Joe Crowley

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the comments of my friend from California, and I don't question his motivation. But I would suggest that if the assumption is that we believe everyone cheats, I think that's wrong. What I hear from the other side--not from the gentleman from California, but generally from the other side--is that the belief is the middle class cheats; the middle class cheats, and that's why we have to impose this upon them. And I would use an example of a middle class business man or woman. That business man or woman who files an individual fax tax form as a small business person no longer will have to file the 1099 forms, but if they make $88,000 a year and they are 397 percentile of Federal poverty and they have an unexpected increase in income, they will be subject to the $4,460 middle class tax hike.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his yielding me the balance of the time. I want to thank all my colleagues for coming to the floor today to defend the middle class of this country. We all believe--and I think both Democrats and Republicans, it's been evident here today, all believe-- that the 1099 provisions need to be repealed. We recognize that. We, too, want to help small business. We recognize that small business is the backbone of employment opportunity in our country. And that effort has been bipartisan, it has been bipartisan in the Senate, but not here. It's because we don't like the pay-for provision that my Republican colleagues are proposing and putting forward in this legislation because we believe that they switch the burden from the small business man and woman and they place it on the backs of the working class in this country. We want to work in a bipartisan way. We believe we can work together and come up with a solution. Now I have to be honest, no one on the other side has asked me for a compromise solution, it hasn't happened. We passed this bill out of committee about 1\1/2\ weeks ago, almost 2 weeks ago, and still no one has said Joe, do you have an idea? We have a couple of good ideas over here I'd be willing to share with my colleagues on the other side, but that hasn't happened as of yet. I'm sorry this hasn't happened because I thought with this new Congress we would have more bipartisanship, and unfortunately that hasn't developed as of yet, at least as it pertains to this bill. I'd also like to note that we're going on our third month here in the House of Representatives, and quite frankly I can't see much of what we've done. I can't say we've done much of anything, quite frankly. I can say that if you add up the total, we've imposed upon the American people an additional $80 billion in taxes in different various ways, the latest of which will be this $25 billion that we're going to impose upon the middle class if this bill passes today and somehow becomes law. This bill, if enacted, will be a massive increase of tax on the middle class. I gave an example earlier today--it must have been about 2 hours ago--of a family of four earning $88,000, approximately 397 percent of the Federal poverty level. And I mentioned if the breadwinner of the family, if the husband or his wife or either of the spouses is the breadwinner in that family, and they get a bonus of $250, I said before that they've done great work. They're management material. It's kind of laughable. ``Here's $250. Go out and buy the family a steak dinner.'' That $250 would bump them up to $88,250 which would place them at 401 percentile of the Federal poverty level, and it would expose that middle class family because of their $250 bonus to $4,460. Not one, not a single Member of the majority--and we've had over 19 Members of the majority testify or give remarks on the floor this morning and this afternoon--not a single one has refuted or in any way questioned the example I've given. You have not refuted that example, which can only bring one to conclude that the example I have given is indeed correct. I don't want it to be correct, but indeed it is correct. And if it is correct, it means a tax, a tax on the middle class--one that they cannot afford, especially during these difficult times. We don't know when these tough times--when they will ever end for the middle class. And I think it's shameful the way in which the middle class has been characterized on the floor, That somehow they are the folks that cheat the system, that they're the ones that can't be trusted. We're not talking about the rich. We can trust the rich. We know that. And I don't like class warfare, but you know what? The truth is we've let the people at the highest percent get off with no shared sacrifice whatsoever. No sacrifice. Go on living your lives. We'll have two wars, you know, we'll increase the deficit. But don't worry. You all go on living your lives in mansions and don't worry about the rest of the country because it really won't affect you in the end. You'll always survive. You can always hire a police force to protect you. If you need health care, you can buy a doctor. If you need the garbage picked up, well, you know, sanitation won't pick it up anymore, but you can pay someone and they will cart it away. They're living in a glass house. But the middle class, who are struggling so much, who are looking for some breaks, looking for an opportunity to afford health care for themselves and for their families--health care. They just want to be on an even plane somewhat of everyone else if they can afford health care. And the Federal Government is not giving a handout. This is not a subsidy. This is not welfare. These are tax credits, like the college tax credit that many of our constituents afford themselves of. Like the child tax credit that many of our constituents afford themselves of. It's a tax credit to help them afford health insurance for their families. And they never touch the money. It would be one thing if you said to me they got $5,000 in vouchers and they took the money and they went off and they bought plane tickets to Hawaii for the family for that year, or they took the money and they bought a new car, or they took the money and they bought furniture for their house. You know, that's scamming the system. That is wrong. That we don't promote. But they never touch the money. The money goes to the insurance company. You know, the insurance companies who desperately need that money, they get the money. They're covered. They're fine. We don't ask them to be the watchdogs. We don't ask them to make sure the families are in compliance, make sure they're not going to go over their income levels. They get the money. They walk away. Wipe their hands of it. They're taken care of. But it's the poor family that inadvertently, unbeknownst to themselves, goes over the limit, and they go over the cliff. And when they go over the cliff, it's at the tune of nearly $5,000 that they would have to repay. Instead of rewarding success--which I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time, ``We need to reward success''--we're not doing it in this instance. What we are doing is we are taxing success, as my friend from Wisconsin pointed out. We are taxing success. Often I hear about from my friends on the other side we need to encourage people to work hard, work harder, don't worry about the clock. Don't worry about the clock. Work harder, get ahead. And we should not be stopping that. But here is a perfect example--and it's not coming from this side of the aisle; it's coming from that side of the aisle--of we're saying, you know what? Maybe you shouldn't work so hard. Maybe you should pay attention to the clock. Maybe you should make sure that when you file you're not tripping yourself up and unfortunately discouraging that family from getting health insurance because they're afraid they'll owe a new tax of nearly $5,000. And I agree with my friend from Wisconsin again, this is nothing more than a Republican tax trap. It is a trap to the middle class. It's a trap to them. It's disparaging. And it's unfortunate that my colleagues have placed it in this light that somehow we're reducing or eliminating the burden for one group of workers and placing them on the backs of the middle class worker. I don't begrudge the small businessmen and women. I was one myself before I came to Congress. I know the burdens. I understand the bills. I understand what comes in. But please don't remove the burden from the small businessman and woman and place that on the backs of middle class taxpayers. That's what you're doing. If you vote for this bill, you will vote to increase taxes on the middle class. Don't kid yourselves. A tax on the middle class.

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I am a bit disturbed as well about the description of the individuals we're talking about here, as though everyone is trying to scam the system. I would just point out, in the bill H.R. 4994, which had bipartisan support last year--with every Republican but one--we passed it to eliminate the cliff and to eliminate the possibility of a massive increase in taxes on the middle class. So we have already addressed this. What your bill today will do is put that back in place. I would just ask my colleague Mr. Camp: What is it about the example I gave that's wrong? What is it about the example of a family of four, earning $88,000 a year? Based on their prior income taxes, they're eligible for the tax credits in the next year, assuming as they do, because they live a pretty dull life, a pretty hard life, trying to maintain their home, get their kids a quality education. Probably, at this point, maybe one of their kids is in college already; and by the way, they're probably accessing the Child Tax Credit, so they're used to taking tax credits. Now this is one other additional tax credit that they can avail themselves of--to do what? Not to get the $4,460 and take it and go out and buy a car, not to get the $4,460 to go on vacation or to scam somehow--but to buy what? Health care insurance for their families, health care insurance, which is something we all would want to provide for our families. What is it about this example? When they get the $250 bonus and they get pushed into the 400 percentile of poverty, that they now have to pay back their $4,460, what is it about my statement that's wrong? I haven't heard yet--because it's not wrong, because that family would be exposed to a massive tax increase, one that they cannot afford. So don't describe these people as dishonest. Don't describe the middle class worker as trying to scam the system. Not everyone tries to do that. By the way, you might find that in the lowest poverty level, and I would dare say the top 1 percent try to scam the system, I would probably think, all the time. So let's not disparage anymore the middle class that we already have by presenting this bill this morning.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill not because I oppose the repealing of the 1099 reporting requirements. I do. I have a record of supporting 1099 repeal and relieving America's small businesses from onerous paperwork and onerous regulations. What I'm opposed to is paying for this small business tax bill by increasing taxes on working middle class Americans. And that is exactly what this legislation will do. Let's not kid ourselves. Democrats offered a different path. Last July, we put forward legislation to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements, and we paid for it by eliminating loopholes in the Tax Code that reward those exporting U.S. jobs overseas. And, the Senate has offered an alternative path as well. Last month, they overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement, which did not include a tax increase on middle class workers. But my Republican colleagues in the majority here in the House, who have continually preached lower taxes, less regulation and fiscal discipline, have refused either of these alternative approaches. Instead, my Republican colleagues are forcing a vote today on H.R. 4, a measure that will impose a $25 billion new tax on middle class families. Yes, you heard that right. It is only 59 days since my Republican colleagues have assumed majority control of the House of Representatives, and they're already breaking their campaign pledge of no new taxes, a pledge that 234 of 241 sitting Republican Members of the House signed. And, no, Republicans are not taxing the wealthiest 1 percent to pay for this small business relief bill. They are raising taxes on middle class workers, like firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers, the very American families who work day in and day out to make their financial ends meet, the very American families under attack today in Wisconsin, in Indiana, in Ohio, and across the Midwest. Now, the Republicans will not admit that embedded in H.R. 4 is a tax increase on the middle class. But the facts are the facts. The Joint Committee on Taxation says the Republican bill is a tax increase, citing how it will raise $25 billion in new revenue. That is congressional-speak for a tax increase. Even Grover Norquist, the author of the ``Taxpayer Protection Pledge,'' has said, ``Americans for Tax Reform has always followed Committee on Joint Taxation methodology.'' Yet, still my Republican friends deny and deny and deny. But, my friends, read my lips--Republicans are raising taxes. Just look at the contents of the bill. Under the Democratic health reform law, an American family of four earning $88,000 a year is obligated to pay no more than 9.5 percent of their income on health care premium costs. In this example, that is $8,360 that comes out of their pocket on a typical family policy valued at $13,000. So the family would pay, out of their pocket, $8,360 in annual premiums for their health care coverage, and the Federal Government would provide a tax credit--not a subsidy, not a subsidy, a tax credit--valued at $4,640 to cover the rest. These are not subsidies, but tax credits to working people. They work exactly like the child tax credit or the tax credit to make college more affordable. How many of all of our constituents use those tax credits? Do they believe it is welfare, a form of welfare? I don't think so. They understand the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. These are not subsidies for the middle class. They are tax credits for the middle class. These are tax relief measures for the middle class. The Affordable Care Act also ensures that the Federal funding going towards a family's health premium is paid directly to the insurance carrier, to the insurance company, not to the family. In short, the family receiving this tax credit will never, ever personally touch that money, not a single dime do they feel. It never transfers through them. However, under the Republican bill, H.R. 4, if that very same family that earns $88,000, the breadwinner of the family is called into the boss's office and the boss says: You know what, you're on your track to management. You're doing such a great job, we're going to give you a $250 bonus. Take the family out to dinner. It's the holiday season. And you're overjoyed. You go back to your family and say, I am management material. I got a $250 bonus. I'm taking everybody out to dinner tonight. Well, here's the rub: you would go from the 398 percentile of the Federal poverty level to the 401 percentile of the poverty level. When that happens, you would then owe the Federal Government for that $250. In April of the next year the Federal Government would say: Not so fast, you owe us $4,640 to make up for your having accessed those tax credits. That's right, they would have to pay back every single dime that went directly to that health insurer, to that health insurance company when a dime never crossed their fingers. Not a single dime crossed their fingers. Say it ain't so, Joe--that's what families back home in my district are saying. But I can't; it's true. Republicans are raising taxes. The 1099 provisions should be repealed. I agree with that, but not on the backs of middle class workers and middle class Americans.

Mr. CROWLEY. On the point of order, Madam Speaker, specifically, let me just clarify for my friends on the other side, and for those on our side of the aisle as well--for all Members of the House--that clause 5(b) of rule XXI states that passage, again, of a tax increase needs a three-fifths majority of those present for passage if we are changing the tax rates or the brackets of individuals. I know it's not, again, comfortable, but as the example I laid out in the debate, which was not refuted by anyone, if an individual earning $88,000 from a family of four receives a $250 bonus, that would require them to pay $4,460 in tax. That is, indeed, a new tax; and, therefore, it should be subject to this rule that we would require three-fifths. I know it's hard, because that's the difficulty of this in changing the tax rates. It should be difficult. That's the rule to make this bipartisan. We do this together, a three-fifths vote. And, Madam Speaker, we are changing the tax rates. We are changing the brackets; and, therefore, this rule ought to be imposed.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I wonder if my friend from Kentucky heard from his middle class taxpayers. I know he's heard from the small business owners. We've all heard from them. But has he heard from the middle class? When they get imposed this tax upon them, have they said, ``Don't put this tax on me''? No, because, quite frankly, they don't know what's happening. They wouldn't dream that you would do this to them. They wouldn't dream that somehow you might possibly inflict and impose upon them a $4,460 tax. If your constituents earning $88,000 go over by one penny--one cent-- over the 400 percentile of poverty--one penny--they have to pay back $4,460, which they never ever physically touched, which they never received. It went to the insurance company. The insurance companies get taken care of. They get their money. They're fine. By one penny over the Federal poverty level, your middle class families have to pay back $4,460. Does that sound fair to you? Now, maybe for one penny over, they have to give a little something back. Maybe for every dollar over, they'll have to give a little something back. But to pay back $4,460 so they can provide their families with health care? I'd say to the boss, Do me a favor, don't give me the penny bonus. Don't give me the $250 bonus. Don't reward hard work. Don't reward me for doing good work because if you give me the bonus I'm going to have to pay $4,460. Does that make any sense to you? What about making pay work? What about asking Americans to do their jobs, to do them well; and if you do it well, you'll get a bonus, and you'll get ahead, and your families will be taken care of? Under this bill, this is a nightmare for the middle class families--a nightmare--because they're not going to be able to pay that. It totally subverts the intention of what we tried to do in the first place, and that is to provide health care to the middle class.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, in 2010 the Republicans promised smaller government and fewer taxes. They even signed a pledge, a pledge not to raise taxes. Yet here we are, 56 days after assuming control of the Congress, and Republicans are proposing to do exactly that, tax hikes for working middle class Americans. Their bill, H.R. 4, would repeal the onerous reporting provisions on small businesses, but on the backs of hardworking middle class American families. Those watching the debate are probably thinking ``say it ain't so, Joe,'' but despite Republicans' claims that it isn't a tax increase, it is a tax increase. If it isn't, why did the Joint Committee on Taxation say it is? If it isn't, why do Republicans block a vote on my amendment that would prohibit any section of H.R. 4 from kicking in if it did, indeed, raise taxes on middle-class families? It took only 56 days to break their pledge. Republicans are raising taxes on working people. Say it ain't so, GOP. Say it ain't so.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. Once again I asked the gentleman to yield. He refused to yield because he has no answer. But I'm correct. The example that I gave of a family of four making $88,000 would have a huge tax increase because of this bill of $4,460. You refused to yield because you know you cannot refute what I'm stating here on the floor.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the time from the gentleman from Colorado. I've attempted so far again to ask two more gentlemen from the other side of the aisle to yield for the purposes of answering a question. I've noticed that not a single one as of yet has refuted the example that I gave of a family of four earning $88,000 a year getting a $250 bonus being pumped up over the 401 percentile of the Federal poverty level and being exposed to a $4,460 tax. I wonder when the gentlemen were out campaigning last year and talking to small businesses, did you talk to the middle class about the increase in the tax that you would propose when you came to the floor of the House? One of the first bills, number four, the fourth bill to increase taxes on the middle class. Did you talk to those folks? Did you let them know what you were doing to them? I suspect not. You have two more speakers to refute what I've said. I'm waiting.

Mr. CROWLEY. Not germane. That's the answer. A $4,460 tax increase is not germane to this debate we're having right now. What is? The $25 billion doesn't fall out of the sky, out of the air. It has to come from somewhere. It is a tax increase on the middle class. You know it. We all know it.

Mr. CROWLEY. Under the Republican bill being debated now, this family would be required to refund the government the entire $4,640. Talk about making work pay. Talk about getting a bonus for doing hard work and making work pay: Oh, here's 250 bucks. Please give us 4,640 bucks back. Let's remember that the $4,640 in tax credits never actually goes to the family. The Treasury cuts a check to the insurance companies, so the insurance companies are fine. They keep the money. It's the poor schlep--the middle class man or woman--who has to pay that money back. So in essence, this bill, H.R. 4, is charging families, families who play by the rules--not tax cheats, not people who are trying to scam the system but those who play by the rules--thousands of dollars in new taxes. These are not families getting so-called new taxes. These are not families getting so-called ``overpayment checks'' or cash from the government. These are honest, hardworking families who are just trying to get ahead. The adoption of my amendment would have stopped the Republican tax increase on middle class families. It would still allow for the repeal of the onerous 1099 reporting requirements on owners of small businesses.

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, because hidden deep in this bill is language that indeed will increase income taxes on middle class American families by thousands of dollars a year. My Republican colleagues claim the bill is not a tax increase on the middle class. They argue that Grover Norquist says it's not a tax increase. They say Democrats have, and I quote, ``decided to dance the Washington two-step,'' claiming this bill contains a new income tax on working families. In hearing all that, I have one simple question: If the Republican plan is not that of a massive, new income tax increase, then why did the Republican majority refuse to allow a vote on the amendment which I offered? My amendment simply said that no section of this bill would take effect if it raised taxes on any American family of four earning less than $110,250 a year. That's all it said. It just makes it clear you can't raise taxes on the middle class. That's all it said. It is a straightforward and simple amendment. If the Republicans actually believed their own rhetoric of cutting taxes, they would have accepted my amendment and allowed a vote on that amendment on the floor. We took Joe Crowley's amendment and accepted it because we believe this bill will not raise taxes on the middle class. That's what my colleagues could have said. The Republicans refuse to allow a vote on my amendment. They refuse to debate it. They refuse to even discuss it. Why? Because they know their bill raises taxes on the middle class by thousands of dollars. It's not just me saying it. The Committee on Joint Tax states that this bill will raise $25 billion in new revenue, which is shorthand for taxes. It doesn't come out of the sky. You just can't take that $25 billion out of the air. Somebody has to pay that, and that entity is the middle class of our country. Even Grover Norquist at Americans for Tax Reform has written, and I quote, ``Americans for Tax Reform has always followed the Committee on Joint Tax's methodology.'' He follows the Joint Tax methodology. So, if Joint Tax says it's a tax, Grover Norquist has to agree it is a tax. The best example, though, is a real-life example on how this bill will raise taxes on middle class families. By the ``middle class,'' I mean families with children, earning no more than $110,250 a year, not the millionaires the Republicans were trying to protect when they held these same taxpayers hostage in December while demanding tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans, those earning over $1 million a year. Here is how this bill will raise taxes on middle class families: If you're a family of four, earning $88,000 a year, which is approximately 398 percent of the Federal poverty line, the Democratic health care law caps the amount of health care premiums you will be forced to pay annually at no more than 9.5 percent of one's income. In this example, that is $8,360 a year on a typical family policy valued at $13,000. So the family receiving private health care insurance would pay $8,360 in annual premiums, and the Federal Government would provide a tax credit valued at $4,640, with these funds going directly to the insurance carrier, from Treasury to the insurance carrier. The money does not go to the family. The family doesn't touch it. The husband and wife, they don't touch that money. It goes right to the Treasury. If this family were to get a $250 bonus at the end of the year, say in December, and if the boss asks the husband or the wife or whoever the bread earner in the family is--maybe it's both--to come in and he says, ``You know what? You're doing such a great job that we think you have management potential, and we want to give you a bonus''--and you're like thinking ``a bonus''--``We're going to give you a $250 bonus. Go out and buy the family a little dinner for the holidays,'' that $250 bonus will bounce up that family to 401 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Democrats want to enact the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirements. We passed a bill in July of 2010 that didn't raise taxes on anyone. Instead, it closed loopholes that allowed for the exporting of U.S. jobs overseas. Guess what happened to that bill? Your side blocked it. The Republicans blocked it. That wasn't the only time Democrats did this responsibly. Recently, the Senate passed a bipartisan, deficit-neutral repeal of the onerous 1099 business reporting requirements. Let me make it clear: Democrats are ready to repeal 1099 reporting requirements, but we will not do it on the backs of hardworking middle class Americans.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CROWLEY. I will ask that as well. What of the example I gave you of a family of four earning $88,000 a year who gets a bonus--how many here have heard of a bonus of $250? They get a bonus because they worked hard. They get that bonus and they are in the 401 percentile of the Federal poverty level. They get a bill from the IRS for $4,460. What part of that is not a tax increase?

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman. I was attempting to ask the gentleman from Georgia to yield so I could ask him a question: What part of what I said about the family of four earning $88,000 and getting a bonus of $250, and their exposure then to $4,460 in taxes was untrue? He was on a diatribe of his talking points about small businesses. We understand small businesses, the burden that was placed there. We are trying to remove that from them, but not to place it on the backs of the middle class. I understand he wanted to remove the burden from small business, but to place it on the backs of the middle class, that was the question I've asked. And by the way, I haven't heard one colleague from the other side of the aisle refute what I said about that family of four. Not one person has stood up and said, you're wrong, Mr. Crowley. That will not take place; that potential will not take place if this bill passes. The silence is deafening from the other side. They know it's a tax increase on the middle class, Mr. Polis.

Mr. CROWLEY. No. The last time, Mr. Speaker, was for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the reason for my asking for my colleagues to yield was to inquire as to the procedures of the House.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding the time. Madam Speaker, today we consider the first major piece of legislation of the 112th Congress--the first. Does this legislation create one job? Not one single job will be created by this legislation. In fact, if this bill were to become law, over 4 million jobs that will be created over the next 10 years will not come to fruition. Does this bill reduce the deficit? This bill does not reduce the deficit by one penny. In fact, if it became law, it would increase the deficit by $230 billion. Does it strengthen our middle class? No, this bill will not strengthen our middle class. It will devastate the lives of millions of Americans who are finally free from the fear that they or their children will not have health insurance. I've heard from so many throughout my constituency and throughout this country of the importance of what this bill has done for their lives. I'm not going to go back and tell them today that that's all undone. And despite what you may say on the other side of the aisle, if this bill becomes law, 3 million people in this country who have received checks for $250 will have to pay that money back. There is no alternative. You can say what you want. But as this law is written, that's exactly what will happen. For the 20 million children who now have insurance, who's going to pay the costs for what they have incurred so far? Are their parents going to pay it? Are they responsible for it? Republicans are not offering a single solution to this problem. They can't even tell you what their secret plan is. It's part of the Harry Houdini health care strategy--now you have health care, now you don't. Our constituents deserve better. But don't just take my word for it. Independent sources have confirmed the danger that repeal will cause to our country--stopping job creation, exploding the deficit, and even shortening the life of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. This bill is clearly wrong for our economy and it's clearly wrong for our country. We cannot go backwards, no way, no how, not now, not ever.

Mr. CROWLEY

Mr. CROWLEY. The last conversation I had prior to this incident was last Friday when she asked me: Joe, can I chair the new Dem Task Force on Energy? She was trying to convince me somehow that I had to let her do this. And I just said: Gabby, you're not a freshman Member of the House. Yeah, you're going to do that. Don't worry about that. But she was always trying to convince. She's a star. We know it. Every Member here knows it, Democrat and Republican. This woman has something that many of us wish we had, and that is an inner beauty. And if we can take something away from this event, this tragic event, aside from the issues of rhetoric and aside from the issues of gun control-- and mental illness, which we do not give enough time to in this country--it is the beauty of this woman and what she reflects upon this institution.