[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two branches of Government have now 
spoken: The Justice Department's view of child pornography is wrong.
  Last November, this body voted 100 to 0--just think of that, 100 to 
zero--to repudiate the Reno Department of Justice's interpretation of 
the Child Protection Act. The House of Representatives by an 
overwhelming majority agreed this spring. Last week, a second branch of 
Government, the Judiciary, unanimously rejected the Government's 
position.
  The case of United States versus Knox was before the Supreme Court 
when the Clinton administration's Department of Justice changed its 
mind about what the Child Protection Act outlaws. Through their own 
administrative action, the Solicitor General overturned consistent 8-
year interpretations of previous Justice Department interpretations of 
the statute. For the first time, Solicitor General Days argued in a 
turnaround that illegal child pornography required nude depictions of 
children who themselves intended to act lasciviously. Under Mr. Days' 
interpretation, Knox, twice convicted, would go free.
  When the Supreme Court heard the argument, they remanded the case to 
the Third Circuit for consideration of the new position presented by 
the Clinton administration. Forty Members of this body and 194 Members 
of the other body joined an amicus brief urging that Knox's conviction 
be affirmed notwithstanding the Justice Department's changed position 
in the litigation.
  In its decision, the Court flatly rejected the arguments invented--I 
wish to emphasize, invented--by Solicitor General Days and his team. 
First, the Court ruled that nudity or discernable body parts are not 
required for materials to constitute child pornography. The videos the 
Government sought to declare legal were described by the Court as 
``clearly * * * designed to pander to pedophiles.''
  In light of the statutory language and the harms caused to children 
who are subjected to production of these materials, because in 1984, we 
sought to protect the young children of America, the Court found that 
clothed genitals fall within the statute. And that is what Solicitor 
General Days was trying to have the Supreme Court say was not covered. 
The Government acknowledged that its proposed standard would protect 
boys more than girls. Obviously, Congress, in 1984, adopted no such 
standard, and we reaffirmed this in that 100 to 0 vote last year.
  Second, the Court rejected the Government's argument that child 
pornography requires the child to act lasciviously. The Court held, 
correctly, that the statute requires that the point of view of the 
pedophile to whom these videos are directed be the decisive one. Again, 
that is entirely within congressional intent, I can say, as I was 
involved in the writing of that legislation in 1984.
  A spokesman for Attorney General Reno admitted that the Court 
rejected the Department's arguments. It was a total defeat for the 
arguments of the Clinton Justice Department and the Solicitor General, 
a total defeat. They struck out completely. The spokesman indicated 
that the Department has made no decision regarding a position to take 
if Knox again appeals to the Supreme Court.
  I have cosponsored a resolution with Senator Roth and Senator Heflin 
calling on the Justice Department to argue that Knox's conviction be 
upheld when he again petitions the Supreme Court to review his case.
  I hope that the Department has now learned a lesson--that these 
videos fall within the child pornography laws, and that a broad reading 
of those laws satisfies the Constitution. Congress has acted to 
prohibit child pornography to the fullest extent allowable under our 
Constitution. The Justice Department should and has a responsibility to 
enforce that congressional policy.
  I am astonished that there would still be any question in the Justice 
Department whose side to take on this appeal. Certainly, an 
administration that would adhere to the position that has been so 
thoroughly discredited by two branches of Government, I would have to 
assume was on a crusade for smut.

                          ____________________