I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said that we needed to use agnostic scrutiny when we are evaluating these. I think it is a little bit ambitious to have a roomful of agnostics when we are all…
I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said that we needed to use agnostic scrutiny when we are evaluating these. I think it is a little bit ambitious to have a roomful of agnostics when we are all true believers. We all come in with an agenda.
An agnostic, Mr. Speaker, would look at the four things in the bill that we are contemplating today and would say of all four of these things: Surely these are not going to get caught up and swept away in tax reform; surely, it is not going to be how we are treating food charities; surely, it is not going to be how we are dealing with conservation easements; surely, it is not how we are treating IRA contributions to charities; and surely, it is not trying to make private foundations and give them a sure footing. Surely, these are the things we can all agree on based on agnostic scrutiny.
Did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? There is nobody on the other side of the aisle who has stood up today and said: The food charity thing? Disaster. I'm against that. Or: Conservation easements? Ridiculous. Look into that a little bit more. Or: The IRA contributions? Be careful there. Or: Private foundations, getting them all squared away? I'm against it. Not one person said that.
So what was their argument? They wrap themselves up in process. But by wrapping themselves up in process, they have opened themselves up to criticism, because if we had gone a different route, if the chairman had taken a different path, they would have said: Chairman Ryan, why don't you start on things where there is bipartisan agreement? And here the chairman is bringing bills to the floor that have been enthusiastically, actively supported, Mr. Speaker, by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Why have they supported them? Because they are good ideas. This is where there is an incredible amount of common ground.
There have been some false arguments made on the other side that are just not that persuasive, and the argument by the gentleman from Texas created the impression that if you vote ``yes'' on this, then we are not going to be able to afford meat inspectors. We are not going to be able to have bridges or a cure for cancer. It is somehow out of our reach. Spare me.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded at times like this of a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790 to a man named Charles Clay. I am going to give you three lines from this letter that I have committed to memory because I think it deeply resonates where most Americans are when they look at our House today.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this to Charles Clay. He said:
The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be
content what we can get from time to time and eternally press
forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men
even to do what is for their own good.
Mr. Speaker, that is Jefferson's admonition--no stranger to vision, no stranger to the big picture as the author of the Declaration of Independence.
We don't walk away from tax reform, the aspiration that we all have, but it is to say: Look, if we are going to be agnostically scrutinizing these things, even an agnostic would say this ought not to be caught in the crossfire.
We ought to vote ``yes'' for this bill and move it along.