Political Quotes

“I have several problems with the logic there. First of all, arguing that something should not be included because it is not necessary, if there is any ambiguity, it seems to me a weak argument. None of those arguing in opposition said it would do any harm. They said it is not necessary. In other words, we are getting the argument from literary elegance, not from logic. Let us not be redundant. Fortunately the rule against redundancy does not apply to our speeches, or we would be in better shape. On the other hand, there is a reason to apply this here. Among other things, we are not the only institution in this capital that treats appropriations legislation. Yonder lies the Senate. They have no such rule. We have sometimes been confronted, as the gentleman understands, with situations in which, in conference, we have had to agree to that. So to argue that we should not put something into a statute which is intended to last indefinitely, because we have a House rule provision that does the same thing, is no argument at all. If you are serious about the principle, then the fact it is in the House rule is a good idea, but hardly a sufficient protection. Putting it in the statute does no harm and arms us against a Senate where there is no such rule whatsoever.”