[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 4 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN UNITED STATES VERSUS KNOX

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wanted to bring my colleagues up to 
date on the status of an amicus brief that many of us will file in the 
case of United States versus Knox.
  On November 4, all 100 of us voted for a resolution that Senator Roth 
and I offered that expressed the sense of the Senate that the 
Government's Supreme Court brief in the Knox case failed to reflect 
congressional intent in enacting the Child Protection Act of 1984.
  Knox, a repeat offender under this statute, had purchased videos that 
portrayed young, scantily clad girls in provocative poses. In the 
resolution, we rejected the Government brief's newly found focus on the 
intent of the victim, rather than the pornographer's intent as 
reflected in the video.
  We also rejected the Government's requirement that the child be nude 
or that the pubic area be discernible.
  We rejected that brief because it is very clear that it was contrary 
to the intent of the 1984 act. And if it was not so clear, we would not 
have approved a reaffirmation of that 1984 statute by a vote of 100 to 
zero, in turn rejecting the Government's newfound interpretation of 
that 1984 statute.
  Following the unanimous vote on the resolution, Senator Heflin and I 
have coordinated the filing of an amicus brief in the third circuit, 
where the Knox case is now pending.
  The court has granted permission for Members of Congress to file such 
a brief, and has allowed additional interested Members to join the 
brief. Currently, more than 150 Members of Congress have agreed to 
appear on the brief, including 33 Senators.
  As evidence of the nonpolitical nature of the brief, the Members 
include Democrats and Republicans, liberals, moderates, and 
conservatives, northerners and southerners. All of these diverse 
Members agree that the Justice Department has flouted congressional 
intent.
  And they know that unless Members of Congress appear in the case and 
argue the original intent of the statute, then no one else will, since 
the Government decided to go a different direction in their 
interpretation of the law.
  Child pornography is a serious evil. The sexual exploitation of 
children that necessarily occurs in its production leaves lifelong 
scars on these young people. These potential victims deserve the 
protection of strong laws, and Congress has passed tough legislation 
against these practices. And we recognized that the harm to children 
does not exist only where the child herself intends to act lasciviously 
or is nude.
  I simply cannot understand why the Government has taken the same side 
as the child pornography offender in this case. And 150 other Members 
of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, agree.
  We have continued to add Members to our brief, as the court order 
granting us leave to appear in the case permits additional Members to 
be added until the brief is filed. Just within the last 2 days, two 
more Senators have had their names added. Pending procedural motions in 
the case mean that the brief will be filed soon, perhaps in only a few 
weeks.
  Nonetheless there is still time for additional colleagues to join the 
brief that reflects the position all of us took on November 4, on the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution when 100 to zero, we reaffirmed the 
original 1984 interpretation of that statute.
  So I urge additional Senators to join the brief before the Third 
Circuit in Pennsylvania. And I urge them to do this to further the 
purpose of the original anti-child-pornography statute passed in 1984: 
Because we wanted to protect the children of America.

                          ____________________