considered a problem child 

with multiple moves and histories of sexual abuse. 

At the age of 10 years old, after enduring multiple years of various types of abuse within the system, my vulnerabilities made me 

a target for a devious man, my exploiter, trafficker, or otherwise 

known as pimp, to sexually exploit me starting on the streets, then 

the Internet, and ultimately anywhere. After being repeatedly beaten, tortured, and manipulated, I became more afraid of him than 

any other human being on this planet. So any time I came in contact with law enforcement, I knew I had to protect him to protect 

myself. Plus, every time I encountered law enforcement, I was 

treated like I was the criminal. 

While in detention, I was so hurt and baffled that I was the one 

who was locked up. It seemed like they always wanted to detain 

me and my pimp, both people of color, instead of focusing on the 

buyers who were adults and primarily White. No one seemed to 

care about them. It hurt that even when I released, I knew the 

cycle would continue because buyers were always going to get what 

they wanted, and they would get to walk away. Some of them 

would even pay more knowing I was an adolescent. 

I endured years of sexual trauma and humiliation from all 

points, including the buyers and johns. And then I was re-traumatized every day in detention while having to be watched naked 

while I showered. No one ever assessed me or even asked me what 
17 

got me there, and there were no rehabilitation services offered. I 

just sat locked in a box being interrogated and talked down to. 

Many of the young people I mentor and have advocated on behalf 

of have dealt with situations like the one I have expressed. Many 

have transitioned between and intersected throughout systems, primarily the child welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems. One young survivor explained to me in her words, ‘‘I don’t 

feel good about any time I came in contact with law enforcement.’’ 

She echoes, ‘‘They treated me like a criminal and used their authority and superiority to look down upon me. The way they talked 

about me was degrading, as if they felt that they were so much better, and they didn’t even know my situation.’’ 

She tells me about the first day that she went on lockdown. 

‘‘They wanted me to cut my hair, and that was the one thing that 

my pimp did let me have.’’ She said, ‘‘I hated the way the staff 

treated and talked to me, like I was a penitentiary prisoner when 

I was just this teenager.’’ She goes on to say that ‘‘I was 16. I 

should’ve been checked in by a nurse counselor, offered some type 

of wraparound services. Instead, little to no services were provided 

to me.’’ 

Both these stories express how attention has been spent detaining young victims. Yes, necessary advancements have been made 

nationwide, especially in criminalizing traffickers and pimps, but 

there is so much more to be done in regard to fighting demand and 

providing alternative gender-specific and trauma informed services 

to children rather than detention. 

Detention just does not equal prevention. If we continue to lock 

up victims as we are now, they will not get services that they need. 

Rather than detention, we should be trying to meaningfully engage 

the young person in self-exploration activities that promote healthy 

self-esteem. Locking up victims does not help or prevent them from 

being exploited. 

But if for some reason a victim is detained, it should be ensured 

that they receive trauma-informed therapeutic services through 

counseling and other means while they are in custody, or preferably through a community-based program. Alternatives to detention for these youth should be instituted. 

Then later, after care programs, separate from probation, should 

be instituted that are non-incriminating and strength based to assist with educational, vocational, and self-exploration needs. Giving 

them opportunity to self-explore gives them power and healthy selfesteem, which is necessary in helping survivors rebuild their lives. 

In addition, organizations and governing bodies serving this population should at minimum have one survivor on staff to help navigate and advise on effective practices. By expanding and providing 

access to programs like the Family Justice Center, alternative facilities can house survivor advocates who can be present from the 

initial point of contact with the victim. 

And that is why bills like the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 

Act are so important because it not only provides alternatives to 

detention and trauma-informed services for youth, but it finally 

goes after the buyers of child sex. 

Importantly, more must be done to focus on the root cause of the 

issue, that people are buying children for sexual purposes. This is 
18 

not prostitution, and it should never be referred to as such. This 

is child rape, and those who purchase these children for sex should 

be viewed and punished as child rapists. Buyers should not get 

away with it as they do every day as of now. Just as it is expressed 

that it not okay to sell children in our country, we need to make 

it clear that it is not okay to buy them either. 

It is my hope today that the Federal Government can acknowledge your influential role in helping to end the demand for sex 

with minors by prioritizing and aiding investigation and prosecution of buyers, and to help ensure that survivors are getting more 

access to the services that they desperately need. 

I would like to thank the Human Rights Project for Girls, the 

Subcommittee, and the audience for taking the time to receive my 

contributions. And thank you to all who work on behalf of our Nation’s most vulnerable children. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Corporal Heid? 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER HEID, CORPORAL, 

CHILD RECOVERY UNIT, MARYLAND STATE POLICE 

Mr. HEID. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, I would just like to say on behalf of the Maryland State 

Police what an honor it is to be here before you today. I would also 

like to say thank you to Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew for being here 

to share her story as a survivor. 

The Maryland State Police Child Recovery Unit’s primary responsibility is missing and abducted children. One of the missions 

is to assist local, State, and Federal agencies with the most critical 

cases or with a nexus to Maryland. Our unit works closely with the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to post information about missing children and actively investigates cases of 

missing and exploited children. 

Since 2011, our unit has taken a more active role in human trafficking investigations in the State. Unlike most vice units, our unit 

focuses all of our attention on locating juvenile victims of human 

trafficking. The two troopers that are in the unit are part of the 

FBI’s Child Exploitation Task Force, and the task force provides an 

integral part in the investigation by providing us with additional 

funding and manpower. 

Our unit treats every girl as a victim. Our unit is not interested 

in arresting the girls in prostitution. The goals of our unit is to locate juvenile victims, offer assistance to adult victims, and to arrest 

and prosecute the traffickers and pimps. 

Our unit works hard at building and maintaining a working relationship with the local non-government organizations that provide 

resources to victims of human trafficking. The unit has found that 

these resources provide valuable assets, most importantly to the 

victim, but also by being an advocate for the victims and their families. There are times when the Child Recovery Unit has reached 

out to these groups to locate placement for homeless children or 

children who might need placement for just a period of time. 

Additionally, our unit has worked with the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice and the local non-government organization, Turnaround, to identify possible victims of juvenile sex trafficking. This is accomplished by screening children within our local 

juvenile detention facilities. 

Victim service is a fundamental part of our unit. Once a child 

victim is located, we work hard to establish and build a rapport 

with those victims. Whether it is having lunch with a child in 

placement or making a phone call to another victim, our unit tries 

hard to maintain contact with all victims, especially throughout the 

judicial process. The unit has also had success in keeping contact 

with adult victims who have come forward on occasion and provided information on additional victims or traffickers down the line 

that we were able to follow up on. 

Since 2011, our unit, with the assistance of the FBI Task Force, 

has made contact with over 300 girls involved in prostitution. 

These contacts resulted in children being rescued, victims getting 
25 

assistance, and traffickers being arrested. In 2013 alone, our unit 

made contact with 184 girls, of which 11 were juveniles. 

When conducting human trafficking investigations, it is essential 

to cooperate with outside organizations. Our unit receives assistance from Backpage.com, which is primarily the main area that 

these girls are posting ads. Backpage actually is very cooperative 

with us in providing quick responses to subpoenas, and they do act 

immediately to assist us with juvenile human trafficking investigations. 

While speaking with traffickers in Maryland, it is apparent that 

there is a concern in their world of this task force. It has been said 

by several traffickers that they are careful to not use juveniles because of the stiff Federal penalties that apply. With that being 

said, the penalties for trafficking of adults are not as severe. While 

we are making significant strides in Maryland, there is still so 

much more than can be done. 

A need in Maryland, and presumably nationwide, is for more 

training for the initial responders to missing child cases and 

human trafficking or prostitution investigations. A good amount of 

our missing child cases end as a recovery at a hotel. There are various clues that can be found that point to human trafficking that 

probably are not very obvious to the responding officer. As human 

trafficking cases increase, so, too, should training to identify these 

trends. 

In the 3 plus years that the Maryland State Police Child Recovery Unit has been investigating human trafficking cases, we have 

come a long way, but clearly there is still much further to go. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heid follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Corporal. 

Judge Groman? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DONNA QUIGLEY GROMAN, 

SUPERVISING JUDGE, KENYON JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER, 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURT 

Judge GROMAN. Good morning, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Scott, Committee and Subcommittee Members. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My 

name is Donna Quigley Groman, and I am the site judge for the 

Compton Juvenile Delinquency Court in the County of Los Angeles. 

I am here today on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges, which is one of the Nation’s oldest and largest judicial membership organizations serving judges and other 

professionals in the juvenile and family justice system. 

Our juvenile court system is confronted by the crisis of domestic 

sex trafficking. I have been working on this issue locally and nationally since 2010, and have assisted in creating Los Angeles 

County’s collaborative court, the STAR court, which is a court dedicated to youth charged with prostitution related crimes. 

The children arrested for prostitution related offenses have come 

via several paths. They may have been coerced or lured by gangs. 

They may have run away from abusive foster care placements or 

were recruited from group homes and coerced into sexual exploitation. Some may be lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender youth who 

have fled unaccepting homes or have been thrown out of 

unaccepting homes. Some are trafficked by a family member or 

enter into a relationship with a pimp because of challenges encountered in their own homes. What many of these youth have in common is a history of child sexual abuse, early childhood trauma, and 

involvement in the child welfare system. 

These youth are not criminals. They are children who are being 

abused by sex traffickers. They deserve the same protections and 

resources to which child victims of sexual or child victims of physical abuse or neglect are entitled. 

Child victims of sexual abuse are comforted by assurances that 

they are not responsible for the abuse. Child victims of commercial 

sexual exploitation deserve the same assurances. The criminalization of commercial exploitation of children holds these children responsible for not preventing their exploitation. Our society should 

not punish these young victims of crime who as children are legally 

incapable of consenting to sex acts. These children are desperately 

in need of safe housing, food, clothing, other basic necessities, counseling, medical care, mental health services, and to be reconnected 

with education. 

Traffickers are known to specifically target vulnerable foster 

youth. Approximately 1.6 million children run away from home 

every year in the United States. These children are at risk of child 

sexual exploitation due to their mental, physical, and financial vulnerability. Moreover, trafficking takes a disproportionately heavier 

toll on minority youth. 

In 39 States across this Nation, youth who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation face criminal charges. The dangers of 

incarceration, which include exposure to criminally sophisticated 
30 

youth, the attachment of the stigma of being labeled a criminal, potential sexual and physical abuse while in custody, are cruel responses to a social problem. The mere exposure to the juvenile justice system leads to poor educational outcomes, including dropout 

and a much higher chance of leading a criminal lifestyle as an 

adult. 

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges opposes the criminalization of victims of child sexual exploitation and 

supports development and implementation of humane and appropriate laws and policies that are in line with the Federal definition 

of a child victim of human trafficking. The National Council promotes the development of specialized services and resources for 

child victims, including the development of non-detention triage facilities and specialized placement options which are equipped to effectively address the unique trauma suffered by victims of child 

trafficking. 

The National Council is further dedicated to promoting the exercise of judicial leadership to convene local stakeholder and community groups in an effort to improve and enhance system responses 

to the needs of child victims of sex trafficking. The National Council is developing a curriculum for juvenile and family courts and 

will make this training accessible to judges around the country. 

Judicial education is underfunded and legislation that includes 

funding should consider judicial education as a purpose area in 

order to make change happen around the country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Groman follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Judge. The Chair 

recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

First of all, let me say that this is probably one of the most interesting hearings that we have had before the Subcommittee in my 

time as Chair of it. Every one of you has spoken to this problem 

from a different perspective, and what I can say is that we really 

need to adopt an all of the above type response to this. 

A lot of this, of course, will require changes in State legislation, 

particularly in the 39 States that still criminalize child prostitution. And I think we have to make a big difference in the law between child prostitution and adult prostitution. I do not think that 

adult prostitutes who legally know what they are doing, should 

have the same type of sympathy as the child prostitutes. 

So I think that we should look at this from both a supply standpoint and a demand standpoint. We do need to deal with getting 

at the traffickers and getting at the pimps. We also need to get at 

the johns or the customers, those who are exploiting these children 

for their own pleasure. And I think that that is going to be more 

of an activity that law enforcement is going to have to be more engaged in. And when we look at the demand side, the customers, I 

think, are going to have to be zeroed in, too. 

When we are talking about victims, I agree with you, Judge and 

Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, that we have to treat juvenile victims 

differently. And I think one of the reasons why we have to treat 

them differently is we need to encourage them to testify against 

those who have enslaved them. And having their first contact with 

law enforcement be something that is more humane and less 

daunting I think will encourage more credible testimony for when 

a john or a trafficker ends up appearing in a criminal court. And 

having these young victims testify in front of a jury, it would be 

very, very hard if that testimony sounds sincere and from the heart 

and wanting to get at this problem and get rid of it. And, as a result I think that a triage rather than a juvenile justice response, 

at least immediately, I think is necessary. 

Now, I would like to ask in my remaining time, Ms. Ortiz Walker 

Pettigrew, if you think that better reporting of children who go 

missing right from the get-go is essential to trying to stop this 

trade. I was one of those that put together the Missing Children’s 

Act back in 1982 and putting in statute amber alerts. But in order 

for either of those activities to become active, there has to be a report that ends up getting put out on the Internet, may be an amber 

alert issue. How critical do you think that doing that would be? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. Well, I definitely want to say 

thank you for bringing up that perspective. I think it is very critical in understanding specifically, as Honorable Groman has expressed, a lot of the young people come from child welfare system 

and things of that sort. 

From my experience and from my experience both as a young 

person living in the system and as a professional, there are different things that happen. Oftentimes specifically in group homes, 

young people are not reported missing based on the fear that the 

funding will get cut off and then they will return again, and then 

they will have to go through the process all over again. 
39 

So I definitely think that that is something that we do need to 

highlight as far as specifically young people who come from systems because I can say from my knowledge, understanding the lack 

of, I guess, attention that is put on young foster children, that 

when they go missing the exploiters actually rely on that as a safety guard. They know that nobody is looking for them, that there 

are not posters out here looking for these young children. And so, 

they know that they can continue to get away with this. 

And it is sad that this already vulnerable population of young 

people in child welfare do not get the special attention that they 

need when they do come up missing. And, I think that we have 

heard from different perspectives and looking in our history in 

criminal crimes and all that. 

Foster children are very vulnerable. And so, making sure that we 

alert people when they go missing, making sure that it is public, 

making sure that we do have an opportunity to give amber alerts 

for these young people. Just sadly enough, I can say that that does 

not seem the case as of now. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harpster, can you tell 

us what charges can be brought against a 40-year-old who pays for 

sex with a 14-year-old? 

Mr. HARPSTER. We could use State or local laws through our task 

forces, or we could use 1591 sex trafficking, a Federal offense that 

carries a minimum mandatory. 

Mr. SCOTT. Of what? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mandatory minimum of what? 

Mr. HARPSTER. So under 14 would be 15 years. Between 14 and 

17 would be a 10-year minimum mandatory. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are fines involved? 

Mr. HARPSTER. There are, sir, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, when you catch someone in this situation, what 

charges are actually brought? 

Mr. HARPSTER. For the customers, sir, in what you described? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. HARPSTER. We would hope that 1591 would be brought, and 

that can happen. We work in liaison with our State and local—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. When you have some of these roundups like you had at the Super Bowl, what charges are brought? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Correct. So let us take the last operation cross 

country where we had 151 pimps that were arrested. We would 

work with local—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Not pimps, johns. 

Mr. HARPSTER. Johns. So that number I do not have here right 

now, sir. But I will tell you this, that when we are working with 

or State and locals, we look at the johns, at the customers, and we 

choose the best mechanism to remove them from the street, because the Federals always come in later down the line. So when 

we are doing a criminal enterprise, that john may be included. 

Mr. SCOTT. You have a roundup. It is kind of hard to have a 

prosecution without a john involved. When you have a prosecution, 

what charges are brought against the johns? 
40 

Mr. HARPSTER. As I said earlier, sir, working with our State and 

local, we would look at the johns for what the best charges are that 

time. The initiative when we are out there, our number one—— 

Mr. SCOTT. What charges are typically brought? 

Mr. HARPSTER. It would be a pandering charge or a prostitution 

charge, soliciting. If they cross State lines, we do a Mann Act. 

Mr. SCOTT. What happened to that 15-year mandatory minimum 

case? 

Mr. HARPSTER. If it is going to be—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you ever brought a 15-year mandatory minimum charge against a john? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. How often does that happen? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Just last week we had a plead out in Sioux Falls 

where we arrested nine johns for soliciting under age victims, and 

the last one did plead. There are eight more to go. Just the week 

before that, we had a reverse operation in Savannah where they 

were also charged. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what did the one plead guilty to? 

Mr. HARPSTER. 1591, sir. It was a 15-year mandatory. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, we can expect when these roundups occur 

that the johns will be charged with crimes that carry 10- to 15-year 

mandatory minimum sentences. 

Mr. HARPSTER. When the facts are present and working with the 

DoJ, U.S. attorney’s office, and the rest of the prosecutors, we could 

expect that. 

Mr. SCOTT. You get these websites that have people that are apparently soliciting. Do you ever do stings to catch johns? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And then what do you charge them with? 

Mr. HARPSTER. The 1591. If we were doing it from a Federal perspective, we would charge the 1591. The one in Sioux Falls—— 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a TV program that that I am sure you are 

aware of. 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the end shows these guys getting, like, 3 months 

and 6 months, maybe as much as a year. What happened to the 

15-year mandatory minimum charge? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I am not sure about the TV show if the Federals 

were involved at that level, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, are you doing these? 

Mr. HARPSTER. We have issues with that kind of TV show, so 

that is kind of—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I mean, not the TV show, but, I mean, do you post 

stuff or chase down and try to catch people? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes. During reverse sting operations, we would 

use the Internet or postings to attract customers for under age—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And then people who respond to these postings, what 

can they expect at the end? 

Mr. HARPSTER. They will hopefully expect to be prosecuted. That 

is where we are at. With the sting operators that are aimed at the 

johns, with our Innocence Lost Initiative, we are aimed at recovering victims. 
41 

Mr. SCOTT. Judge Groman, how often do you see johns being 

hauled into court on charges that carry 10- to 15-year mandatory 

minimums? 

Judge GROMAN. I am actually in a juvenile court assignment, so 

I do not see adults being prosecuted, but I could speak in general 

terms. In Los Angeles, those prosecutions are very few and far between. 

Mr. SCOTT. What would it take, Mr. Harpster, to get you to bring 

these charges more routinely against johns? It would have, it would 

appear, to have a significant deterrent effect if people thought they 

were looking at 10 to 15 years in prison for soliciting sex with teenagers. 

Mr. HARPSTER. It would require from a national level for us to 

redirect our resources. Currently we are aimed at recovering victims and getting those victims the services that they need. We also 

do sting operations, but it is not our number one priority at this 

time. 

So we can, when appropriate, aim our resources at reverse sting 

operations and arrest those johns and work in coordination with 

State and locals. We hope that when we go and we give training 

that they will carry on that type of opportunity outside of the task 

forces and the Federal initiatives that we run. 

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

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want 

to thank first you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. Thank all of you for being here. 

Director Harpster, I know that the 2005 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act required a number of studies, and I 

was wondering if you could just help us with the accuracy of the 

data that you have to do those studies. And if you do not have the 

accuracy, is partial information enough to get you the kind of input 

that you need? 

Mr. HARPSTER. So the issue we currently are dealing with is the 

issue of accurate data. Lots of numbers between 100,000 to 200,000 

of child victims out there. There are 50 different States that handle 

victims 50 different ways. In the State of New Jersey, for example, 

they will not even write reports on child victims for fear that it 

would basically re-victimize that person. That is an issue for us 

when we are trying to collect data. 

Through our task forces and through our training with the State 

and locals, we have created a NCIC database, which is the only 

database of its kind. And it is specifically aimed at collecting those 

non-arrest situations, which would not be reported in NCIC. 

So with hopefully the database coming up, we use that through 

our intelligence, through other NGOs and social services where 

they have that information where they actually see those people in 

their facilities, or see those people come through for services. We 

can use those numbers to come to a better guestimate. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer the balance of my time to Judge Poe from Texas with the Chair’s permission. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the gentleman from 

Texas is recognized. 
42 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and 

the Chairman for holding this hearing. And thank all four of you 

for being here. I think it is interesting how you are seated. We 

have the law on one end. We have the judge on the other end. We 

have the victim sitting in between the police. I think that is good. 

It means a lot. 

To continue what you said, basically should be our focus. The 

kids are not for sale, period, under any circumstances ever. There 

are three people, if you will, in this tragedy, in this crime. There 

is a victim. On the other end is the slave master, trafficker, and 

then there is also the demand. I do not call those people johns because, you know, John was a good guy in the Bible. I call them 

child abusers because that is what they are, child abusers. I would 

like to address each one of those and get some answers from you 

on some specific questions in the remaining time. 

Starting with the children, how is it possible that we could have 

a phrase of ‘‘juvenile prostitution?’’ How could that exist? Under 

the law, a child cannot consent to sex. It is not prostitution to me. 

Judge, can you help me out with that? Is that a term that we 

should not be using anymore, ‘‘juvenile prostitution?′′ 

Judge GROMAN. I think that is an awful term. You know, the 

problem is that sometimes we see children in our juvenile court 

that come in with other charges, so they are not always being 

charged with that unspeakable term. So they are coming in on 

charges of petty theft, or battery, or criminal threats. There are a 

whole host of different charges that they come to our court with. 

Mr. POE. Reclaiming my time, I only have a couple of minutes. 

But the phrase ‘‘child prostitution,’’ as a jurist do you think that 

is a phrase we should not be using under the law? 

Judge GROMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. POE. We have in this country, I understand, through Shared 

Hope, there are 300 beds for children who are trafficked, 300 beds, 

child traffic victims. On the other hand, according to the SPCA, we 

have 5,000 shelters for animals. Not quarreling with that. I have 

got three Dalmatians. I got one of them from Dalmatian Rescue. 

But I think we need to focus on the victim first. Rescue the victim 

and find a place to house them. 

We have two different standards, international victims that come 

into the United States that are trafficked here and domestic victims moved from across the country. International victims, I understand, can apply for certification under HHS and receive certain 

services that a domestic trafficked victim cannot receive and cannot 

receive that certification. 

Do you think, Judge, we ought to change that so that victims can 

be treated alike whether they are international or domestic? 

Judge GROMAN. There is an absolute need for safe housing for 

these young people. And absolutely there should be no discrepancy 

whether they are internationally trafficked or domestically trafficked. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

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

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. I begin by 

commending Ms. Walker Pettigrew for her insight and actual cour-
43 

age of coming forward, putting a face on this problem, and then 

going on to become a professional in the field yourself. I am very 

respectful of what you have done in bringing this subject forward. 

Now, Corporal Heid, police officer, how often are johns arrested 

and charged, and how often are they let go from just your general 

experience? 

Mr. HEID. With what we do in my own unit, the Maryland State 

Police Child Recovery Unit, we are only going after looking for 

young girls. We are out there looking for the missing girls, the abducted children, and the juvenile victims. 

For instance, if we are working a case and we get wind that a 

17-year-old girl might be missing and she might be involved in 

prostitution, we are there to recover that girl. We are not going to 

sit and wait and watch another john walk into that room. So our 

focus is solely to get that girl out. If we can build a case down the 

line, we will build a case down the line. But we are not going to 

sit and wait and watch another john walk into a room to re-victimize a young lady. 

To answer your question, we do not arrest johns, the Maryland 

State Police. We take part with the FBI if they do a joint operation, 

and we do a reversal sting where we are putting out ads, bringing 

johns in. I have been a part of that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Let me ask you, what is the race of most 

of most johns, and what is the race for most victims? 

Mr. HEID. I think in my experience in Maryland, most of the 

johns are White males, and there is a mixture of the females, the 

girls—Black, White—in Maryland. 

Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to get the color question in here because 

I think if we do not, we will not get a real clear picture. Would you 

add anything to this, Ms. Pettigrew? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. Just as I said in my testimony, 

I believe this as to be true in my understanding or my knowledge, 

again, as a person who has experienced it as well as a professional 

working with other young victims. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, you were, in fact, victimized again when you 

were arrested and interrogated. What thoughts or proposals would 

you make to law enforcement to help them treat victims more appropriately? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. I very much thank you for asking 

that question. I definitely think that, one, that young people should 

have a survivor advocate with them present any time that they are 

interrogated or questioned as a witness because I think that there 

is something to be said as far as having a supporter who has been 

a survivor. But even separate from that, even if it cannot be someone who has the experience of a survivor, someone who is trained 

in understanding the trauma and the situational circumstances of 

survivors who can stand in and be a survivor advocate during the 

interrogation and the questioning. I just do not see that happening 

all too often in a nationwide perspective. 

Mr. CONYERS. And in your experience and those who you have 

mentored, what alternatives to detention are most appropriate for 

victims? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. I definitely think when we talk 

about, you know, detaining, like I said, I do not think detention is 
44 

prevention. I think that the alternative to detention could really be 

looking into community-based programs. And basically instead of 

sentencing young people to serve a certain amount of time in detention, we can start to sentence them to engage in self-exploration 

activities and things of that sort so that they have the ability to 

really gain the services and the skills needed to make the best out 

of their life and to fight the pressures in the situations that are 

coming around them in their environment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, and I commend all of the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, for their contributions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes, thank you. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harpster, can 

you explain how the FBI works in conjunction with State and local 

law enforcement to investigate and prosecute traffickers? What is 

the Federal role in the crime, and are you more focused on broader 

criminal enterprises? 

Mr. HARPSTER. So if I can start with the middle question, what 

is the Federal role, we see our role as bringing people together. So 

with our Federal funding that we have, we like to go out and create 

task forces. We have 69 child exploitation task forces which have 

almost a thousand members from 400 different agencies. 

With these task forces, we have the ability to go after the issue 

on the local level and the national level. So our task forces made 

up of local detectives and agents will work a case in California and 

they will address that issue for that area of responsibility. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you about that. Is the FBI only involved when the trafficker crosses State lines, or do you work with 

State and local law enforcement to combat intra-State trafficking 

as well? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes, we work on intra-State trafficking. For us, 

the trafficker does not have to leave the State to be charged with 

a sex trafficking offense. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Good. What is the FBI doing to combat the online promotion of minor sex trafficking? 

Mr. HARPSTER. It is an issue we are aware of, an issue we are 

working on. If you bring up Backpage, we have identified over 100 

such sites as those that will promote child sex trafficking, and we 

use technology to thwart that as well. So not only do we look at 

and monitor them, at the same time our intelligence units will go 

out there around special events where we can expect an increase 

in online posting. We will obviously scrub harder those sites to get 

those leads. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Pettigrew, you have been working with victims of minor sex trafficking for a number of years now. Thank you 

for that good work. What have you learned from this process that 

might help Congress understand the problem, and what can we do 

to better protect and help victims? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. Again, a lot of what I said in my 

testimony is going to answer that question. I think definitely the 

first thing that I noticed is that we cannot just remove young people and expect the problem to go away. So there are a lot of amaz-
45 

ing opportunities and services that are provided that allow young 

people to live in like the country. 

I think that those are amazing ideas and amazing programs. Yet 

the problem is that they do not allow young people to re-assimilate 

into the community and environments that first got them in the position in the first place. And so, I think that we need to do more 

in regards to when we are working in residential treatment with 

young people and young victims in balancing their re-assimilation 

into their mainstream community. 

Also I think that, again, what I stated earlier is that really we 

have to give them power. We have to allow them to understand the 

law is on their side to be able to assist them with facing their exploiter and things of that sort. We also have to let them know that 

there are services to help them, but we first and foremost need to 

understand that we cannot help them if we are still labeling them 

as prostitutes. And secondly, we have to understand that it really 

is going to take them understanding that they have capabilities to 

be able to fight back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good. Let me go on to Judge Groman. Much of 

the discussion regarding minor sex trafficking focuses on pimps, ignoring that this is a marketplace equally fueled by the adults that 

purchase children for sex. Why do States treat minor victims as 

criminals or at least delinquents, and does this not imply that 

there is some moral equivalence between minors and the adults 

that exploit them? 

Judge GROMAN. With regard to the criminalization, I think one 

of the reasons that criminal laws are still on the books is because 

the juvenile justice system has been the only system that has been 

working with these young people. And so, there is a great deal of 

concern if prostitution is decriminalized, that there is not going to 

be a child welfare system that is equipped and prepared to take 

over the role of working with these young people. So I think it is 

very, very important that we place the responsibility on child welfare to work with these young people. 

Some of the laws in States do not allow child welfare to intervene 

where the trafficker or the customer is not apparent, or other caretaker. So when you are involved with third persons who are trafficking young people, child welfare laws or child welfare agencies 

do not believe that they have the ability to intervene in that situation. And so, that needs to be changed. 

Child welfare agencies should be the primary agency responsible 

so that juvenile justice does not have to continue to provide the 

services and support for these young people. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. I will yield 30 seconds of my time to the Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS. The Ranking Member, I am sorry. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Harpster, you mentioned 1591. That is trafficking. Since minors cannot consent, do you ever charge them with 

just rape? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I do not have the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you do that in the future? 
46 

Mr. HARPSTER. I have to get back to you on that. I am trying to 

look through the elements of 1591 in my head, and I do not want 

to say or assume it is in there that the sexual contact is part of 

that offense. I am not sure on that, sir. I will get back to you on 

that one. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, since a minor cannot consent, it ought 

to be a straight rape charge, and we would like to start bringing 

those. If you could get back to us. Thank you. I thank the 

gentlelady. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much. Well, first of all, I want to 

thank all of the witnesses for their time and their expertise and 

dedication to this issue. I have to tell you, I have seen Ms. Ortiz 

Walker Pettigrew testify a number of times. And the point that she 

makes consistently, which is the child welfare system really prepared her to be a victim. And the child welfare system is our responsibility, so we have to repair that. 

Judge, I think you eloquently said that we currently hold children responsible for not preventing their own exploitation. I wanted to ask Corporal Heid, when you are recovering the girls, do you 

keep stats on the ones that are connected to the child welfare system? Do you have stats on that? 

Mr. HEID. Yes. We would have that at our office, yes. 

Ms. BASS. And do you know what they are off hand? 

Mr. HEID. I would say the vast majority, I mean, percentage 

wise, probably 90 plus percent we do get assistance. There are 

times depending on which county we are in that we—— 

Ms. BASS. No, they are from the child welfare system. Is that 

what you mean? 

Mr. HEID. I am sorry. I thought you meant referring them after 

the fact. 

Ms. BASS. No, no, no, no. I am asking how many of the girls that 

you recover were foster kids. 

Mr. HEID. I am sorry. We have had several. The majority of them 

are not. 

Ms. BASS. Do you track that data? 

Mr. HEID. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Can you get back to me and let me know? 

Mr. HEID. Sure. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Ms. BASS. Because I am concerned in talking to the FBI in Los 

Angeles, they know it is 40 percent, but they think that is way 

under reported. And so, I think one of the things that we need to 

do is keep better data on that because that, again, is our system. 

I mean, you know, when those kids are put in child welfare, we are 

responsible for them. We are the parent. 

Mr. HEID. Correct. 

Ms. BASS. You know, I really do think that we have to address 

the language. It kills me to hear ‘‘johns’’ and ‘‘customers’’ used for 

child molesters. And I think as long as we use that language, we 

normalize it in a way. And the only way we are going to break past 

that is if we label it for what it is. And also the term ‘‘prostitution,’’ 

which has been said a number of times. We have to change that 

language in order to change our mentality. 
47 

Mr. Harpster, I wanted to know when you were dealing in law 

enforcement agencies, how difficult is it for you to get them to see 

the girls as victims and not as criminals? 

Mr. HARPSTER. It is an issue we are dealing with. We have had 

relationships with the National Association of Chiefs of Police 

where we are actually developing roll call videos for them. We are 

doing training with the national school resource officers as well to 

get them to be able to identify them as victims as opposed to just 

people on the—— 

Ms. BASS. Well, and I want to know if you think that there is 

more that we can do. I am very proud to be a co-sponsor with 

Judge Poe and his efforts in his legislation, and also on the Ways 

and Means Committee, Subcommittee Chairman Reichert. We have 

legislation. I have legislation that I am working on specifically 

around the child welfare issue. 

And, Judge, I would just ask you, child welfare has difficulty 

with child molestation. If somebody beats up a kid, is that considered child abuse? 

Judge GROMAN. Well, it is child abuse, but whether child welfare 

can intervene really depends on whether the abuser is a parent or 

caretaker. And if not, then they do not have the ability under the 

current state of laws, at least in the State of California, to intervene. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Ms. Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, I mean, your description of being incarcerated was just heartbreaking frankly. One 

problem that I have heard you say before and other people is that 

when girls are first brought in, it is difficult for them to break 

away from the pimp. And so, when you were saying that you 

thought community-based services are needed, do you think it is 

ever appropriate to hold a girl against her will so that she can at 

least have a few days to break out of the psychology? 

Ms. ORTIZ WALKER PETTIGREW. I can definitely see that perspective, and I think it definitely is back onto an individual based situation. If there is no other, if it is the last resort, and you are doing 

it in the efforts of just, again, trying to keep the young person safe. 

I mean, again, our options are limited. 

I do think that we need to more mindful in holding young people 

against their will because all we are doing is replacing what the 

exploiter or the pimp does. So then it puts us in the same proximity of the relationship that we have with that young person as 

that pimp does. 

And so, just understanding that we need to extend these services. We need to extend these opportunities for these programs because they need to build connections and relationships elsewhere 

outside of the ones that they have with their pimp because oftentimes that is the strongest relationship in their lives. 

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

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. Ms. Ortiz, she mentioned—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Could the gentleman turn his—— 

Mr. BACHUS. I am sorry. Ms. Ortiz Pettigrew Walker, she mentioned having to shower with male guards watching her. Recently 

in Alabama we had a case with similar charges in our women’s 

prisons that that was going on. Is that a common occurrence? 
48 

Judge GROMAN. Well, when you are talking about detention in a 

penal facility, yes, it is a common occurrence. And I think that is 

probably the biggest problem here is we are detaining children in 

penal facilities that are meant for young people who are a danger 

to the community. And so, those are all things that are inherent 

in being in a penal facility where you lose your privacy, danger of 

being abused in the custody arena. 

So I think where we really have to work with these young people 

is if they are going to be in a secure setting, it should not be a 

penal setting. It should be more of a hospital therapeutic setting 

just as we have children who are dangers to themselves because of 

mental health concerns. Those are the types of settings that should 

be used in a secure manner and not penal facilities. 

Mr. BACHUS. Now, what about adult women? I mean, you know, 

should they be exposed to that? I mean, they are prisoners, but, I 

mean, I guess they lose their civil rights. 

Judge GROMAN. I just think that is the nature of custodial facilities for people who are being held on criminal charges. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. Let me ask Acting Director Harpster, FBI, 

how many total agents are there investigating crime? Just give me 

a ballpark figure. 

Mr. HARPSTER. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. BACHUS. Total agents in the field. 

Mr. HARPSTER. Total agents? Currently we are about a little over 

400. That is not including task force members. 

Mr. BACHUS. Now, you are talking about in your division? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I am talking about the FBI as a whole. 

Mr. BACHUS. As a whole. 

Mr. HARPSTER. As a whole. 

Mr. BACHUS. Four hundred? 

Mr. HARPSTER. That is the agents, 400. Total number is about 

900. We have got about 500 task force officers. That is a rough estimate, but about that. 

Mr. BACHUS. You are talking about all Federal agents nationwide? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I am talking about FBI, sir. 

Mr. BACHUS. FBI, that is what I am saying. FBI. 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. I would have just thought it was quite a bit 

more than that. 

Mr. HARPSTER. The SACs have the ability to, you know, flex 

their, we call it FSL or staffing to a threat. So if there is a large 

incident going on or the threat is high, they can move people back 

and forth. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. Are there priorities within the FBI? I have 

heard domestic terrorism is a priority. Public corruption is a priority. Is there some list of priorities or is there a checklist or anything about—— 

Mr. HARPSTER. So the director has made it clear that children 

are his number one priority along with counterterrorism. So within 

our program, we have priorities—child abductions, child sex trafficking, child pornography production and manufacturing. But it is 

at the top of the list. 
49 

Mr. BACHUS. You know, I noticed in a statement by the director 

and actually by an FBI agent in Alabama that the two priorities 

were public corruption and domestic terrorism. You know, they did 

not mention human trafficking, and I do not know if that was an 

oversight or what. But is there any printed priority? 

Mr. HARPSTER. There is. When Director Mueller came in, the 

overall priority would be counterterrorism, and then I believe—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Could you share that information or supply that to 

the Committee? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Sure, I would be happy to. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. BACHUS. How many agents are devoted to human trafficking? Any solely devoted to that? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes, that is a separate branch, so my comment 

would be a guess. But I will include that information for you, sir. 

Mr. BACHUS. So you are not in that branch? 

Mr. HARPSTER. That is correct. Human trafficking comes under 

the Civil Rights Section. 

Mr. BACHUS. All right. Sexual exploitation, that is your branch? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Correct, sir. 

Mr. BACHUS. How many agents are involved in that as their sole 

responsibility? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Under my program, again that 400 number 

comes in. 

Mr. BACHUS. How many? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Four hundred, sir. 

Mr. BACHUS. How many agents are there nationwide in the FBI? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Approximately 12,000, I believe. 

Mr. BACHUS. Oh, that was my question when you responded with 

400. I am sorry. So there are 12,000 agents, but 400 are devoted—— 

Mr. HARPSTER. That number will go up and down, but those are 

the ones that are devoted. 

Mr. BACHUS. To sexual exploitation. 

Mr. HARPSTER. And that will change from month to month as 

well. 

Mr. BACHUS. Do they do something else other than sexual exploitation? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Those would be the ones who are assigned to the 

Crimes Against Children. So it could—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay, 400 of the 12,000? 

Mr. HARPSTER. Yes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Okay. 

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

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of our 

witnesses. As a father of three girls, it breaks my heart to hear the 

testimony and to think that any children would be treated as you 

have, Ms. Pettigrew. Having been a judge, I have sentenced people 

a lot longer than 15 years for doing what has been done. 

I applaud the efforts. I think we should do more. I think that my 

friend on the other side, Ms. Bass, is right. We ought to properly 

characterize who are the victims and who are the perps. 
50 

But I want to yield my time to a man that has a bill, Ted Poe, 

at this time for the rest of my time. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman, Judge Gohmert, for yielding. I 

know how valuable time is when we are in these hearings and how 

you like to ask a lot of questions, so I appreciate that a great deal. 

There was a hearing last week in Houston put on the Homeland 

Security. And my friend, Ms. Jackson Lee and Mike McCaul hosted 

that, and I was there. And we learned a lot of things, but we 

learned that Houston, Texas, according to the testimony, is the hub 

of international trafficking into the United States, that kids, boys 

and girls, are smuggled to Houston from all over, and they are sent 

throughout the fruited plain. It is a tragedy. 

Director Harpster, I want two numbers. How many people have 

been prosecuted who are in the situation of being the customer in 

a prostitution enterprise, whether it is for rape, or whether it is for 

being a customer? How many have the FBI prosecuted in the last 

year? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I apologize, sir. I do not have that number with 

me, but I will get it for you. 

Mr. POE. How many people have the FBI prosecuted who are 

international sex tourism criminals? They go from the United 

States and they go to some other country for sex tourism, and it 

is with a minor. How many of those people have been prosecuted 

in the last year? 

Mr. HARPSTER. We have a child sex tourism initiative which 

comes under my program. 

Mr. POE. Just the number. I just want a number. 

Mr. HARPSTER. Again, I do not want to give you the wrong number. I want to give you an accurate one, and I will get to that to 

you. But it is—— 

Mr. POE. Not very many. 

Mr. HARPSTER. It is all relative, sir. 

Mr. POE. Not very many. Furnish that to the Chairman and to 

the Ranking Member if you would as the protocol requires under 

the rules. 

If I understand it correctly, in sex tourism, if a person goes from 

the United States to Costa Rica, you have to prove their primary 

purpose for going there to prosecute them was for sex tourism. Is 

that correct? 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. HARPSTER. No. 

Mr. POE. So you can go down there on a business operation, and 

then you can be involved with a child and then a person could be 

prosecuted even though their primary purpose was not sex tourism, 

is that correct? 

Mr. HARPSTER. If the evidence is developed that you either had 

a conspiracy to have sex with that child or have sex with a child, 

that is a chargeable offense. 

Mr. POE. I understand when I was there, I was told by the government and by the shelter that around 80 percent of the people 

going to Costa Rica for sex tourism are from the United States. 

Would you argue with that or not? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I would not argue with the fact that Costa Rica 

is a destination for child sex trafficking. 
51 

Mr. POE. Okay. I want to be careful in my numbers because sex 

tourism or prostitution with adults is legal, but it is not legal with 

children in Costa Rica, is that correct? 

Mr. HARPSTER. In Costa Rica, I believe the age of consent is 14 

years old. 

Mr. POE. All right. I think the system, in the remaining time, our 

system I think does fairly well to go after traffickers. We are not 

doing too good with the victim on the other end. I want to center 

on the person in the middle, and you are going to get me that number, how many people have been prosecuted. 

Congress, in my opinion, needs to send a clear and convincing 

message that the days of boys being boys is over in the United 

States when it comes to sex, child abuse rather, with children. 

What about the RICO statute? Have you used the RICO statute 

to go after the child abuser, Mr. Harpster? You will get back with 

me on that. 

Mr. HARPSTER. I will get with you on that. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Mr. HARPSTER. I know we do use—— 

Mr. POE. Do you think it is a good idea? 

Mr. HARPSTER. We use the Child Enterprise Act, which is similar 

to the RICO for conspiracy for both the customer and also the pimp 

as well. So we have used that in that past. 

Mr. POE. Do you agree with me that we should quit calling the 

child abuser, the guy in the middle, anything but a child abuser, 

rapist, terminology? 

Mr. HARPSTER. I would concur with you, sir, that, yes, that is 

true. 

Mr. POE. All right. And, Judge, I want to ask you one last question on victims. I think we have talked a little bit about victims, 

not enough. Do you see that there is a whole range of services that 

need to be provided for victims, and one way we can do this is 

when the police capture these traffickers or the child abusers, Federal judges are allowed to impose some type of fee on them that 

goes into some kind of fund that eventually goes to services, whether it is law enforcement, NGOs, or county services? Do you think 

that is a pretty good idea or not? 

Judge GROMAN. Yes, there are actually a number of States that 

are using those funds for that purpose. Housing is a huge priority, 

and if those funds are used to provide supportive housing for these 

young people, I think that that is very important. 

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

That concludes the questioning by Members of the Subcommittee. 

All time that has been allocated to the Members of the Subcommittee who are present has expired. 

So without objection, the Subcommittee hearing is adjourned. 

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

(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
54 
55 

Æ