Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to say a few words in opposition to the nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.

There is no doubt that Mr. Ogden is an experienced lawyer. However, I have serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's views and some of the cases he has argued. Mr. Ogden is an attorney who has specialized in first amendment cases, in particular pornography and obscenity cases, and has represented several entities in the pornography industry. He has argued against legislation designed to ban child pornography, including the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998. These laws were enacted to protect children from obscene materials in public libraries and to require producers of pornography to personally verify that their models are not minors. I supported both these important pieces of legislation.

In addition, Mr. Ogden authored a brief in the 1993 case Knox v. United States, where he advocated for the same arguments to shield child pornography under the first amendment that the Senate unanimously rejected by a vote of 100 to 0 and the House rejected by a vote of 425 to 3. In the Knox case, the Bush I Justice Department successfully had prosecuted Knox for violating Federal antipornography laws; but on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Clinton Justice Department reversed course and refused to defend the conviction. After significant public outrage, President Clinton publicly chastised the Solicitor General, and Attorney General Reno overturned the position. At the time, I was involved in the congressional effort opposing this switch in the Justice Department's position on child pornography.

Mr. Ogden also has filed briefs opposing parental notification before a minor's abortion, opposing spousal notification before an abortion, and opposing the military's policy against public homosexuals serving in uniform.

Significant concerns have been raised in regard to Mr. Ogden's nomination. I have heard from a very large number of Iowa constituents, including the Iowa Christian Alliance, who are extremely concerned with Mr. Ogden's ties to the pornography industry and the positions he has taken against protecting women and children from this terrible scourge. The Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Fidelis, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Heritage Foundation, among others, have all expressed serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's advocacy against restrictions on pornography and obscenity.

The majority of Americans support protecting children from pornography exploitation, protecting children from Internet pornography in libraries, and allowing for parental notification before a minor's abortion. So do I. I feel very strongly about protecting women and children from the evils of pornography. I have always been a strong supporter of efforts to restrict the dissemination of pornography in all environments. As a parent and grandparent, I am particularly concerned that children will be exposed to pornographic images while pursing educational endeavors or simply using the Internet for recreational purposes. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have supported bills to protect children from inappropriate exposure to pornography and other obscenities in the media, and I support the rights of parents to raise children and to be active participants in decisions affecting their medical care. Mr. Ogden has consistently taken positions against these child protection laws and this troubles me.

Because of my concerns, I must oppose the nomination of David Ogden.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source