John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the gentleman's comment that there are some scare tactics out there, and that is unfortunate because when I look at all of these plans that are across here, and it is the whole range, the gentleman's plan, Senator Graham's plan, the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) plan, the President's, the AARP's, and others, I do not think that there are any of these plans that want to do any harm to Social Security for the long term. They do not want to leave our children and our grandchildren holding the bag. They would like to make sure that something is there, and it troubles me when evil motives are attributed to those who are working the best they can, the hardest they can, to find a solution to this horrific cash flow problem that we are facing and to the fact that we are going to be down to two workers for each retiree by the time my children and grandchildren retire. We need to work to find a solution for that, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to listen to proposals from my colleagues on either side of the aisle, and I believe those proposals, certainly those on this page in front of me, come from people who sincerely want to make the system better.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned that there are a number of proposals. I found it interesting, as this discussion has moved forward and I was trying to keep track of what those proposals involved, that there were so many of them that I simply could not keep them organized in my head and decide which ones had personal accounts, which ones did not, how big the accounts were, how they address solvency. So there is a wonderful young woman on my staff, and I know the gentleman understands how that works, we are so dependent on the bright folks who work with us, but she put together a table, and I know people cannot see it from here, but I will show it to the gentleman, that has these plans going across the top and the different aspects of them. And right now there are up to 14, I think, on my chart here of different ideas that people have brought forward to address this issue. And I think that is a healthy thing as we move into the debate. There will come a time when we will need to have a debate and have a bill or amendments on the floor and move to a solution, but I am firmly convinced that it is absolutely critical that we do that sooner rather than later. In these plans, many of them, most of the ones that I have on this chart because it has been my colleagues from this side of the aisle who have come forward with the proposals for the most part, and the gentleman mentioned he has a bipartisan bill that they are looking at, but these proposals include personal accounts as part of the solution for the long-term solvency of Social Security. And there are differences in all of these, and I know the gentleman was earlier this evening in a roundtable discussion with some other authors of bills as the pros and cons of the different measures were discussed, but I think there are some things that are common that we all need to keep in mind. All of the proposals on my chart here, which includes the outline that the President had, have recognized that we have retirees today and those about to retire, Americans born before 1950 that will not be affected by whatever our proposal is. And I think that is important for the peace of mind, I think, of my 84-year-old mother and her friends. They do not want to contemplate a change in the program, even though many of these programs virtually guarantee that everyone will get a benefit very much like the one they are getting, in some cases more of a benefit. But we need to reassure all of the seniors in our districts and our family that they will not be hurt; their program will not be changed. Their Social Security check will not be affected by the issues that we are debating here in the House today.

Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that point. It does seem to me to be unacceptable that we are looking at a system that is going to provide a 1 percent rate of return or a negative rate of return. I think the gentleman, in an earlier discussion we were having on the floor, made the point that in some cases it is not only no return, but a horrific rate of return, and I think his example was the single parent. He used the example of the single mother who is 57 or 58 years old, we will use 57, my age, has a couple of children, they are through school, they have graduated high school; and this woman started work when she was 17, she has been paying into the Social Security system, has paid her Social Security taxes faithfully for 40 years, and then tragedy strikes and she dies, and her family gets nothing; a $255 death benefit I think it is today for the thousands of dollars that she has paid into the system. It seems to me we ought to be able to do better than that, and I think that we can. When we look at the proposals that are out there, there are a wide variety of them, as I mentioned earlier, and the gentleman explained some of the important reasons why a personal account needs to be an important part of this. He said that a personal account does not fix the solvency issue. I might argue that if the personal account is large enough, it will fix the solvency issue, as these plans vary widely insofar as how much money is put into these accounts. But, in any case, it is part of addressing the solvency issue because of the higher rate of return, because of the higher growth, it puts more money into the system and helps us get at this problem of cash deficits. It also takes money off the table, money that is in a personal account that cannot be used to fund other programs. I found in many town hall meetings people would say, well, you, Members of Congress, you spent the money on other things. If it is in a personal account, it cannot be used to fund other things; and as I mentioned in the example of the 57-year-old man or woman who dies early, in a personal account, they can leave that money, the money in the account is inheritable, they can leave it to their children or their grandchildren, so they do get something back for their 40 or more years of paying into the system. Well, the debate is an important one. I am glad that it is engaged. I think that it is important that we recognize that we need to work together and try to address these problems. These are not uniquely Republican problems or Democrat problems; these are the facts of the program as it exists today, as it has worked for the last 60 years. The virtually inescapable change in demographics, again, that is not a Republican prediction or a Democrat prediction, or an administration prediction; those are the predictions of the actuaries of the Social Security Administration itself. So we know that we are facing, we are facing a problem with Social Security. I am pleased to see that Americans, apparently from coast to coast, and certainly in my district in Minnesota, have recognized that we have to do something. I believe that as the debate goes forward, we will see that there are some clear benefits to including personal accounts as part of, as part of the solution, because of the enormous potential for growth through the power of compound interest investment in very diversified funds, which may or may not include any stocks. I know there is a fear out there sometimes when I am talking to my constituents and they say, well, we do not want to put it in the risky stock market; what if we are about to retire and the stock market crashes and we lose all of our money. There are a couple of things about that. Almost all of these programs on this big chart include a combination of traditional Social Security benefits and those in your personal account. Most of them require that the funds in the accounts be invested in very diversified accounts; and most of them would encourage, if not insist in some cases, that the money be invested in virtually risk-free instruments, bonds, or the like as one gets closer and closer to retirement, so that one's retirement would not be affected by any fluctuations in the market. There are a wide range of approaches. Those with personal accounts call on that wonderful power of compound interest to grow the money in the account and, therefore, grow the money overall in Social Security and start to address that solvency issue. There is much debate still coming up. I look forward to the continuing discussion. I would like to just close by sort of recapping for the benefit of all here that there are some problems which we have to address. Social Security's financing is unsustainable without change. As I said, most Americans recognize that. We are taking in more money than we are paying out in benefits, but that is going to change. It is going to change in 2017 when we start to pay out more benefits than we take in in taxes. That is rapidly approaching us. The baby boomers start to retire in a very, very few years. We need to get at that system, fix the system so that it will be there for not only my 84-year-old mother, not only for my children who are in their 30s, but for my four wonderful grandkids as well and for all of my colleagues' grandkids.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, there were so many of our colleagues today who intended to come down and speak on this very important subject and express their admiration and praise for those Marines on Iwo Jima 60 years ago; but as has been mentioned, some of them are involved in a joint hearing on veterans affairs and doing the work that brought them here. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), for the discussion today and urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today we recognize the contributions of the United States Marine Corps, an organization which I was proud to serve for 25 years in active duty. We also honor every member of the United States Armed Forces on this the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. Sixty years ago, U.S. Marines invaded the small Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Most Americans associate this event with the powerful Pulitzer Prize-winning image of the Marines raising a flag above Mount Suribachi. What many Americans may not realize, however, is that the emblematic photo, which has become a symbol of American bravery and victory, does not capture the first flag-raising at Iwo Jima that day. Two different groups of heroes planted American flags at Iwo Jima on Mount Suribachi on that day in February of 1945, and the achievement of both groups provided and continues to provide inspiration to defenders of freedom everywhere. The sole survivor from either flag-raising group is Minnesota's own Charles Lindberg. On that seminal day in February, Corporal Lindberg and five fellow Marines reached the base of Mount Suribachi after several days of fighting and thousands of casualties. The next morning the battalion commander, Colonel Chandler Johnson, sent them to the summit with an American flag and orders, ``If you get to the top, raise it.'' And raise it they did. The flag raised by Corporal Lindberg and his fellow Marines provided an immediately recognizable image of victory and became an inspiration to all who saw it. In describing the reaction to their flag raising, Corporal Lindberg states, ``Boy, then the island came alive down below. The troops started to cheer, the ships' whistles went off. It was quite a proud moment.'' Perhaps sensing the significance of the moment, a commander below ordered a second group to raise a larger, more stable flag in its place. Four hours after the first flag-raising, Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal captured the image of the second flag- raising, which is now recognized throughout the world. The second raising and the photograph which captured it complemented the efforts of Corporal Lindberg and his fellow Marines and enabled Americans at home, as well as the world, to share the same symbol of bravery and victory with the victorious Americans on Iwo Jima. Both of these groups deserve our gratitude, as do all the men and women who served on Iwo Jima and elsewhere during World War II. The symbol of the flag over Iwo Jima reflects the enduring triumph of freedom and democracy, the very things for which our men and women in uniform continue to fight today. We have much to learn from the tenacity and dedication of the brave heroes of World War II, and I am grateful for this opportunity to recognize their efforts today. And to you, Corporal Charles Lindberg, from one Marine to another, I salute you from the floor of the House of Representatives in admiration and gratitude for your courage, bravery, and valor. Semper Fi. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the original sponsor of House Resolution 119.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 119) recognizing the contributions of the United States Marine Corps and other units of the United States Armed Forces on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is critical that all of America understands what the gentleman said is accurate. I have a table that my staff keeps updated almost daily as we start to engage in this debate. I do not know of a single proposal, certainly no serious proposal, that alters in any way, in any way the Social Security program for those my age, or 55 and up. It does not change it a bit. It is the same. You get the same check, the same increases. The program is exactly the same. My 84-year-old mother is going to continue to get her checks in exactly the same way she has been getting them for the last 20 years. The program does not change for her. I think that is a key piece of this overall picture that we are talking about as we move forward in the debate. There are different programs, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has a program he has been working, others have other proposals. Most of those on this side of the aisle correctly create some sort of a personal account, an account that our younger workers can own, that grows, that has the opportunity to give them a greater return than the current system gives them. It gives them something that they own that they can leave to their heirs. No proposal affects the benefits of any current senior whatsoever. I think it is important that we understand that as we debate the details of the proposals such as the one that my colleague has, and we have that basic understanding that we are talking about no changes for seniors, an opportunity to increase the return, to take advantage of that interest, increase the rate of return for our younger workers. That is the position we are starting from, not the position that we heard earlier in the evening of gutting Social Security, of trying to do something to help the President's buddies and those other unfortunate things we heard earlier. This is about making sure the program is there for our grandkids like it has been there for our parents.

Mr. KLINE. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to take this opportunity to go back to the point that the gentleman made earlier in his example of the 48-year-old single mother. The gentleman from Arizona and I are paying in to Social Security. We are in the Social Security retirement system. We also have the Thrift Savings Plan that he just described. Should I die today, I would not be able to leave for my children or my grandchildren anything out of the money that I have paid for many years, not quite as many as the gentleman but many years into Social Security, but I can leave and I will leave the money that is in that Thrift Savings Plan because I own it. And it underscores the point that the gentleman made earlier, that one of the terrific benefits about having a system that strengthens Social Security, that has a personal account as a component of that is that that money is absolutely yours, and I believe that in all the proposals that we are going to be debating put forward by the gentleman that we have talked about earlier, that account is owned by the individual and they can leave it to their heirs when they die. It is a major difference between this proposal and the current system. While it is providing wonderful paychecks for my mother, she does not own that. And I want my children and my grandchildren to own something that is part of their retirement system. Unfortunately, as we said earlier, for those that are 55 and up, we cannot strengthen that program for them. Nothing in the system is going to change for them. Nothing. It is not going to get better. It is not going to get worse. It is exactly the same. But for my kids and my grandkids, what a wonderful thing to have as part of their Social Security an account that they will own like the one that the gentleman was describing, the Thrift Savings Plan that can be tailored to their needs and their age and they will own. They can use it in their retirement or they can leave it to their heirs. I just wanted to step in at that moment to see if we could not underscore the important difference between having an account that you own and one that you do not.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Before we move further in this discussion, which I am looking forward to this evening, I just wanted to touch on a couple of subjects that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought up and some of the things we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First of all, I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle really would like to see a strong Social Security program. I have been telling folks, in fact, I was talking to high school students in Minnesota this last week that it is very important to me that Social Security be in place for my 84-year-old mother, and it will be in place for my 84-year-old mother. But I want Social Security to be in place, to be strong, to provide the kind of retirement safety net that our colleagues have been talking about for my 35-year-old son, my 38-year-old daughter, my 3-year-old granddaughter. The demographics that my colleague has just put up there start to show the problem. And we are going to get into that some more this evening; but I am disheartened, frankly, I am disheartened to hear some of the language that we were listening to earlier. Our colleagues ascribed some motives that I think are out of place. One of them, for example, said that the President wanted to reward his buddies with his proposal, and that is simply not true. It is not fair and it ascribes a motive that is not there. One of our colleagues said that we want to gut Social Security. That is not true. I know that the gentleman has been trying year after year after year to, in fact, strengthen Social Security and make sure that not only do the current retirees not lose benefits, but that my daughter, my son, and my grandchildren do not lose benefits either. And I just hope that my colleagues would all understand that our motives are to strengthen Social Security. We should be working together in a bipartisan way as my colleague has been doing to do just that, and I hope that we can move away from some of the harsh rhetoric that we unfortunately have heard tonight and I am afraid that we are going to be hearing in the future.

Mr. KLINE. Listening to the debate, the arguments earlier this evening, it was clear that our colleagues recognize that something needs to be done. I know that the gentleman from Connecticut, I believe, said everybody knows that we have got to do something to strengthen Social Security, and other Members have said everybody knows we have to do something. And we heard a couple of proposals and increasing taxes was proposed by the gentleman from California, I believe; but if we know that something has to be done, we ought to be able to move forward and engage in the debates and engage in the discussion about what we are going to actually do to strengthen Social Security. But I know that not everyone understands the nature of the problem and how quickly it is going to arrive, and, unfortunately, if we do not do something, how quickly it will turn into a crisis. I ask the gentleman to continue the explanation.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think it is a terrific graph. The problem is clearly outlined with that big red area that says cash deficits. I just want to reinforce what the gentleman said about the trust fund; the trust fund not actually having any money in it, having IOUs, having bonds that have to be redeemed through the general fund. And the gentleman, I know, understands full well that it is highly unlikely without some major change that we could reach that 2042 date when the IOUs run out. The impact to all of America between 2018 and 2042, if we do not do something now, would just be catastrophic. To get back to the gentleman's opening comment about problem or crisis. Certainly it is a problem today, but clearly a crisis when you get into that big red area that says cash deficits. That is why it is so important we should have this debate today; that the American people understand that we are facing a problem which is going to turn into a crisis. We need to get this debate engaged and agree on a solution which will strengthen Social Security. I know there are many proposals out there. The gentleman has a bipartisan proposal, the President has put forth an outline of a proposal. Our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and Senator Sununu have a proposal, and others, and that debate, that discussion is the one we need to have. If there are others who think that simply the solution is to raise taxes, which was suggested here tonight, then, fine, let us put that discussion into the debate as well. But let us recognize that that red area, that sea of cash deficits is something that is looming. Now, I am part of that leading edge, or maybe 1 year behind it, of those baby boomers, and it is a rapidly approaching demographic shift that we need to address. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE. You are one of the few.

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding once again, and I just want to underscore the point the gentleman made that increasingly our constituents understand that something needs to be done. This sort of anecdote has been put forth many times before, but just this last week when I was back in my district, I was visiting one of the high schools. I had a group of students, about three classes, and we were discussing a large number of subjects, everything from the war to taxes to education, and one of the subjects was Social Security. I asked the question, which I am sure many of my colleagues have asked, to those students. I said, how many of you believe that Social Security is going to be there when you retire. Just asked the basic question. Not a hand went up. I thought, well, maybe they are just a little shy and do not want to raise their hand. So I reversed the question. I said, how many of you believe that Social Security will be gone when you retire? And about a third of the hands went in the air. Now, as the gentleman knows, sometimes when talking to high school students, or Members of Congress for that matter, not everybody is paying full attention, but it was clear to me the young people in my district, and I think across the country, just have no confidence that the Social Security that their grandparents are using and enjoying is going to be there for them. And the gentleman has shown us very graphically what that demographic problem is. I believe that underscores our purpose here to strengthen Social Security. Not to destroy it, not to weaken it, and certainly not to gut it. I know many of the proposals that have been put forward, the President and many of our colleagues, call for including the personal accounts, which the gentleman is going to talk about and taking advantage of the enormous power of compound interest to create a nest egg which they will have in conjunction with the Social Security program and that will provide the benefits that we were hearing about earlier tonight that women particularly require. We want to make sure that the program is there. We are looking for a way to strengthen it. Again, I just thank the gentleman for his persistence on this issue and his continued leadership as we move forward in the debate.

Mr. KLINE. I believe that is true. As I said in my remarks just a moment ago, I know that that was an anecdote that many of our colleagues have expressed, because they have had the same experience of asking young people, high school seniors, college students, others, if they think Social Security is going to be there when they retire. I have never had a hand, I have had the same experience as the gentleman, I have not been asking the question for as many years, but never a hand goes up where they believe it is going to be there. And what a shame, because they ought to have a system, all Americans ought to have a system that they can count on and that they believe is going to be there. And until we do something to really strengthen the system, they will not have faith that it is there. And they should not, because without that fix it just will not be there in that manner.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Boy Scouts of America and the right of the Department of Defense to continue their support of this proud organization. The Boy Scouts of America enjoys a long tradition of excellence. For nearly a century young men have joined the scouts, and have come away with essential life skills and character building experiences. Many of my colleagues here today claim alumni status in the Boy Scouts and credit their scouting experience in the development of a commitment to civic responsibility. I am proud to include myself in this group. And, I am especially proud that my son, now a major in the U.S. Army is an Eagle Scout. The Department of Defense has long shared in the support of the Boy Scouts and their mission of preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. Unfortunately, a small group threatens to put in jeopardy the well-being of this outstanding organization for the purposes of political grandstanding. I stand today with my colleagues to encourage the Department of Defense to continue their critical support of the Boy Scouts of America, and protect their constitutional right to free speech.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), my colleague on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would just say that we have heard some discussion today about policies of the United States Armed Forces for a long time. Since its inception, there have been special policies applied to our military, the ability to impose nonjudicial punishment, the ability to restrict entry by those who are too tall or too short, the ability to order its members away from home and into combat and into harm's way. But the discussion today is not about those policies and should not be about those policies. The discussion today is about keeping our military, keeping our Armed Forces, the best trained, the best led, the best equipped in the world; and that means we need the ability to recruit the best and the brightest. This is about insisting that our military recruiters have equal access to America's universities and colleges. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 36, previously passed in this series of votes.