Senator John Ashcroft in the U.S. Senate (Cong. Rec. S11887-88) (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998):
Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying the "no mandate" provision of the bill. Because the conference report is silent, I thought that I should explain this provision in some detail. As my colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S. 2037 could be interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to design products so as to affirmatively respond to or accommodate technological protection measures that copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying of their works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological protection measure. The amendment reflected my belief that product manufacturers should remain free to design and produce the best, most advanced consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Creative engineers--not risk-averse lawyers--should be principally responsible for product design. As important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called "black boxes" and not at legitimate products that have substantial noninfringing uses.

As my colleagues know, there had been some concern expressed that the "so long as" clause of section 1201(c)(3) made the provision appear to be circular in its logic. In other words, there was concern that the entire provision could be read to provide in essence that manufacturers were not under any design mandate to respond to technological measures, as long as they "otherwise" designed their devices to respond to existing technological measures. I never shared that perspective. To eliminate any uncertainty, the House Commerce Committee simply deleted the "so long as" clause. As I explained on the floor in September, that change merely confirmed my original conception of the amendment. Now that the conferees have adopted a provision requiring certain analog videocassette recorders to respond to certain existing analog protection measures, the "so long as" clause has a meaning that all should agree is logical: Manufacturers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products are not under a design mandate generally, but they are otherwise subject to a single, very limited, and carefully defined mandate to design certain analog videocassette recorders to respond to existing analog protection measures. Quite importantly from my perspective, this provision is limited so as not to impair the reasonable and accustomed home taping practices of consumers recognized in the Supreme Court’s Betamax decision.

It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in making fundamental design decision or revisions, whether in selecting certain components over others or in choosing particular combinations of parts.