Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think that is true. I think the Mann Act would be sufficient, if we included the male in that, for the purpose of prostitution. But I agree with you, Mr. Kildee, that definitely we need something for the protection of children, because children Mr. KILDEE. Extra penalties where children are involved. Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. Mr. KILDEE. Increase the penalties when they are doing it with a minor. Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. Mr. KILDEE. All right. I yield back my time, Mr. Jeffords. Thank you. Mr. JEFFORDS. You yield back my time. Mr. KILDEE. I yield back your time, I am sorry. [Laughter.] I wanted to talk a little bit about the economics, as you certainly have a lot of knowledge in this area, and I want to tap it as best I can. As far as a person who is trying to live on the street, so to speak, the relative economics of it, relative to what he gets from doing tricks or prostitution versus what he gets from pornography-do you have any idea how those measure out as to individuals on a general basis? Mr. MARTIN. Yes. I think with the street hustler-let's use that terminology. The street hustler would get somewhere between $20 and $25 for a trick. He would probably be paid as much as $75 or $100 to do a movie. But also, while doing the movie or the still photographs for publication, he would also be turning a trick, too. Mr. JEFFORDS. OK. Well, let's put it this way. How many tricks would he do during the year versus how many movies he would be engaged in, for an average person? Mr. MARTIN. Well, usually when the hustler starts out in the street, he does not want to be photographed by-on a commercial basis. And as he gets more into the real street scene, his inhibitions have been lowered. His self-respect has been lowered. His morality is gone, so therefore, he will do almost anything. As to the number in ratio, probably 200 to 1, off the top of my head. He would probably turn 200 tricks and do one film. But keeping in mind, Mr. Jeffords, also, that I told you this morning that through my investigations, where I actually go out and look for the victims, in most cases, whether it be the child molester or the chickenhawk, they are photographed by the adult. And these adults are very, very much aware of the law. They are very much aware of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, they are very much aware that a misdemeanor has a 1-year statute of limitations, that a felony has a 3-year statute of limitations, and also very much aware of the value of that one single Polaroid photograph that they have in their possession. Even though most of them don't become commercialized, they are very much aware of it. Mr. JEFFORDS. If a fellow does take a picture like that, what is his next step? What does he do next? What does he do with that picture, if he wants to sell it? Is there a regular market? Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. The Boy Scout man in Santa Monica stated he has molested somewhere between 300 and 500 boys. And he was sending these back to the east coast. And then the east coast was processing these slides and sending them back to Los Angeles and to other points in the Nation. The man-the go-between for the distribution of these slides said that this man in Santa Monica, the Scoutmaster, had sent enough slides back to Massachusetts that a 747 couldn't haul them all to Los Angeles. I know that is an exaggeration, but even if it was a 727 that had to bring them back out here, that is still a lot of slides of a lot of Boy Scouts. Mr. JEFFORDS. Of course, what concerns me there is we already have a Federal law that prohibits interstate transportation of obscene materials. And evidently that law is defective, or there is no attempt to make any prosecutions under it. Do you have Mr. MARTIN. Well, I don't think it is defective. Mr. JEFFORDS. Any idea as to what has gone on? If you talk to Federal officials, you know Mr. MARTIN. Certainly. Mr. JEFFORDS. About that, what their attitude is, what their feelings are. Mr. MARTIN. Again, you are getting back, Mr. Jeffords, into the obscenity. Mr. JEFFORDS. Right. Mr. MARTIN. And I think we have to stay away from obscenity. Of course, in my opinion, child pornography does not violate anyone's first amendment rights, and the first amendment and-obscenity has no play in this. What we have got to be concerned with this is the child, and not obscenity. Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Mr. JEFFORDS. We will let you wrap it up, George. Mr. KILDEE. In the practical order, since ultimately we have three branches of Government, that is to say, the branch to which we belong, the executive branch to which you belong, and the judicial branch, which will make the determination as to whether a crime has been committed, and since judges do read the headlines and they do read the attitudes of society, at a practical level, do you think that it would be easier to get a conviction on child pornography, which is a result of child abuse, than on adult pornography? Mr. MARTIN. Oh, absolutely. I don't think there is any doubt there, that when a child is involved, it even goes sometimes below what the standards are for obscenity, prosecutions of an adult. I think when a child is involved, the court takes notice of that, in most cases. Mr. KILDEE. So special legislation regarding child abuse and related pornography would give you a better chance in court of getting a conviction? Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely. And I think child pornography is not obscenity. It is child abuse. Mr. KILDEE. Abuse, right. Mr. MARTIN. Sexual abuse. Mr. KILDEE. I definitely think it is. And in my mind, it is very clear that the person who has the child perform an act and who photographs the act and sends it through interstate commerce channels and sells it, that they are all in some ways accessories to child abuse. Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely. They are aiding and abetting the-in all cases of children involved in films, under the age of 14 in particular, it is very obvious from watching these films, to see the young child look back toward the camera to obtain direction as to what to do. But it is obvious they don't know what they are doing and they are having to be told what to do. Or they have either been trained by the chickenhawk or the child molester that is photographing this incident, as to what to do. Mr. KILDEE. I think there is much precedent in law for all these people being accessories to the initial crime, and that we would not have the problem of obtaining convictions on child pornography that we have with adult pornography. Mr. MARTIN. No, we certainly do not. I think when you talk about some of the magazines and what I would consider obscene nudity involving children, then we run into a problem. But to me, to see a young girl with her legs-12 years old-spread as wide as she can get them, with the focus of the camera on the genitalia area of that young girl, that is sexual abuse, and that is sexual exploitation, because that picture will never be destroyed and it will be a valuable item forever and ever. Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I think that in the process of the hearing, we have come around, and I just think that if we can maintain, certainly, our focus-I don't know what the Judiciary Committee will do on the abuse and then provide the linkage, I just think your job is a hell of a lot easier than to try to construct an obscenity statute somehow because we are dealing with children. I dare say that growth in the industry will flourish over the next 10 years before we find out whether it is constitutional or not. And your job will be no easier. Mr. MARTIN. Well, that is exactly the problem we have now with adult obscenity Mr. MILLER. And I think that Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. Is sometimes it is 3 and 4 years by the time we get to court. And by that time, the particular thing we are going on is I watched it go, like I say, from the pubic hair out of the panties situation-by the time we get to court, that could be no more obscene, because there is so much stuff worse. Pornography went by leaps and bounds into the every realm you can think of, of being kind of a sexual connotation, arm insertions and-it is more than just explicit sex any more. That-that is not even-you can't even hardly sell explicit sex, unless a child is involved any more. You have got to have the fettishes and the offsprings of some of our subcultures to sell. Mr. MILLER. I assume your job as a prosecutor would be much easier in a jury with abuse in that situation. Mr. JEFFORDS. Oh, no question about it. You get away from all of the problems that you get with respect to first amendment one way, or legitimate uses, all those problems, when you can really define it in terms that really mean sexual abuse of a child. Mr. MARTIN. Well, that it is, gentlemen, in my opinion. It is strictly that. And Mr. JEFFORDS. Of course the problems Mr. MARTIN. And though there is someone taking a picture of what is going on Mr. JEFFORDS. The problem Mr. MARTIN. That is not a film, and that is not a magazine. Those are real children that are depicted there. Mr. JEFFORDS. Right. Of course, the problem is defining what the term "sexual abuse" means and what the limits are on that, and that is what we have got to grapple with. Mr. MILLER. I would take my chances in front of a jury. Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think so, too. I think when it is definitely a posed picture or it definitely has sexual connotation to it, the picture that is there, and depicted, then that is sexual abuse. And I think it is that simple. Mr. JEFFORDS. Well, unfortunately, it is not. Mr. MARTIN. There is some kind of a sexual thing Mr. JEFFORDS. Unfortunately, the courts have already ruled in the sex education area that some of the things that we might quibble on, whether it is sex education or child abuse, they have said that it is sex education, and they are drawing those lines. And I know the great imagination of our porno people, that they are going to have, you know, sex education manuals on the stands. And it is not going to be that easy to be able to convince-in this area as to which is which. And Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think if we have a law that states that it is sexual abuse of a child to photograph him in such a manner as to cause a sexual gratification to an adult or to that child, the same as the 288 statute in the State of California, then to me that is sexual abuse, and it would be self-explanatory, by the picture that is depicted, or the film that is made. Mr. MILLER. Any further questions? [No response.] Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for your testimony. The committee, as I said, will stand in recess until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning in this room. [Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee hearing was in recess until the following morning, Saturday, May 28, 1977, at 9 a.m.] SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1977 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:11 a.m., in the Student Union Building, U.C.L.A., Los Angeles, Calif., Hon. George Miller presiding. Members present: Representatives Miller, Heftel, Kildee, and Jeffords. Staff present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Joan M. Godley, staff assistant; Dr. Martin L. LaVor, minority legislative associate; and Karen Johnson, legislative assistant to Congressman Miller. Mr. MILLER. The subcommittee will reconvene for the purposes of taking testimony on the subject of the sexual exploitation and abuse of children as it pertains to the jurisdiction of the subcommittee in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Tim O'Hara. And I would like to tell the members of the committee that we will be acting under the rather strict interpretation of the 5-minute rule. For witnesses who may be in the room at this time, I would also like to ask that your testimony be as brief as it can be. All statements will be entered in the record in full, including prepared statements. But we have three members remaining, of the committee, all of whom have time problems in regard to air transportation. Mr. O'Hara, if you would like to go ahead. STATEMENT OF TIM O'HARA, SPOKESPERSON, RENE GUYON SOCIETY Mr. O'HARA. Good morning. Tim O'Hara is a pseudonym. I have been through two assassination attempts, but not on this particular matter. I don't think I could get through a third one, so I have to be very careful getting into controversial subjects. I have two presentations, the one I give in colleges and on telvision is 40 minutes long and the other one is about 15 minutes long. Now, what is the chairman's pleasure? Mr. MILLER. Well, I think you are going to have about 10 minutes, is what we tell Mr. O'HARA. I see. All right. |