phrase “for pecuniary profit.” Child Protection Act of 1984, § 5(a)(5), Pub.L. No. 98-292, 98 Stat. 204 (1984). The House Report that accompanied the amendment explained that “[s]ince the harm to the child exists whether or not those who initiate or carry out the schemes are motivated by profit, the Subcommittee found a need to expand the coverage of the Act by deleting the commercial purpose requirement.” H.R.Rep. No. 98-536, at 2-3 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 492, 493-94. And it is clear that Congress can regulate the interstate or foreign transportation of goods, including child pornography, regardless of whether there was a commercial purpose for it. Cf. United States v. 12,200-Ft. Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 125, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 2667, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 18,
holding that congress can constitutionally prohibit the importation of obscene material from abroad even if it is imported for personal use rather than for commercial distribution holding that a charge for the use of a public wharf was a user fee rather than a tax for constitutional purposes holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant holding drugs purchased for personal use should not be included as relevant conduct when conviction is for distribution of controlled substance