Peter Roskam: “I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California said that we needed to use agnostic…”

“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.…”