[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 2442. A bill to extend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965 and to provide authorizations for the Appalachian highway and 
Appalachian area development programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


          APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, along with Senator Byrd, I am 
introducing the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 
1994.
  The purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the Appalachian Regional 
Commission for fiscal years 1995 through 1999. It proposes level 
funding of $290 million for each year over this 5-year period, as a 
proven investment in a region that is anxious to grow economically and 
improve life for its people.
  I am introducing this legislation because I believe deeply in the 
mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the essential role 
it has played in improving the lives of West Virginians and the 
citizens and families living in Appalachia. As Governor of West 
Virginia for 8 years, I was able to see firsthand what the ARC and its 
programs accomplished in my State and the Appalachian region. Now as 
Senator, one of my priorities has been to ensure the ARC's 
continuation. The program is crucial to the Appalachian region, and it 
is working.
  The ARC was created in 1965 by an act of law signed by President 
Johnson. Thanks to this bold measure, West Virginia and the other 12 
States served by the ARC are better off today than we were 25 years 
ago. This unique partnership between the Federal Government and the 13 
Appalachian States has been effective in helping to address the searing 
poverty of our Nation's most isolated and historically neglected 
region.
  The ARC has played an important role in the development of West 
Virginia, and in raising the quality of life for all our citizens. 
Whether the funding has been used for public facilities, work force 
training programs, adult literacy training, or physician recruitment, 
it has made a difference to our people and families.
  Let me cite some specific examples.
  In the early 1980's, Mrs. Elizabeth Williams, a retired school 
teacher well into her seventies, started a grassroots movement to 
obtain a public water system for several rural communities in Wyoming 
County--in the heart of southern West Virginia's coalfields. Many 
residents did not have indoor plumbing, ground water was seriously 
contaminated with iron, and the nearest laundromat was 10 miles away. 
Today, thanks largely to Mrs. Williams' efforts and to a grant from the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, nearly the entire eastern third of the 
county has clean water, there has been a local housing boom, and a 
State community college has been constructed.
  Another example occurred several years ago, when a group of elected 
officials, local business people and interested citizens from 
Princeton, WV, raised sufficient local funds to match a grant from the 
ARC to acquire and renovate a large vacant building in the community. 
Space in the building was then made available for limited time periods 
at low rent and shared overhead costs to small businesses during their 
critical start-up periods. Among the success stories from this venture 
is Mountaineer Home Nursing, begun as a two-person business in 1986 
that today has 48 employees and provides a vital community service.
  Community development projects such as the Alderson-Broaddus College 
Rural Health Care Expansion Project have also made significant impacts 
on the lives and health of rural West Virginians. In 1969, Alderson-
Broaddus College pioneered the Nation's first baccalaureate Physician 
Assistant Program, creating a curriculum so successful that it became a 
prototype for the creation of physician assistant programs nationwide. 
This highly successful program is one of two such programs in 
Appalachia, and has been a key factor in improving rural health care in 
the region. In 1993, an ARC grant to Alderson-Broaddus assisted in the 
training of physicians assistant students, and placed 75 second and 
third-year students in rural clinical settings. This was especially 
important in those communities which were severely lacking in clinical 
personnel. In addition, two new clinical sites were established and a 
clinical prenatal and postnatal care training program was developed.
  Other ARC projects in West Virginia include the Mid-Atlantic 
Aerospace Complex near Clarksburg, which has become one of the State's 
major employers; the 11 rural communities that have started a community 
self-help program to construct, small innovative wastewater treatment 
facilities to help them meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; 
the primary health care clinics in rural areas that lacked doctors; the 
vocational education facilities that are teaching young people skills 
to get them ready to work; the adult literacy and drop-out prevention 
programs; and on and on and on.
  But perhaps the most significant program that the ARC has helped 
bring to the Appalachian States is the construction of the Appalachian 
Development Highway System. Much has been invested by the ARC in these 
Appalachian corridors, and more than 2,200 miles of the 3,000-mile 
system are now complete. The senior Senator from West Virginian 
deserves enormous credit for his commitment to the corridors as well. 
But we have more to do; put very simply, this highway system must be 
completed. As I have said before, until it is, there will continue to 
be roads that some call highway to nowhere, and the value of the 
investment of Federal and State funds already spent will be 
unfulfilled. Continued investment in these highways is absolutely vital 
to overcome the region's isolation, and make it accessible to new 
business and industry. We must ensure that instead of being roads 
``halfway to nowhere,'' these corridors become highways ``the whole way 
to somewhere.''

  A study by the Commission underscores the success we have achieved so 
far with the corridors, and the need to finish the task we have 
started. The study found that more than 80 percent of the two million 
new private sector jobs created in the region since 1965 have been 
created in counties with an interstate or Appalachian development 
highway.
  This study is evidence that these highways have indeed helped bring 
the kind of change envisioned when the ARC was created in 1965 on the 
recommendation of a group brought together by President Kennedy shortly 
before his death. That group's mission was to address the poverty of 
our Nation's most isolated and neglected region, Appalachia, which some 
at the time called ``The Other America.'' These highways have helped 
address the isolation and inaccessibility of the region, opening it up 
to opportunities that were not possible before. But, again, the job is 
not done; we must complete these corridors.
  The success stories I have outlined from West Virginia are duplicated 
in each of the other 12 Appalachian States, from the southern tier of 
upstate New York to northeast Mississippi. And the importance of 
completing the ARC Corridors is evident in each state as well. These 
are the reasons I have introduced legislation to reauthorize and 
strengthen the ARC in every Congress since I came here in 1985.
  But we still have a long way to go, and ARC's objectives have yet to 
be fulfilled. In West Virginia, over 22 percent of our citizens 
continue to live in poverty, while the figure is about 14 percent 
nationally. Throughout the Appalachian Region, the non-metro poverty 
rate is 18.3 percent. There are 600 distressed counties in the United 
States, and 150--or 25 percent--of these counties are in Appalachia. 
This figure is even more distressing considering that Appalachia has 
only 12 percent of the total counties in the country. So there is still 
work to be done, and we must allow the ARC to complete its mission.
  The bill I am introducing today would reauthorize ARC for fiscal 
years 1995 through 1999, at a funding level of $290 million for each 
fiscal year. Of these sums, $190 million is authorized yearly for 
development of the Appalachian highways, $96 million is designated for 
area development activities, and $4 million is made available for 
administrative expenses.
  This bill would authorize the ARC to the end of this century. It 
would allow the ARC, with its unique partnership of Federal, State and 
local government entities, to continue its essential mission, 
supporting the development of the region's infrastructure and its 
people to help create increased economic opportunities and jobs. 
Fulfilling this vital mission of the ARC will enable my State and the 
others in the region to grow and to make the contribution we want to 
make to the betterment of this Nation.
  In closing, I would like to share a quote by Robert Kennedy which I 
believe expresses very eloquently the reasons why programs like the ARC 
are essential in combating chronic poverty. His words ring just as true 
today as they did when he said them in 1968, and underscore the reasons 
for continuing the good work of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

     [. . . It is time to act to bridge the gaps which divide this 
     nation and threaten to rip it asunder, through violent chaos 
     in our cities or the silent decay of hope and purpose in 
     Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta. It is time to stop 
     treating the diseases of poverty and deprivation with welfare 
     doles--and to begin a massive effort, public and private, to 
     provide jobs and housing and hope to the people who dwell in 
     the Other America.

  Mr. President, I ask that the full text of this measure be printed in 
the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2442

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Appalachian Regional 
     Development Act Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION.

       Subsection (b) of section 105 of the Appalachian Regional 
     Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 105(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Commission to carry out this section $4,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 1995 through 1999. Not more than $1,500,000 
     of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal 
     year pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be available 
     for expenses of the Federal Cochairman, the alternate of the 
     Federal Cochairman, and the staff of the Federal 
     Cochairman.''.

     SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       Section 106(7) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act 
     of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 106(7)) is amended by striking 
     ``1982'' and inserting ``1999''.

     SEC. 4. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Authorization.--Subsection (g) of section 201 of the 
     Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 
     201(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this section an amount equal to $190,000,000, plus such 
     additional sums as may be necessary, for each of fiscal years 
     1995 through 1999.''.
       (b) Federal Share.--Section 201(h)(1) of such Act (40 
     U.S.C. App. 201(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``70 per 
     centum'' and inserting ``80 percent (70 percent for projects 
     approved on or before March 31, 1979)''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION OF FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS.

       Subsection (c) of section 214 of the Appalachian Regional 
     Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 214(c)) is amended in 
     the first sentence by striking ``December 31, 1980'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 1999''.

     SEC. 6. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.

       Subsection (b) of section 224 of the Appalachian Regional 
     Development Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 224(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) No financial assistance shall be authorized under 
     this Act to be used to assist establishments relocating from 
     1 area to another.''.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 401 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
     1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 401) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``In addition to the appropriations authorized in section 
     105 for administrative expenses, and in section 201(g) for 
     the Appalachian development highway system and local access 
     roads, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this Act, to remain available until expended, $96,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1995 through 1999.''.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

       Section 405 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
     1965 (40 U.S.C. App. 405) is amended by striking ``1982'' and 
     inserting ``1999''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Simon):
  S. 2443. A bill to provide compensation for victims from persons who 
unlawfully provide firearms to juveniles, felons, and other 
disqualified individuals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      gun victim compensation act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senate Simon and I are 
introducing legislation, the Gun Victim Compensation Act, to provide 
compensation to victims of gun violence, and to discourage the transfer 
of firearms to juveniles, felons, drug addicts, and others barred by 
law from receiving guns.
  Under the legislation, any person who provides a firearm to a 
disqualified individual would be liable for all damages caused by the 
discharge of the firearm by the transferee, if bodily injury or death 
results. The term ``disqualified individual'' means an individual to 
whom it is unlawful to provide a firearm either under current law, or 
under the Senate-passed crime bill. This generally includes juveniles, 
felons, drug addicts, individuals who have been committed to a mental 
institution, fugitives, and illegal aliens, among others.
  Mr. President, given the epidemic of gun violence around our Nation, 
especially among young people, we need to do everything possible to 
discourage transfers of guns to juveniles, felons, and others who 
cannot be trusted with firearms. Until now, we have relied largely on 
criminal sanctions to deter such transfers. However, experience has 
shown that criminal sanctions are not sufficient.
  The fact is, if gun dealers sell guns to juveniles or felons, it is 
unlikely they will find themselves in prison. There are far too few ATF 
agents for the huge number of licensed dealers, and other law 
enforcement officials also are swamped with competing demands. 
Moreover, even if someone is both caught and prosecuted, prosecutors 
have the difficult burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is obvious: Criminal sanctions are 
not working. Too many children, and too many dangerous adults, are 
getting access to guns. We need to do more.
  Mr. President, civil liability can be an important complement to the 
criminal justice system as a means of ensuring compliance with gun 
control laws. In a sense, civil liability privatizes gun control, 
establishing a private army of victims and attorneys to aggressively 
pursue wrongdoers. Not only do these so-called private attorneys 
general have direct financial incentives to seek redress, they often 
have an easier time winning cases than do criminal prosecutors. This is 
largely because the standard of proof in a civil case is significantly 
lower than in a criminal case.
  The concept of applying civil liability to improper gun transfers is 
hardly a radical idea. In fact, many States courts already allow 
victims to sue gun sellers in certain circumstances. However, there are 
several problems.
  Perhaps most importantly, current law is unclear and inconsistent. 
There are few, if any, State statutes that clearly lay out the rules 
for liability. And in many States, there are no direct precedents on 
the liability of gun sellers in these kinds of situations.
  Standards also vary dramatically in different States. For example, 
courts differ on whether a transferor can be held liable for injuries 
caused when the transferee commits a subsequent crime. In some cases, 
such a crime has been held to be an intervening cause that excuses the 
original transferor from liability. In other cases, courts have refused 
to let the original transferor off the hook. In my view, this latter 
approach is preferable both as a means of deterring unlawful transfers, 
and ensuring full compensation for victims.
  Courts also have differed on whether negligence can be established 
from the fact that a gun is transferred to a person who is legally 
prohibited from receiving guns. In many States, violating such a 
statute constitutes ``negligence per se,'' meaning that the violation 
is sufficient to establish negligence. However, other State courts have 
not adopted this rule. So a gun dealer can go into court and may be 
able to escape responsibility by arguing: ``Well, yes, I did sell a 
handgun to someone who I knew was a convicted murderer, but I thought 
he had been rehabilitated, and I didn't know that he planned to go out 
and shoot someone else.''
  This bill would preclude that kind of argument. It says: if you 
knowingly provide a gun to a convicted felon, it doesn't matter that 
you think he's a nice guy. It doesn't matter that he claims to be 
rehabilitated. And it doesn't matter that he says he will use the gun 
only to hunt deer. Under this bill, you're on the hook. If that felon 
goes out and shoots someone, the victim is going to be able to come to 
you and get the compensation he or she deserves.
  Beyond establishing a strong, clear, uniform standard for liability, 
this bill also would shift the burden of paying attorneys fees from 
victims to wrongdoers. Currently, victims who seek redress under State 
common law generally are forced to bear the burden of attorneys fees. 
This discourages some victims from seeking redress, especially if their 
recovery is likely to be swallowed up by the costs of pursuing the 
action.
  Mr. President, I have gone out of my way to draft this proposal in 
the most reasonable and limited way possible, in the hope of attracting 
broad support. The bill therefore includes several strict limitations.
  Most importantly, the legislation would apply civil liability only to 
transfers that are already illegal under current law. Also, the bill 
would preclude relief for injuries that are self-inflicted, except in 
the case of juveniles or those with histories of mental problems. In 
addition, the bill generally would preclude an award if the person 
injured, as opposed to the transferee, was engaged in a crime when 
shot. Finally, the legislation would apply only to damages that are 
caused within five years of the original transfer.
  Mr. President, let me also explain what this bill would not do.
  First, this legislation does not create strict liability. That is, 
the bill does not base liability simply on the fact that someone has 
marketed a dangerous product. So long as a gun is not transferred to a 
disqualified individual, there would be no liability under the 
legislation.
  Nor would this proposal hold liable a dealer who acts entirely in 
good faith, and who sells a gun to someone having no reason to believe 
that the buyer is a disqualified individual.
  Similarly, the bill would not hold liable a parent who leaves a gun 
around the house unattended, if a child gets access to the gun and 
hurts someone. There may be a good argument that parents should be 
liable in those circumstances. However, that is not what this bill is 
about. The legislation applies only to situations in which a person 
affirmatively transfers a gun to someone who the transferor knows, or 
has reasonable cause to believe, is a disqualified individual.
  Mr. President, this legislation is supported by gun control 
organizations and consumer groups. The proposal has been endorsed by 
the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, and 
Consumers Union. The Children's Defense Fund also endorsed a nearly 
identical amendment I filed to S. 687, the product liability bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I do not claim that this legislation is 
a cure-all. It will not prevent all juveniles, or all felons, from 
obtaining firearms. But it should make a real difference. And even if 
it prevents only a few deaths, and provides financial relief to a few 
innocent victims, it will be well worth it.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2443

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Victim Compensaton 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. VICTIM COMPENSATION FROM PERSONS WHO UNLAWFULLY 
                   PROVIDE FIREARMS TO JUVENILES, FELONS, AND 
                   OTHER DISQUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Victim Compensation.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(j)  Victim Compensation.--
       ``(1)  In general.--Any person who sells, delivers, or 
     otherwise transfers--
       ``(A) a firearm in violation of section 922(d) or section 
     922(b)(1); or
       ``(B) a handgun to a person who the transferor knows or has 
     reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile, except as provided 
     in paragraph (6),

     shall be liable for damages caused by a discharge of the 
     transferred firearm by the transferee.
       ``(2) Civil action.--An action to recover damages under 
     paragraph (1) may be brought in a United States district 
     court by, or on behalf of, any person, or the estate of any 
     person, who suffers damages resulting from bodily injury to 
     or the death of any person caused by a discharge of the 
     transferred firearm by the transferee.
       ``(3) Disentitlement to recovery.--There shall be no 
     liability under this subsection if it is established by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that--
       ``(A) the damages were suffered by a person who was engaged 
     in a criminal act against the person or property of another 
     at the time of the injury; or
       ``(B) the injury was self-inflicted, unless the plaintiff 
     establishes that, at the time of the transfer, the transferor 
     knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the transferee 
     had not attained the age of 18 years or had been adjudicated 
     as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
       ``(4) Period of liability.--No action under this subsection 
     may be brought for damages that are caused more than 5 years 
     after the date of the transfer of a firearm upon which an 
     action could otherwise be based.
       ``(5)  Attorney's fees and punitive damages.--A prevailing 
     plaintiff in an action under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and 
     costs, and
       ``(B) may be awarded punitive damages.
       ``(6) Juveniles.--Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply to--
       ``(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun to a juvenile if 
     the handgun is used by the juvenile--
       ``(i) in the course of employment, in the course of 
     ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of 
     the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at 
     which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner 
     or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation 
     of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course 
     of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
       ``(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's 
     parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, 
     or local law from possessing a firearm, except--

       ``(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded 
     handgun in a locked container directly from the place of 
     transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause 
     (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of 
     that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly 
     from the place at which such an activity took place to the 
     transferor; or
       ``(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as 
     described in clause (i), with the prior written approval of 
     the juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction 
     of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local 
     law from possessing a firearm;

       ``(iii) if the juvenile keeps the prior written consent in 
     the juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in 
     the possession of the juvenile; and
       ``(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
       ``(B) issuance of a handgun to a juvenile who is a member 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National 
     Guard who possesses or is armed with the handgun in the line 
     of duty;
       ``(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not 
     possession) of a handgun to a juvenile;
       ``(D) a delivery of a handgun by a juvenile to be used in 
     defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder 
     into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which 
     the juvenile is an invited guest; or
       ``(E) a transfer of a handgun for consideration if the 
     transfer is made in accordance with State and local law and 
     with the prior consent of the juvenile's parent or legal 
     guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local 
     law from possessing a firearm.
       ``(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to limit or have any other effect on any 
     other cause of action available to any person.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(30) The term `juvenile' means a person who is less than 
     18 years of age.''.
       (c) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall apply to damages resulting from a 
     firearm that was transferred as described in section 
     924(j)(1) of title 18, on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2444. A bill to require the approval and implementation by the 
Secretary of Commerce of a rule to provide a moratorium for a temporary 
period on the entry of new vessels into certain groundfish, crab, and 
halibut fisheries in the North Pacific; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


           NORTH PACIFIC VESSEL ENTRY MORATORIUM ACT OF 1994

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today 
would implement a moratorium on the entry of new fishing vessels into 
North Pacific groundfish, crab and halibut fisheries.
  This moratorium is a fundamental component of efforts to reduce 
fishing capacity in North Pacific fisheries.
  The North Pacific Fishery Management Council approved the moratorium 
in June 1992, and it was published in the Federal Register as a 
proposed rule on June 3, 1994.
  On August 5, 1994, however, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
disapproved the proposed rule, stating a number of concerns about 
elements of the Council proposal.
  In its letter of disapproval, NMFS expressed the hope that the 
Council would revise the moratorium proposal and resubmit it, 
acknowledging the pressing need for interim controls on fishing 
capacity in the North Pacific. While I do not question the validity of 
NMFS's concerns with the Council's proposal, I believe the need for a 
moratorium is too great to wait for the Council to make the suggested 
changes.
  The delay in the moratorium has already, I am told, led some 
fishermen to begin gearing up to enter these fisheries.
  The bill I am introducing today would put the proposed moratorium in 
place until the Council is able to consider the modifications suggested 
by NMFS, or until December 31, 1997, whichever comes sooner.
  It would greatly help to prevent new entry into fisheries which 
already have too much fishing capacity.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this important legislation, 
and that we can pass it before the adjournment of Congress. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2444

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``North Pacific Vessel Entry 
     Moratorium Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF MORATORIUM.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall, by not later than October 15, 
     1994, approve and implement the proposed rule to establish a 
     moratorium for a temporary period on the entry of new vessels 
     into certain groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries in the 
     North Pacific and Bering Sea published on June 3, 1994 at 59 
     Federal Register 28827.
       (b) The moratorium in subsection (a) shall remain in effect 
     until December 31, 1997, or until the Secretary approves an 
     amendment to such moratorium prepared by the North Pacific 
     Fishery Management Council in accordance with the Magnuson 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.), whichever is earlier.

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am glad to be able to cosponsor 
this important legislation with Senator Gorton. It will really help to 
address the overcapacity problems in the North Pacific fisheries.
  I agree with Senator Gorton that the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council should not overlook the concerns expressed by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service with the proposed moratorium.
  However, I share Senator Gorton's view that until the Council can 
address these concerns, we should keep the proposed moratorium in 
place.
  I hope that other Members of the Senate will join us in supporting 
this legislation which is critical to the conservation of fisheries off 
Alaska.

                          ____________________