[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 120 (Sunday, August 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    QUESTIONING THE CHANGES PRODUCED BY THE HUNTER-BREWSTER LANGUAGE

  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, like many on the minority side, I voted 
against the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill because I believe 
that that was best handled by the States and local communities. Nevada 
has its own Brady bill in southern Nevada to prevent delay.
  But I am deeply concerned about the Brewster motion to recommit. I do 
not understand, as we go through the progression of events in this 
debate--and maybe they can explain it--why they took out the no-death 
penalty for cop killers, why they took out the three strikes and you're 
out, why they took out the money for a crackdown on sex offenders and 
spousal abusers. Brewster-Hunter drops $1 billion from local cops and 
prosecutors to crack down on sex offenders and spousal abusers, and it 
takes out $300 million for battered women shelters.
  These things are of deep concern to me, and as this bill progresses 
and as the conference committee report is heard, maybe they can address 
these problems, because I am deeply concerned that these are being 
stricken out, and while I do not agree to the statements about 
protecting the second amendment, I do not understand this motion to 
recommit.

                          ____________________