Charles E. Grassley: “I remember last fall, in November, this body voted 100 to 0 for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator Roth and I…”

“I remember last fall, in November, this body voted 100 to 0 for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Senator Roth and I put forth. That resolution told the Justice Department that when we passed the Child Pornography Act in 1984, what we said in that act is what we meant. And we disapproved of the way the new solicitor general was enforcing that act that caused a convicted child pornographer's case to be remanded back to the circuit court of appeals. Mr. President, last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument for the second time in 3 years in the case of Knox versus United States. The case concerns the conviction of a Pennsylvania man for possession of videos of scantily clad young girls. These videos contained repeated closeups of the girls' genital areas. Knox argued that the Child Protection Act of 1984 prohibits child pornography only where the child is completely nude. Forty Members of the Senate and 194 Members of the House, following on the 100-to-0 vote of this body, joined in an amicus brief arguing that Congress never intended to limit the reach of the statute exclusively to nude portrayals. This Justice Department, however, has departed from a very consistent interpretation of the statute.”