[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 122 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Leahy].
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion 
regarding the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. 
This past weekend when I was in Vermont, following the crime bill 
conference, I heard a great deal of it there. It is interesting because 
I think in my State, as in most other States, people understand the 
difference between discussions of substance and posturing on procedure. 
They saw posturing in the other body to kill the crime bill by a 
procedural effort, doing it in such a way that it allowed those who 
wanted to back a powerful special interest lobby position to the crime 
bill to pretend that they were simply trying to abide by some arcane 
procedure. But people understand gridlock. They understand 
parliamentary posturing on procedure to avoid hard questions.
  What I heard from Vermonters--Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents--over and over again throughout the weekend is, do not go 
down there and cast some kind of procedural vote to duck facing up to 
this crime bill. If you do not like the crime bill, vote against it. If 
you like it, vote for it. But do not try to avoid the hard questions of 
everything from the banning of assault weapons to putting more police 
on our streets, by casting just a procedural vote.
  I agree with them. We ought to stand up, every man and woman in the 
Senate, and state exactly whether we are for the crime bill or not. 
Stop the parliamentary games that just add to the gridlock in 
Washington and do not allow us to answer the real question: Are we for 
the crime bill or not? I am for it.
  I commend Chairman Biden for his tireless efforts to get this 
legislation enacted. In fact, the crime bill we consider today bears 
his mark, and I commend him for his leadership, his perseverance, and 
his ingenuity in moving this bill through conference. No one has 
dedicated him or herself to this issue as much as Senator Biden has. I 
believe both the Senate and the country owe him a debt of a gratitude.
  I also would like to say a word about the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, Jack Brooks. He is a distinguished Member of 
Congress, and he deserves our respect. He served his Nation in time of 
war, and then began his legislative career casting a number of tough, 
courageous votes in favor of landmark civil rights legislation at a 
time when it was not popular to do so, especially coming from the part 
of the country that he does. He has defended our constitutional rights 
and civil liberties from Government excesses. And he is what he was and 
has always been--a man of principle and passion, a legislator of first 
rank and a dedicated public servant.
  There were and are disagreements, as we know, on the crime bill. But 
I think that Chairman Brooks always worked to deliver a crime bill to 
the President that would improve the lives of Americans. He did so with 
a perseverance and determination that reflects our best 
traditions. reflects our best traditions. Frankly, Mr. President, the 
Senate and the House--the Congress--the President, and the country were 
well served by the two chairmen who led this conference.

  I support the Biden bill for a number of reasons. It takes strong, 
necessary steps to turn the tide in our country's serious crime 
problem. And the bill contains many worthwhile, creative initiatives. 
Is it a perfect bill? Of course not. We could not pass a bill that 
would satisfy each and every one of us in every detail. Will it end 
crime? Sadly, it will not. No one bill can do that. I spent nearly 9 
years in law enforcement. I know that it is impossible simply to pass a 
law to stop crime. We have passed such laws prohibiting a compendium of 
crimes ranging from murder to auto theft. Simply making an action a 
crime does not stop it. Good prevention, strong families, and a lot of 
other things together with law enforcement will help prevent it.
  This bill will help in that prevention. It will make our cities, our 
towns, and our rural areas--also in my own State of Vermont--safer. It 
will make the lives of our citizens more secure and productive.
  The Biden bill includes a commitment to increasing the number of 
policemen on our streets by as much as 20 percent. It tries a new 
philosophy of community policing. Again, as a former prosecutor, I have 
to believe that that will help. But it also includes a substantial 
commitment to addressing the special needs of rural crime. I offered an 
amendment establishing a $30 million rural domestic violence and child 
abuse enforcement program. These funds will be put to very good use in 
my State. And there are other provisions that enact rural Federal and 
State task forces. These have proven successful in attacking drug and 
violent crime in the rural parts of Vermont. The crime bill authorizes 
$245 million for rural law enforcement.
  So many times, Mr. President, the needs of those of us in rural 
America are so different than in urban America when it comes to rural 
crime. It is often not like urban America, where a police officer calls 
for backup and they are 2 blocks away. In rural areas, they might be 30 
or 40 miles away, and they might have to travel mountainous roads or 
difficult terrain to get there. We know that many times the need for 
communications or recordkeeping, or the ability to bring together the 
expertise necessary to investigate serious felonies is lacking in rural 
areas.
  This will help us bring some of those tools, so that a criminal 
committing a crime in rural America will be apprehended with the same 
degree of sophistication as a criminal committing the same crime in 
urban America. There should not be safe havens for criminals in any 
part of our country, rural or urban. Every criminal must know that if 
they commit a crime, whether in rural or urban America, they are going 
to be caught and prosecuted and punished. That is the best deterrent to 
crime and that should be our goal.
  The conference report includes a strong Violence Against Women Act, 
which I have cosponsored during the last two Congresses. It is an 
important piece of legislation, and I commend Senator Biden for his 
leadership on this issue as well. The Violence Against Women Act will 
make the lives of women in Vermont and across the country safer.
  I also support the Biden bill because it includes a strong commitment 
to helping hard-pressed State corrections systems. I appreciate the 
support of Senator Biden and the cooperation of Congressman Hughes of 
New Jersey in working out a formula for prison grants that, again, 
recognizes the needs of the small States.
  In this bill, there is a substantial commitment to treatment and 
prevention. Mr. President, if we are serious about fighting crime, we 
have to do more to prevent our young people from embarking on careers 
that lead to lives of violent lawlessness. Tough law enforcement will 
not do that alone. Prevention programs will not do that alone. Some 
aspects of the prevention program have been criticized as social 
spending that will not really do anything to stop crime. I have heard 
that complaint from Members of Congress who have absolutely no 
experience in law enforcement themselves. They ought to listen to the 
people who have had experience--criminal justice professionals like 
police, corrections officials, judges, prosecutors. They will tell you 
that many of these programs are long overdue. They must be used in 
conjunction with tough law enforcement to help turn the tide of crime.
  That being said, I think the compromise that consolidated and 
streamlined some of these programs has improved the bill. I think it 
makes a better balanced approach to the crime problem. Incidentally, I 
am pleased that Vermont is now assured of sharing in the benefits of 
the crime prevention block grant. The prevention package is about $1.5 
billion more over 6 years than the bill that passed the Senate on a 
vote of 95-4 last November. Having been a lawyer in a small city in 
Vermont, I see an extra $1.5 billion as a lot of money. If you compare 
it to some of the real big-ticket spending, such as the space station, 
superconducting super collider, B-2 bomber, or star wars, it is sort of 
a drop in the bucket.
  I might add that I think the young people in this country are going 
to be better served by this expenditure than they were by the far 
greater expenditures for star wars.
  I am pleased to work with Senator Biden in including provisions that 
extend the funding formula for the Federal Victim Assistance Fund that 
would have expired this year. Any one of us that comes from a small 
State ought to pay attention to that because it is going to be helpful. 
In my State, it avoids a cut in the Federal Victim Assistance Program 
of over 50 percent. These programs are designed to help the victims. 
These programs are extremely important, and it would have been 
unconscionable if this legislation had been enacted in a way that would 
have imposed such extreme hardship on victims' programs in small 
States.
  Let me say a few words about the bill's respect for the proper role 
of the States in law enforcement. As a former State prosecutor, this is 
very, very important to me. I was pleased that some of the worst 
provisions federalizing State crimes were taken out during the 
conference process. We do not have to call on the FBI to handle every 
single crime in this country. That is why we have State and local and 
county law enforcement. We are making some very basic mistakes in the 
Senate if we assume that we have to start federalizing every crime as 
though there are no State authorities or local authorities, or that we 
do not have chiefs of police and police departments or county sheriffs, 
or whatever else, and as though somehow we do not have State judges and 
prosecutors. Every one of us--you and the taxes you pay to your own 
State, me and the taxes I pay to my State--pays for these law 
enforcement agencies, and we rely on and respect them. We should not 
say on the floor of the U.S. Senate that we do not trust them anymore; 
we are going to take this away and give it to a central Government in 
Washington.
  If we feel that there are cases in which State and local authorities 
are not up to the job, well, then, give them the tools to do it better. 
The best parts are those that do this. Do not waste valuable Federal 
resources by federalizing every crime in the book. You do not need to 
have the FBI come in on every burglary or gas station holdup or small 
drug deal. Let them handle organized crime, and some of the complex 
cash transactions that are illegally done in this country.
  Let them handle the scourge of narcotics that come into our country 
and then are distributed through vast, highly organized, 
extraordinarily well-financed networks.
  It does not mean because we do not pass laws against carjackings or 
murders or stabbings that somehow we favor those. All we are saying is 
they do not have to be Federal crimes. Every State in the Union has 
laws on the books against them.
  Let the local level do it. If they have something that goes across 
State lines, if they have something that becomes very complex, then 
call in the FBI or call in the DEA. We can do that.
  I tell you right now I feel the same way today as I did when I 
carried the badge and I was a prosecutor. I do not want the FBI to be 
brought into cases that are best handled at the local level.
  As I say, there are some very good things in this bill. They outweigh 
the others. I would like to mention some of the ones I do not like. I 
am troubled by the expansion of the death penalty. I say this not only 
because I am opposed to capital punishment, but also because we are 
basically applying a death penalty in States that have voted against 
the death penalty. I think the death penalty is a symbolic gesture that 
really does very little to stop crime, if anything at all. I think it 
is administered unfairly. I think the issues of race, class, and 
quality of counsel too often have a determinative impact on who 
receives this penalty.
  Certainly, if you are extremely wealthy and well positioned, you have 
a far better chance of escaping it than if you are poor and a nobody. 
It is unfortunate, in my view, that the Racial Justice Act was omitted 
from the final bill.
  That being said, we also know that a significant number of Members of 
this body disagree with me on that, and I do not intend, as some who 
may disagree with one or two parts of this bill do, to use procedural 
methods to hold up this whole bill so the rest of the Senate cannot 
vote on it.
  We voted on these issues. I was on the losing end. You have to look 
at the overall bill. Are we better off as a Nation with this bill than 
without it? I say we are better off as a Nation with this crime bill 
than without it, and we should not hide behind the subterfuge of 
procedural methods to kill this bill.
  We should take the responsibility of casting a vote either for it or 
against it and be willing to go back to the people in our States and 
say I was either for it or I was against it and not have a procedural 
vote that might stop us and go back and say: ``I like this part. I do 
not like that part. If it ever comes to a vote, I will certainly look 
at it. Of course, you understand by a procedural vote it has gone 
away.'' That is wrong. I will guarantee you that virtually every 
American, no matter what their political background is, will see 
through that kind of smokescreen. I know the bill would have been 
killed by filibuster if the Racial Justice Act was included. It was 
taken out to remove that excuse to block the bill.
  Threatening to kill the bill in the name of perpetuating the 
country's history of discrimination in capital punishment is wrong. I 
wish the Racial Justice Act could be in, and the expansion of the death 
penalty in the bill makes it difficult for me to vote for it.
  So too does the scale of the bill. It is an ambitious and costly 
undertaking. We can handle that but only with very tight oversight of 
the funds used in this bill. It is incumbent upon the Appropriations 
Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and others, to follow carefully how 
the bill is implemented. If we find programs are not working that 
looked good on paper, they should be terminated.
  If what we are talking about is really doing something to fight 
crime, then the work of the Senate on this legislation is far from 
over. It is very easy as a legislator to pass a bill to say ``I am 
going to be against crime; I am passing this bill.'' Who in Heaven's 
name is going to stand on the floor and say I am going to vote for a 
bill that says I am in favor of a crime? None of us are.
  I remember my own legislature would pass bills they thought would 
help stop crime. It was given to me as a prosecutor then to use them to 
stop crime. We found some of them did not work. That is why I say that 
we also have the duty as a legislator to go back to the police, the 
prosecutors, the judges, the citizens, the victims, everybody involved 
and say, ``Is this program working or not?'' If it is not, get rid of 
it, and let the funds and resources be used for those programs that do 
work.
  If we do not do that, then we are not going to get $30 billion worth 
of anticrime investment out of here and people are going to be rightly 
able to say the Federal Government has not done what it should to stop 
the crime increase.
  Let me say a few words about the assault weapons provision. I get 
very frustrated by some of the loose talk that goes on in the Congress 
about guns. A lot of people stand up and give great speeches about 
banning guns, and it is obvious when you hear them talk that they never 
fired a gun in their life and they do not know one end from another.
  I grew up in a State where usually from your early teens you are 
taking gun safety courses, and certainly most people in my generation 
owned guns and have owned them from the time they were children. I own 
many guns, and many weekends when I am home in Vermont I love to target 
shoot.
  I know also that there are many, many semiautomatics that are used 
for completely legitimate purposes that have no business being 
prohibited. I own a number of those semiautomatics. They are not going 
to show up in the prohibited list.
  But I also know there are weapons that are designed especially for 
killing people. Let us talk about something like the Street Sweeper.
  Let me speak personally about this. I am not, as most of my 
colleagues know, an advocate of sweeping gun control. We have one of 
the highest per capita ownership of guns in America in Vermont. We also 
have the lowest crime rate in the country. So there is not this direct 
correlation between gun control and crime rates as some would have you 
believe.
  I happen to think that what would help even more than strict gun 
control in this country would be some strict family control and maybe 
going back to basic principles that parents know where their children 
are, that they teach respect for life, that they teach respect for each 
other and respect for the rights of each other and instill real values.
  But I also know that all the country is not Vermont. I know that 
there are people who live in terror in our cities, terror that no 
matter how well they conduct their lives, how law abiding they are, how 
honest they are, they face the possibility of being killed maybe for 
$5, maybe because they wore the wrong color clothes, maybe because they 
just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, even though 
minding their own business in doing it.
  I know the real fear that Americans are feeling in this country, 
where they face weapons on the streets of America--the greatest 
democracy in the world--where they face weapons that would be terrible 
and terrifying on the battlefields of the world, weapons like the 
Street Sweeper. I do not know, Mr. President, if you have actually seen 
one of these. I have. It is a horrible weapon if you know what it might 
do.
  Many of us have fired 12-gauge shotguns. We know how destructive it 
can be, especially at close range. When you make something that looks 
like the old Thompson submachine gun loaded up with a huge magazine 
full of 12-gauge rounds, sometimes with rifle slugs, sometimes double 
ought buckshot and you can virtually tear a wall out of a room with it, 
when you can wipe out not one victim but a crowd of victims, these are 
not hunting weapons. These are not sporting weapons. In fact, anybody 
who is a hunter, anybody who values sporting would be terrified to see 
someone walking through the woods carrying a weapon of that type. If 
you would be terrified walking through the woods of your State during 
hunting season when you at least might be armed yourself and seeing 
someone coming with a weapon like that, how does somebody feel pulling 
into a gas station and wondering if someone will come out with a weapon 
like that or walking down a street and wondering if someone might be 
carrying that, or coming out of a restaurant and wondering if someone 
going by in a car will be firing something like that?
  Mr. President, we are no longer a country of wild frontiers. I am 
perfectly willing to foreclose to myself the ability to own some 
weapons that I believe I could own safely, manage carefully, and would 
never use in crime, I am willing to give that up for the safety of this 
country.
  We have a very limited number of guns that are banned in this bill. 
You would think by some who speak about it that we are disarming 
America. That is not so. Every Vermonter who now owns guns will still 
own guns when this bill is passes. Every Vermonter will know there are 
some weapons they may not buy in the future, but no Vermonter is going 
to buy those weapons to go hunting. They say they may want them for a 
collector's item. I say to them, collect something else.

  This is a time when we have to say to the American people: The 
carnage on our streets has gone far enough. The terror that Americans 
face has gone far enough.
  This will not stop the carnage, this will not stop the terror, but it 
will at least give some hope to the American people that Congress is 
willing to stand up and will not bow to any lobby anywhere, from the 
right or the left, but we will try to do what is right. And I think we 
can.
  I voted for the Feinstein-DeConcini amendment, because I thought the 
legislation drew a distinction in a way that would save some lives, 
remove some of the fear that grips our people, and it would do so 
without trampling on the right of law-abiding gun owners.
  As I said, I will still own guns. My neighbors in Vermont will still 
own guns. But a lot of Americans, when they see this pass, will at 
least have some hope that somebody cares about their safety on the 
streets.
  You know, I said earlier that gun control is no magic cure. And those 
who want to go on the television shows and say, ``If we pass this gun 
control, our streets are safer,'' are not being honest. It is not 
enough by any means.
  You have to focus on the people who are misusing guns. We need to 
make sure that people who use guns to hurt others face serious 
penalties, both as a deterrence and also because justice demands it.
  We also need to acknowledge that until this country turns around what 
is going on in our cities and towns and rural areas--and restores a 
reasonable notion of what is right and what is wrong in the unfortunate 
number of young people and others who have gone astray and ventured 
into a world of crime and drugs--we are not going to stop crime. That 
is a fact. And just banning guns or hiring police or building prisons 
or creating social programs or passing crime bills will not change the 
fact that we have more and more of our young people who are turning to 
drugs, who grew up with no basic values in their family, who have no 
sense of community or responsibility not only to others but not even a 
sense of responsibility to themselves. No matter how many laws we pass, 
no matter how many police we fund, no matter how many prisons we build, 
that will not change until we go back to some basic societal values, 
starting right in our families.
  You cannot just tell the schools, you cannot just tell the courts, 
and you cannot just tell the police to do what parents ought to do 
right from the beginning.
  Talk about gun control. I will tell you what gun control was in my 
family. If I ever misused a gun when I was growing up, no law would be 
needed to ban that gun from my use. My father would ban that gun 
immediately. And there would be no appeal, there would be no second 
opinion, there would be no question, no parole, no probation. It would 
be done. And maybe, in a whole lot of other areas, parents ought to go 
back to doing just that. Maybe it would be a lot better country as a 
result. But until that day comes, we have some real steps in here that 
could protect Americans, that could protect every one of us and ought 
to be passed.
  Again, I would say, as I said over and over again, do not hide behind 
the figleaf of procedural motions to kill this bill, as some are trying 
to do. Let us stand up and say we are either for it or against it, and 
then go back and explain that to the people who are called upon to vote 
for us.
  In light of the provisions for funding these measures through the 
crime trust fund, I am going to support the budget waiver necessary for 
us to consider and vote upon the crime bill.
  I might say, Mr. President, I believe it was 95 Senators who have 
already voted for that. And, amazingly enough, some of the same 
Senators who are talking about now carrying out a procedural motion to 
stop that crime trust fund were the same Senators who stood on this 
floor congratulating themselves for supporting the crime trust fund, 
and saying we will put the money there and guarantee that it will be 
there and used for fighting crime and not used for something else. And 
now, all of a sudden, they say, ``My gosh, this thing will actually 
pass and we have many powerful lobbyists that do not like some parts of 
it, so we are going to find a figleaf to stop it.''
  I am going to vote in favor of this bill. I wish Senators would just 
confront it head on.
  I sat through a lot of those conferences, Mr. President, until 3 or 4 
o'clock in the morning. Tris Coffin from my staff was with me. We know 
what it is like. These are issues that have been debated ad infinitum. 
Now is the time to come up and vote.
  If somebody is against the bill as a matter of principle, opposed to 
a major portion, then vote against it. I can accept a Member who feels 
strongly about capital punishment saying he or she cannot vote for this 
bill. I can accept colleagues who claim they are so opposed to the gun 
control measures that were passed, incidentally, in this body last 
November, that now they have changed their minds and they will vote 
against the bill because of that. But state why you are voting against 
it. Do not use the procedural fig leaf. Stand up and say why you are 
voting for or against it.
  Mr. President, after all the years of work on this bill, after all 
the debate, all the votes, all the discussion, I do not think the 
American people can or should stand further delay and gridlock by 
Senators. This is a vote for action, not gridlock. Let us have the 
courage of our convictions to stand up and either vote for it or vote 
against it. But let us do it on the merits. I think the American people 
should expect nothing less. They should have nothing less.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a legislative history on 
rural crime task forces and computer crime be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Legislative History on Rural Crime Taskforces

       During the conference process, the rural crime title was 
     amended. As a conferee and the author of the Senate 
     conference amendment, and as the person directly involved in 
     negotiating these provisions with House conferees, I would 
     like to say a few words clarifying the legislative intent of 
     these provisions.
       When the Senate and the House passed their crime bills, 
     both included provisions establishing rural crime and drug 
     taskforces. The sections of the bill that specified the 
     taskforce membership and cross-designation of federal 
     officers, sections 1402(b), (c) in the Senate bill, and 
     sections 2502, 2503 in the House bill, included provisions 
     that indicated the rural crime taskforces were to enforce 
     Title 18 of the United States Code and the Controlled 
     Substances Act.
       When the bill came to conference, these provisions that 
     were included in both bills and were therefore beyond the 
     scope of the conference were dropped in a preliminary draft 
     of the conference bill, apparently inadvertently. In the 
     conference, I offered a technical amendment that among other 
     things, added the language on this point that was omitted 
     from the preliminary draft. This amendment was passed by 
     voice vote in the Senate without dissent.
       In discussions with my House counterparts, it became 
     apparent to me that providing some general guidance to the 
     sorts of crimes on which the rural crime taskforces should 
     focus their investigations would be a worthwhile objective to 
     help them prioritize the types of cases where the federal-
     state joint partnership is best employed. Therefore, after 
     negotiations with House members, language was agreed to that 
     would guide the rural crime taskforces on the sorts of 
     investigations they should pursue. This language was included 
     in a House counteroffer on the rural crime provision, and was 
     accepted by the Senate. The agreed upon language was added to 
     Sec. 1402 of the draft referred to in conference as the 
     Chairman's mark after the phrase ``Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. Sec. 873(a))'' and read ``or offenses punishable 
     by a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more under Title 18, 
     United States Code.''
       I want to emphasize that nothing in this agreed upon 
     language was intended as a limitation on a United States 
     Attorney's prosecutorial discretion or charging authority to 
     prosecute for any offense he or she deems appropriate under 
     the facts and the law. Nor is it a limit on the jurisdiction 
     of the taskforce to report and investigate unlawful activity 
     of any sort that it uncovers in the course of its operations 
     or learns of otherwise. And this language certainly should 
     not be construed as giving any defendant charged with a Title 
     18 offense punishable by imprisonment for less than 10 years 
     any remedy, defense, jurisdictional claim or other right of 
     action as a result of being investigated by a rural crime 
     taskforce. To provide so would be contrary to the underlying 
     purpose of the crime bill which is to prevent crime and 
     prosecute criminal activities, and would not have been 
     acceptable to me or the conferees. As section 1402(b) of 
     the conference report itself states, the taskforces are to 
     be ``carried out under policies and procedures established 
     by the Attorney General.''


              legislative history on computer crime title

       Let me also say a few words to clarify the legislative 
     intent with regard to the Computer Crime title that I 
     authored that is included in the crime bill. This provision 
     clarifies the intent standards, the actions prohibited and 
     the jurisdiction of the current Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 
     (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030. Under the current statute, 
     prosecution of computer abuse crimes must be predicated upon 
     the violator's gaining ``unauthorized access'' to the 
     affected ``federal interest computers.'' However, computer 
     abusers have developed an arsenal of new techniques which 
     result in the replication and transmission of destructive 
     programs or codes that inflict damage upon remote computers 
     to which the violator never gained ``access'' in the commonly 
     understood sense of that term. The new subsection of the CFAA 
     created by this bill places the focus on harmful intent and 
     resultant harm, rather than on the technical concept of 
     computer ``access.''
       During consideration of the legislation this year, 
     manufacturers of software raised the issue of whether this 
     statute would criminalize the use of so-called disabling 
     codes which computer software copyright owners sometimes use 
     to enforce their license agreements. These codes may prevent 
     access to or use of the software beyond the scope of the 
     software license agreement of in the event of nonpayment of 
     the license fee or other material breach of the software 
     license agreement.
       Although the computer crime provisions prohibit damaging 
     transmissions that occur ``without the authorization of the 
     persons or entities who own or are responsible for the 
     computer system receiving the program,'' it is not the intent 
     of this legislation to criminalize the use of disabling codes 
     when their use is pursuant to a lawful licensing agreement 
     that specifies the conditions for reentry or software 
     disablement. Other legislative history applies to this 
     provision although I have not included it here. Interested 
     parties should look to the floor statements, reports, and 
     hearings about this bill that occurred in prior Congresses 
     for the full legislative history.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. Metzenbaum].
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to 
commend my colleague from Vermont for his excellent statement in 
connection with the crime bill and the question of procedural motions 
to be used in order to stand in the way of the passage of the bill. As 
usual, he brings a very astute analysis of the issues before the 
Members of the U.S. Senate. I commend him and appreciate his addressing 
himself so well to this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be 
permitted to address the Senate as if in morning business for a period 
not to exceed 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________