I find myself discussing this not as a question of partisanship, not as a question of Democrats versus Republicans. I do not find myself in a position, Mr. Chairman--and I refer again to my good friend, the gentleman from California, and some of the others I have discussed this with--of looking at this even as a question of winners and losers. On the particular issue, I think we are ill-served by this contract. This is not a question of loser pays in regard to clients and lawyers. This is a question of whether we are losing as freedom-loving individuals. Some of my libertarian friends that I have on the other side of the aisle find themselves stumbling for an explanation to me as to how they can be for this. This is the ultimate defense of the individual against the State.
Neil Abercrombie: “I find myself discussing this not as a question of partisanship, not as a question of Democrats versus Republicans. I do…”
On the recordMarch 7, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a contract on individual freedoms.
Share
More from Neil Abercrombie
Feb 23, 2010
I think the answer from the most practical point of view is the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Act of 1921. The Congress obviously recognized that there was a distinctive entity in the category of Native Hawaiians as a logical extension of…
Apr 15, 2014
This is the message of Aloha. This is the message that our diversity in this world should define us rather than divide us.
Feb 23, 2010
I can assure you that the Ethics Committee, the Parliamentarian and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have assured me that, if you can consume it on the premises, it's okay.





