videotapes to children, and the use of the mails to ship and advertise pornography that is unsolicited and mostly unwanted.

These bills are in addition to a bill introduced by Representative Bob Dornan of California which is based on the Attorney General's Pornography Commission's recommendations, and the bill introduced by Bill McCollum and myself, H.R. 3889, which was developed by the Justice Department upon reviewing the recommendations of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography.

We also have been examining the current Federal enforcement effort. It was observed at the beginning of these hearings in April, that this subcommittee has a record of achievement in furthering the protection of children from sexual exploitation.

I am very proud of our 1984 amendments which eliminated the burden of having to prove that child pornography was obscene. We eliminated the previous requirement of proving that the production or distribution of child pornography was for the purpose of sale.

We raised the age of the children protected from 16 to 18 years. We raised the fines which could be imposed on those convicted of child pornography and enabled the Government to seize the equipment used to produce the pornography and the profits of the pornographers.

Our 1986 amendments, worked out in this subcommittee, again, prohibited advertising in connection with child pornography.

No longer could someone advertise that they had child pornography for sale, or that they wanted to buy child pornography. No longer could someone advertise that they had children available to participate in producing child pornography. The amendment also prohibited advertising to offer to participate in sex acts with children for such purposes.

We have heard, in great detail, how our legislation has enabled the Federal Government to increase its prosecutions in this area more than 600 percent over those brought under the 1978 Act.

I think we can do more and should do more, to protect our children, and their families from obscenity, while remaining totally consistent with constitutional principles and to build upon the achievements of this subcommittee in prior Congresses.

Today, we shall hear from a woman who has been a victim of the abuse at the hands of pornographers. We shall learn how models are recruited, how they are tricked and manipulated, and forced into posing for pornography, and we shall learn how it affects their lives.

We shall also discuss the Constitution and the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the freedoms of speech and of the press, freedoms that every American holds dear.

We shall consider the possible consequences of some of the provisions in some of the bills under consideration on the ability of libraries, publishers, and booksellers to provide information necessary to maintain our constitutional rights.

This is the third hearing, as I have indicated, on the subject of child pornography and obscenity.

We attempted to listen to all the testimony, all the witnesses that have requested to testify. Unfortunately, we have not been

able to hear from everybody yet, and I regret that, but I think, as the members well know, we have a full menu.

It has been a very active Congress for the Subcommittee on Crime. Hopefully after we pass the drug bill and this committee wrote the major sections of the anti-drug bill dealing with enforcement, and we will have to manage that on the Floor when we get to the Floor in early September, and while we have moving through the Congress, ready to go to conference, a plastic gun bill, that in the past has generated quite a bit of controversy, but which now apparently we can work out in conference, and a major defense fraud bill which hopefully the Senate will pass, that will enable us to go to conference, or otherwise work out our differences with the Senate.

And a medical waste bill that we hope to mark up today at the conclusion of these hearings, so that we can put in the pipeline for passage, eventually, in this session of Congress, a bill that will make it a felony offense to dump medical wastes either in the ocean or in any other place, and to in fact provide fines of up to $250,000, and 5 years in prison for those that engage in those illicit practices.

Hopefully we can, in addition to that, move ahead, and mark up some legislation in this Congress, as has always been our intent, consistent with our other demands that will deal, once again, with this whole area of pornography and obscenity.

So at this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsyl

vania.

Mr. GEKAS. I thank the Chair. The Chair has quite adequately portrayed our concern as we move along the process of developing legislation in this field. Our concern about the constitutional rights, because they are embedded in almost everything that has to do with the printed word, or the videotape, or whatever we automatically call obscene, what we automatically call pornography, runs headlong into the possible constitutional hurdle of free speech.

So as we proceed we are going to be careful, even in the questioning that we make of the witnesses, as to those particulars. The other thing that ought to be mentioned and reemphasized is, that as we look into child pornography, that is one segment of this whole process, a very important one. We feel very confident and comfortable with the safeguards we are going to be placing into that field.

On the question of obscenity generally, and as it aims to adults, we have a distinct difference, but there, the mandate is even more severe for us because that kind of obscenity-and also in the child pornography-obscenity itself feeds appetites for other kinds of criminal activity.

Assault and battery, and maiming, and rape, and you name it. All kinds of human rights abuses, and downright atrocities, really. So it is not just the printed word or the vision on the screen that we are looking at closely, but what it leads to, what it means to our society.

So, with that, I thank the Chair, and will be eager to hear the

Mr. HUGHES. Before I introduce the first panel, there has been a great deal of misinformation spread about this bill and the proceedings. Suggestions that the child pornographers are here on Capitol Hill attempting to influence Members of Congress.

I want to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania: Has any child pornographers contacted you?

Mr. GEKAS. None.

Mr. HUGHES. Can you imagine any Member of Congress listening to a pornographer?

Mr. GEKAS. Maybe for a few minutes to find out what they are after. You sometimes would not know until they started, but nobody has approached me.

Mr. HUGHES. Well, I find the suggestion by some of the groups around this country absolutely outrageous, and, frankly, I am anxious to hear the testimony today, because after we hear, particularly this first panel, I cannot imagine anybody being sympathetic to such outrageous behavior.

Our first panel this morning consists of an individual who we will call "Susan" for the purposes of identification, and Lt. Mike Bouchard of Teller County Sheriff's Department in Cripple Creek, Colorado.

Susan was a victim of torture in the making of a pornographic movie. Lieutenant Bouchard is a 20-year police officer, having served 8 years with the Oakland, California police department, and over 12 years as district attorney/criminal investigator.

We welcome you to the Subcommittee on Crime this morning. We have your prepared statements which are going to go into the record, without objection, in full, so that you can in fact summarize or deal with it as you see fit. But your full statement will be made a part of the record, and we are going to begin with you, Lieutenant, your testimony this morning.

We welcome you. We thank you for coming this morning, as well as Susan.

TESTIMONY OF LT. MIKE BOUCHARD, TELLER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CRIPPLE CREEK, COLORADO; AND "SUSAN", A VICTIM OF TORTURE IN THE MAKING OF PORNOGRAPHY, COLORADO

Lieutenant BOUCHARD. Thank you very much.

As the Chairman said, my name is Mike Bouchard. I was involved in a case in October 1984 when I was an investigator in the District Attorney's office.

My partner, Larry Martin, and myself, were contacted by a citizen complaining that his 19-year-old daughter had answered an ad in the daily newspaper for models, with pay up to $400 a day.

This 19-year-old gal had gone there and been interviewed, found out from the lady that interviewed her that it was going to be photographs in the nude, which she refused to do. She came home and told her father.

At that time, we had one of our female district attorney/investigators go undercover, make a phone call to this ad, and did set up

Our undercover female was interviewed, and during her interview did learn that it would be nude and sado-masochistic type photographs.

We sent her back on a second day when she was to have her first session taken.

Mr. HUGHES. Can you speak up a little bit. Can you speak right into the microphone, Lieutenant.

Lieutenant BOUCHARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUGHES. That is better.

Lieutenant BOUCHARD. She was sent back in the second day. At that time we did have a wire on her with a tape recording of what was stated to her. She was shown several sado-masochistic type magazines, and shown the different poses that she would be put in during these photographing sessions.

She was advised at that time that this was all simulated, there would be no pain whatsoever, it was done with makeup, and that any time there was a problem they would stop.

After that, she did not go through the session. My partner and I did get a search warrant signed by a District Court judge. On October 18th, we did go to the residence, in a regular neighborhood where this house was, which belonged to a Charles Roush, and his stepson, Joseph Walden.

During the execution of that search warrant we did find over 5,000 photographs of various young females. We also found in the basement of that house a torture chamber that consisted of a jail cell, racks, stocks, stretching tables, whips, chains, rat traps, a simulated electric chair.

After we did confiscate all the business records of Mr. Roush, we did arrest himself and his stepson, Joseph Walden, for obscenity. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have some of the photographs with you today that you

Mr. BOUCHARD. Yes. I do.

Mr. HUGHES. I wonder if you would give them to the staff, so we

can

Mr. BOUCHARD. I also have copies of the ad that was in the newspaper. I also have a couple copies of a magazine called "Corporal Magazine" which is put out by Esoteric in New York City.

I also had previously turned in two magazines that are put out by Tao Magazine in Los Angeles, California, and Platinum Press in Los Angeles, California.

After we did seize these records we went through these records trying to identify these models. We did ascertain about 75 different models that we could positively ID from the applications they had turned in to become models to this agency.

Through the business records, we did find out that Charles Roush was working with Esoteric out of Jamaica, New York, and with company in Beverly Hills, California, Platinum Press, which is owned by a Mr. Larry Ross.

And also, Tao Magazine, which is owned by Mr. Richard Nathan. That is also in Hollywood, California.

After Walden and Roush were arrested on misdemeanor charges, my partner and I did sit down and go through these photos, and did notice at that time that there were several very young-appearing females who we did contact.

We found out there was one 15-year-old and two 17-year-olds that were used in these photographs.

There was also video movies of sado-masochistic activity that Roush had done under the direction of Larry Ross and Richard Nathan from California, who had been in Colorado Springs with Roush, to assist him in making his movies so that they would be realistic and would be what the people would want to buy.

I would like to make one thing clear here: That none of these models did come forward to us to volunteer their statements. We had to go out and actually contact them and interview them.

The large percentage of the models that would talk to us, of which there was approximately forty, the others did refuse for various reasons-that they were married, too embarrassed, scared.

But a large percentage of the models told us, as our undercover female agent had, that they were told they would be strictly simulated, sado-masochistic type acts.

But they were told that they would be only tied loosely, hand and foot, or, if it was not loose enough, if they start having pain, that they would be released.

These models stated that once they were tied up, there was actual pain and torture done to them. They would beg Roush and Walden to release them, and Walden's statement usually was, "I'm not going to do it, the tears make it look much better.'

Also, a lot of these models were gagged, and even if they did want to be released they could not say anything because they were gagged.

Many of the models told us that they did suffer injuries from having hot wax dropped on them, rat traps clamped on their breasts and nipples, hung upside down on ladders-resulting in one individual becoming unconscious and having to go to a doctorclothes pins clamped to their nipples and vaginas, and other acts of actual physical torture.

The photos we saw did show where they were whipped. There were stripes, like you see on TV, or other movies. People actually get whipped. Most of these were simulated and done with makeup. The clothes pins and the rat traps, clamps, and the ropes themselves, were actually physical torture.

Several of these models were advised that the first session they would do for Roush was for free, and that these pictures would not be published, but that he would see how they turned out. He would send them to his contacts in Esoteric, Platinum Press, and Tao Magazines to see if they were interested in these particular models. We found, and did show some of these models, who never did go back after that first session, that those pictures were actually published in national magazines, some of which you have in front of you now.

The 15-year-old model did go there because she thought it was fashion models. She was in fact photographed fully clothed while her parent was there, as a fashion model, on two or three different occasions.

The first time she went back without her parents, Roush told her he would not publish her fashion pictures unless she agreed to go through some sado-masochistic poses for him in the nude. This 15