[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 8 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H262-H270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DAMAGING SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for helping to organize this Special Order
with me.
I would like to thank and recognize my colleagues who have agreed to
participate in this Democratic hour of discussion. Those who are here
tonight to speak are from the Democratic Women's Caucus, from the
Congressional Black Caucus, from the Hispanic Caucus, and we have many
other like-minded Members here tonight to speak.
Tomorrow night, we will listen to the President describe his domestic
agenda for the next 4 years. He has already told us what he will spend
most of his time talking about. He will not be talking about paying
down the staggering national deficit or addressing the international
crisis over the falling American dollar or getting Americans back to
work after we have lost over 2 million jobs.
He will be talking about Social Security. He is going to spend his
first annual address to the Nation trying to sell us on his plan to cut
Social Security in half. Of course, that is not what he is going to
call it, but that is exactly what it is.
I suggest that we listen carefully tomorrow night not to what the
President says as much to what he does not say. In fact, the White
House admitted today to the Washington Post that the President will not
talk about the size of the benefit cuts his plan requires or about how
the size of the proposed private accounts compare to the benefits
retirees are now getting.
Let us see tomorrow night if the President tells the public that his
plan will raise the deficit by over $2 trillion or put in jeopardy the
trust fund that guarantees retired American workers financial dignity
in their old age.
Let us call it like it is. The President wants to privatize Social
Security, although I am sure he will not use that word, because they
know that Americans do not like gambling in the stock market with the
Social Security Trust Fund. Democrats will make clear that his plan
means putting at risk the Social Security Trust Fund that guarantees
working Americans an old age with financial dignity.
The President wants to cut benefits drastically. He has to make his
plan work, but he will not say that. Democrats will tell Americans the
Bush plan means each of you will get less than you get now and less
than you would get if you did nothing at all.
The President wants to increase the deficit by $2 trillion to pay for
his plan, additional debt that would most likely be held by a foreign
country such as China or Japan, but he will not mention that his
reckless deficit increase lets other nations control America's economy
and perhaps even our future.
Democrats are standing up for our economic security and for that of
our children. Enough American debt is already in the hands of other
countries.
If that is not bad enough, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
wants to calculate monthly benefits based on race and gender. For
example, women get less each month in his proposal than men because
they tend to live longer.
Democrats are saying we will not accept a Social Security formula
based on race or gender. It raises serious constitutional questions and
is just plain wrong and unfair.
Let us just call this plan what it is. It is a bad plan with bad
results for American workers, especially women and minorities, and here
are the facts: The White House is pushing a proposal that would cut in
half the amount of income replaced by Social Security for the average
retired American worker. Unlike the present system which allows
benefits to grow with the economy and wages, the Bush plan would fix
benefits to current living standards. That means that retirees would
have to live on an amount that is not keeping pace with the cost of
living but effectively shrinking each year. An average worker retiring
today would have 42 percent of his or her lifetime average income
replaced by Social Security, and that is the green line right here.
Under the current system, the workers would get 40 percent of it and
the lower income workers on this side would get more than the higher
income workers.
Under the Bush plan, in 70 years this benefit would fall to 18
percent. That is a dramatic fall. In other words, workers are denied
roughly half of the benefits they have earned over a lifetime of work.
{time} 2015
As my colleagues can see from this chart, and this chart was prepared
by the nonpartisan, independent Economic Policy Institute, the
President's
[[Page H263]]
plan is particularly bad for lower-income workers, those who earn less
than the average; and this includes many women and minorities, lower
income here. So we can tell that there is more of an impact on lower-
income workers. Everybody loses but the lower-income earners. The
people who need it most lose the most.
To add insult to injury, under the President's plan, at retirement,
workers would effectively lose about half of their so-called private
account, since about 50 cents on the dollar is deducted from their
guaranteed benefits that they would otherwise get. Even a good investor
loses half of what he or she made.
So far, the White House has been silent on that feature, but they
need it in order to make their plan add up; and we will not be able to
avoid that by opting out of the private account system. The President
has been calling the plan, quote, voluntary; but under his plan,
workers who do not want to gamble with part of their Social Security
money lose the corresponding portion of their guaranteed benefits
anyway. So how voluntary is that?
We have not even mentioned the risk to the trust fund, to the
taxpayers and to individual retirees that comes from letting
individuals play the stock market with Social Security money. What
about those who take money out of the trust fund under the President's
plan to invest in stocks that go belly up? Who takes care of them? The
taxpayers, of course. So the system really ends up paying twice.
Today, in contrast, the trust fund provides guaranteed benefits for
older Americans, backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States Government. That is a better investment for Social Security and
for the American people.
If the President told the whole truth to the Nation, Americans would
see clearly that his plan is a lousy deal for the American people.
Women and minorities are particularly hurt by the Bush plan.
Let me spend a moment on just how bad the plan is for women. Women
still earn less than men on average, about 79 cents to the dollar; and
that wage differential translates to an even greater pension disparity.
In addition, many Social Security recipients are not retired workers
but receive benefit as the spouse, child, or widowed spouse of a worker
or a disabled worker. Most of these recipients are women and children.
So women depend on Social Security more than men do. Women are 70
percent of Social Security recipients at age 65 and over 75 percent at
age 85 and above. Social Security benefits are particularly important
to keeping women and minorities out of poverty.
This chart that was prepared from the Joint Economic Committee shows
that for nonmarried women over 65 Social Security cuts the poverty rate
from almost 60 percent to 16 percent, and we can see that the figures
for African Americans and Hispanics are comparable. It is 21 percent
for blacks and 15 percent for Hispanics. In New York, for example, my
home State, 55 percent of elderly women would live in poverty without
Social Security.
The President's plan affects women and minorities even worse than
men. Women and minorities tend to be at the lower end of the income
area, whereas, as we saw in the first chart, benefits drop even more
under the Bush plan than on average. Also, the fact that the Bush plan
fixes benefits to current living standards cuts benefits to spouses,
children, and surviving spouses even more drastically than it does to
retirees. Once again, the administration is hurting those who are most
vulnerable.
This effect is so obvious that even the White House suddenly feels it
has to have some sort of Band-Aid to paste over it; but since the cuts
under the Republican plan become larger over time, the temporary
increase in benefits the President is rumored to favor will not make up
for the cuts for a very long period.
On top of this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) suggests
that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than men. This
proposal is just absolutely wrong. It is at odds with the moral values
of our society. Since the chairman seems to be taking it seriously, let
me note that it also raises serious constitutional and legal issues.
Under well-established Supreme Court decisions, city and State
pension plans are barred by title VII from using the fact that women
live longer as a reason to pay them less each year. Surely, the Federal
Government should hold itself to the same standard.
This proposal should be off the table. Together with 40 of my
colleagues we have asked the President to make it clear that he rejects
the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) proposal, and we will be
listening to his comments tomorrow night.
Let me add that I have a great deal more to say, but I have many
distinguished colleagues with me; and I would like to call upon the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) who is one of the
representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus.
Before that, I would like to place in the Record at this point an
article by Paul Krugman which points out that his plan is particularly
harmful to minorities.
Social Security privatization really is like tax cuts, or the Iraq
war: the administration keeps on coming up with new rationales, but the
plan remains the same. President Bush's claim that we must privatize
Social Security to avert an imminent crisis has evidently fallen flat.
So now he's playing the race card.
This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush
asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating
his earlier claim that ``African-American males die sooner than other
males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain
group of people.'' In other words, blacks don't live long enough to
collect their fair share of benefits.
This isn't a new argument; privatizers have been making it for years.
But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false.
And Mr. Bush's use of that false argument is doubly shameful, because
he's exploiting the tragedy of high mortality for political gain
instead of treating it as a problem we should solve.
Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least
seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation--a report so
badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary)
of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out ``major
errors in the methodology.'' That's actuary-speak for ``damned lies.''
In fact, the actuary said, ``careful research reflecting actual work
histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population
actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social
Security'' as whites.
Here's why. First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate
a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true
that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8
years--but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his
life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of
Social Security benefits. Black's low life expectancy is largely due to
high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men
who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an
additional 14.6 years--not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for
white men.
Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is
progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to
low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans
are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their
advantage.
Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a
disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than
whites to receive disability benefits.
Put it all together, and the deal African-Americans get from Social
Security turns out, according to various calculations, to be either
about the same as that for whites or somewhat better. Hispanics, by the
way, clearly do better than either.
So the claim that Social Security is unfair to blacks is just false.
And the fact that privatizers keep making that claim, after their
calculations have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, is yet another
indicator of the fundamental dishonesty of their sales pitch.
What's really shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of the black
death
[[Page H264]]
rate, however, is what it takes for granted.
The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and
whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our
society--including highly unequal access to good-quality health care.
We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact
that black infants are two and a half times as likely as white babies
to die in their first year.
Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health
inequalities. But the benefits of Social Security privatization, if
any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life
expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect
taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of
African-Americans will still be dying before their time.
Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called ``the soft
bigotry of low expectations?'' Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to
treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just
another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry--yes, that
sounds like the right word.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone irresponsible actions, and to support
the President's plan on the destruction of Social Security would be
just that, irresponsible.
Social Security is a program that should be strengthened and
preserved for future generations. Republicans are manufacturing a
Social Security crisis that does not exist in order to dismantle Social
Security. The administration should be working with Congress to promote
personal wealth and savings through investment, but not at the cost of
Social Security.
Despite the President's claims, Social Security will remain solvent
for nearly 50 more years under the current system. Modest changes to
the system would enable Social Security to pay full benefits well into
the future. The President's plan for Social Security reform only
achieves solvency through massive cuts in guaranteed benefits, not
through privatization.
Under the President's plan, according to the CBO, benefits for the
typical retiree in 2065 will be 45 percent lower than under the current
system. The so-called private accounts will be taxed around 50 percent
before the money is available to the beneficiary.
I am especially disappointed at the recent comments made by the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. The elimination of racial
and gender disparities is an issue whose time is long overdue. As a
Federal elected official, a Congressional Black Caucus member and a
senior woman, I want to call attention to the following facts.
Social Security makes up a much larger share of total retirement
income for unmarried women and minorities than it does for married
couples, unmarried men and whites.
Among seniors, Social Security is the sole source of income for 26
percent of nonmarried women.
Social Security is a family insurance program, not an investment
scheme. Every American that is drawing Social Security put in the
blood, sweat and tears required to earn the benefit. Social Security
has been very effective in reducing poverty; and without Social
Security, 47 percent of whites age 65 or older would have incomes below
the poverty line. Sixty percent of blacks age 65 or older would be
below the poverty line, and the poverty rate would be over 55 percent
for Hispanics age 65 or older as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to honor the Americans that have
accepted stewardship of this great country for over 65 years of their
lives. We are a stronger Nation when we protect and respect our
seniors. We gain wisdom, institutional memory, guidance, and family
values by ensuring the well-being of all our elder citizens.
Forty-eight million people receive Social Security benefits each
month. Thirty million are retired workers who have paid into the
system, and more than 90 percent of people age 65 or older obtain
Social Security income.
Mr. Speaker, we should not endorse a plan that will destroy Social
Security. The President's plan is simply irresponsible.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments,
and I would place in the Record at this point a letter that was signed
by 40 of my colleagues asking him to make it absolutely clear that he
rejects the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) notion, and I hope
that we hear that tomorrow night.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President, We were appalled to hear Ways & Means
Chairman Bill Thomas propose Sunday on ``Meet the Press''
that Social Security benefits should be based on race and
gender. Chairman Thomas said that Congress ``needs to
consider how many years of retirement you get based on your
race'' and that women should receive fewer benefits each year
because they tend to live longer than men. Asked if Congress
would accept such an idea, Chairman Thomas didn't seem to
know the answer.
The answer is ``No,'' Mr. President. We, the undersigned
members of Congress, will not accept a Social Security
formula that is based on race or gender. This idea is unfair,
it is unjust, it is profoundly anti-American. We call on you
to repudiate it. We request a meeting with you to give you
our views in person and receive your response.
Cutting benefits to those who need them most is counter to
the core principles on which Social Security was founded.
That great program is the financial safety net for all
working Americans in their old age. All workers have earned
their benefits and are entitled to them regardless of gender
or race. Social Security's formulas are race and gender
neutral and must remain so. To propose that women should
receive fewer benefits because they tend to live longer
denies benefits to retired women workers who depend on them
to survive and is fundamentally wrong. To advocate that
minorities should receive different benefits on the basis of
their race is repugnant in a society that has renounced
racial discrimination and where all persons are equal before
the law.
Chairman Thomas' proposal attacks the most vulnerable among
us. Retired women workers are twice as likely as men to live
below the poverty line and to depend on Social Security as
their sole means of support. For African-Americans, Social
Security cuts the poverty rate from 59 percent to 21 percent.
Sunday was not the first time Chairman Thomas has proposed
basing Social Security on race and gender, but it was the
first he made clear on national TV that he will advance this
outrageous agenda in the Congress. It is time to make clear
that Congress will not accept it. Nor should you or your
administration. Chairman Thomas' proposal goes against
everything for this great nation stands, and it is counter to
our deepest moral values. We call on you to renounce clearly
and unambiguously any change to Social Security benefits
premised on race or gender.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Maloney; Frank Pallone, Jr.;Nancy Pelosi; Tammy
Baldwin;William Jefferson; Alcee Hastings; Dale Kildee;
Diane Watson; Michael Michaud; Gene Green; Steve
Israel; Maxine Waters; Lynn Woolsey; Joe Baca; Sheila
Jackson-Lee; Chris Van Hollen; Jerrold Nadler; Gary
Ackerman; Raul Grijalva; Barbara Lee; Gwen Moore; Luis
Gutierrez; Sam Farr; Bobby Rush; Marty Meehan; Mike
Honda; Ed Markey; Tim Bishop; Robert Menendez; Donald
M. Payne; Tom Lantos; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Al Green;
Loretta Sanchez; Henry Waxman; Julia Carson; Maurice
Hinchey; Elijah Cummings; Linda Sanchez; Artur Davis;
and Major R. Owens; Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly a letter that came into my
office on this issue from one of my constituents, and she wrote:
``I want to thank you for standing up on the Congress floor and
speaking out against the appalling recommendation made by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) on Meet the Press. No decisions regarding
Social Security should be based on a recipient's gender or race. To
this day, women and often minorities still earn less on average
[[Page H265]]
than men. This has placed an unfair burden on women who often are the
sole providers for their children to have the means in which to save
for their retirement. Shall we further ensure their poverty in their
final years? Please do not allow the gender gap to become acceptable
and government-controlled.''
Another person who has spoken out strongly on this issue is the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), and I thank her for joining
us.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) for yielding to me and also for her efforts in organizing this
evening's Special Order so that we can bring greater attention to this
critical issue.
Of all the programs instituted by government during our Nation's
history, Social Security is arguably the most successful, one of the
most meaningful. It is the only universal defined benefit, inflation-
protected pension system for American workers.
It is a little known fact that Wisconsin had a very strong connection
to Social Security in its origins, its authorship and its
administration. In the 1920s, lured by the promise of quick profits,
millions of Americans invested all of their assets in the stock market,
losing everything when the Market crashed in 1929. In the Depression
that followed, no group suffered more than the millions of senior
citizens who had no income, no resources and were forced to live in
poverty.
Spurred by that tragedy, two Wisconsin natives and University of
Wisconsin-trained economists led President Roosevelt's Committee on
Economic Security in drafting and shepherding through Congress what
became the Social Security Act of 1935. The conceptual underpinnings of
Social Security came directly from what we call the Wisconsin Idea, the
concept that governments and the university could and should
collaborate to address serious social and economic problems.
The successful results of this collaboration cannot be questioned.
For nearly 70 years Social Security has served as a vital resource for
our Nation's seniors, preventing millions from spending their final
years in poverty.
{time} 2030
In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the national poverty
level among senior citizens is 10 percent, which is two-and-a-half
percentage points lower than the national percentage of the population
living in poverty.
Social Security benefits are predictable and steady. They protect
against inflation, and they also provide vital disability and survivor
benefits. No private pension or savings account can provide that type
and kind of protection.
Those who seek to privatize the program have sought to portray Social
Security as unaffordable, unsustainable and facing some sort of
imminent financial crisis. Yet a close look reveals that the facts are
otherwise. According to the Social Security Trustees' Annual 2004
Report, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits to all
retirees until the year 2042. The Congressional Budget Office projects
that Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of benefits until
10 years later, 2052.
However, if current workers are allowed to divert money out of the
Social Security Trust Fund and contract into private accounts, there
will not be enough revenue to pay benefits to current beneficiaries
and, without raising taxes, the government would be forced to borrow
that money, raising the deficit by an estimated $2 trillion.
So why the clamor to create private accounts? Despite its undeniable
success, there have always been people opposed to Social Security who
have worked repeatedly to dismantle the program. They simply do not
believe that government should insure Americans against poverty. I find
this indefensible.
Social Security is a product of, among other things, the Wisconsin
idea, reflecting Wisconsin values that government should work to
further the common good. As generations did before us, it is now our
duty to strengthen the Social Security program and keep this promise to
all generations that follow.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. I
was not aware of Wisconsin's important role in the development of this
program.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the
great State of New York (Mr. Owens), and to thank him for speaking out
and being with us here tonight.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for this
Special Order, and I rise to make a fervent appeal.
Social Security should be a nonnegotiable part of a democratic
society in America. I must appeal and beg the White House and the
Republican majority in the House and the Senate to end the torture of
millions of Americans. Right now they are going through torture.
Torture is a correct word. A cruel psychological torture is being
executed every day when we launch these overt attacks, assaults on
Social Security. People are fearful. I feel the pain and fear of the
millions who are now trembling under this barrage of Republican
propaganda which attacks Social Security, uses trick words and booby
trap concepts that frighten people a great deal.
It is not reform. It is the destruction of Social Security as we know
it which is being attempted. Social Security must be made as permanent
as the United States Constitution. Social Security represents a high
expression of compassion. It is a massive and systematic application of
collective compassion. It works. It is not a perfectly administrated
program. Nothing is perfect. But it has made possible a helping hand in
a systematic way to more people than any other program ever conceived
by any government.
Social Security is a Democratic Party creation. Fortunately, we heard
our colleague previously talk about how Social Security evolved out of
State programs. It is a Democratic Party creation because it was
greatly resisted by the Republican Party from the very beginning.
It is important to note this fact and have people understand in this
generation at this particular time that Social Security was not created
by magic. There was a certain kind of moral dedication and political
determination that was necessary in order to create Social Security.
Moral dedication. Morality in the truest sense of the word. Morality:
Caring for the lives of people. Morality: Wanting to make that part of
the preamble to the Declaration of Independence which talks about the
pursuit of happiness, wanting to make it a reality for the poorest
people.
So it is probably the greatest act of morality of our government, the
one that impacts on the most lives over history, over time, than any
other. So when we speak of moral values, let us remember it was the
Democrats who created Social Security, the Franklin Roosevelt
administration.
It was the Democrats who later created Medicare and Medicaid. The
great disciple of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson clearly understood
that government is not on people's back when government takes steps to
organize systems which allow people to pursue happiness, allows the
elderly to be part of the process of pursuing happiness, allowing all
people to have reasonable health care, no matter how poor they are.
Medicaid and Medicare are under attack also as well as Social Security.
America today must appreciate that maybe there were miracles
involved, but they were not from heaven, I assure you. There were
miracles that took place in this city, in Washington. There were
miracles that took place on the floor of the House and the Senate.
There were miracles that took place in the White House to make Social
Security a reality.
We do not want to lose this reality. We want it to continue to be an
expression of our moral values at the very highest.
I feel the fear of millions of people, but I also first feel the fear
of individuals that I know. The senior citizens whose faces I look
into, they are frantic. Because the way in which we have approached
this problem is to first stampede people into the feeling it is doomed,
it is about to go over the cliff, that any day now that they will cut
off Social Security checks.
We did not mean to make it quite that dramatic, but for a poor
person, a
[[Page H266]]
senior who has no other income, no other income, and there are millions
who have no other income except Social Security, for them to face a
situation where they hear on the radio, they see on television the
talking heads talking about the need to privatize Social Security,
privatize to them means the government is not running it, and they do
not trust private individuals.
There are all sorts of scenarios running through the heads of people
who are dependent upon Social Security. So I feel the fear directly. I
feel the fear because I know people who cannot make it any other way
without Social Security, and they think that any day now they are going
to be without it.
This stampede is a kind of terror. It is unnecessary terror. It is
setting the stage politically to force us to act faster and with a kind
of frantic fear that makes people, Members of Congress, do what they
know is wrong. The stampede should stop.
The stampede is made more fearful by the insulting language and the
distorted arguments that are already being used, as we have heard my
colleagues talk already. I heard my colleague on the Committee on Ways
and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I heard him
on television. I could not believe my ears when I heard the discussion
about women live longer and, therefore, women should probably have
reduced benefits. That would be the fair thing to do. I just cannot
comprehend in this day and age a statement like that could be made.
Women should be penalized for living longer.
Along with that statement, Mr. Speaker, came the statement that
blacks, particularly black males, would be the beneficiary of a
privatization program because they would have greater control over the
money they put in. They could take it out earlier, because, after all,
black males are dying earlier.
The actuarial statistics show clearly that black males are swindled
out of their Social Security payments at a greater rate than anybody
else. They die earlier and so do not get their benefits. So, therefore,
instead of trying to have a health care system and a set of working
conditions in America which allow people to live longer in general, and
certainly black males to live longer, instead of creating a program for
jobs so that the kind of economic tyranny that black males live under,
where they cannot make it, they cannot live a healthy life because they
do not have the income, instead of addressing those problems, we are
implying they should just live shorter lives and be grateful that we
will give them their money back through a privatization system in
Social Security.
I just could not believe it. I cannot reconcile that with living in
America and having a responsible official making that kind of
statement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the case for the millions also who do
hard, back-breaking work every day. They get up early every morning,
and they are in motion all day. Most of us do not know what hard work
is. We do not understand what it means to be in motion all day and what
back-breaking work means.
I understand a little bit because I came from the City of Memphis,
Tennessee, which is located in the corner of Tennessee, just between
two agricultural States, Mississippi and Arkansas. And the poor
children in my neighborhood, we went to Mississippi or Arkansas in the
summer to chop cotton. You made $3 a day sweating under the hot sun all
day chopping cotton. That was before the invention of the machines. Or
in the fall you went to pick cotton, which was much worse than chopping
because you had to bend over all day, and you came home sore all over.
So I had a taste of what it meant to do hard work. But I see men and
women all the time who are lifting and moving about doing hard work
greater than that all the time. So those are the people who need the
retirement earlier, not later. Do not move it back from 65 to 67, and
they are now talking about moving it to 70.
I think my father was fortunate. He did hard work all the time. He
worked in a furniture factory in the mill, the place where you have the
raw boards and raw lumber that has to be ground down and refined, and
he was moving all the time. He was pretty tired when he came home, and
he is fortunate he lived to be 68. He lived to be 68. So he had 3 years
where he did collect Social Security. A very happy man because he could
retire and receive Social Security. That is what he looked forward to,
retiring, stopping the process of getting up every morning and going to
work in that mill with the sawdust and the other things. He died of a
disease which is caused by an overexposure to sawdust. It was at the
age of 68. So he at least got 3 years of his Social Security.
All he would have had, all he would have had was that Social Security
payment if he had not had children who could pay his bills, and later
on one of my brothers built a house for him. But for 3 years he was
able to benefit from what he paid in Social Security. And many of his
colleagues, in fact, most of them, never lived to 65 and were able to
realize that.
So I rise to speak for all those millions out there who have seen
Social Security as an outstretched hand from their government, which is
deserved by working families, which is a compassionate act, and which
is one of the most efficient programs that ever the government has
invented. We want to maintain Social Security.
We hope that the torture that is going on right now will end. We hope
there will be a retreat from this effort to destroy Social Security,
and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his truly moving
presentation today.
I had very much the same reaction he did. I was home during the
snowstorm watching Meet the Press, when the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas),
suggested that we reduce women's benefits because they live longer than
men. I truly almost fell out of my chair. I could not believe it.
And many of the sentiments that the gentleman has expressed on the
floor were in Paul Krugman's op-ed piece on January 28 that showed how
the program is particularly harmful to minorities. One of the things we
need to work on is improved health care and medicine and hospital care
for minorities so they live longer, not manipulating the Social
Security System in a way that does not help minorities, women or men or
anyone.
Mr. OWENS. It was almost a proposal to die early. Please die early.
Mrs. MALONEY. It was astonishing, absolutely astonishing.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to one of the organizers of this Special
Order, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). I thank her very
much for her hard work on putting this together and for her leadership
on Social Security and so many other issues.
{time} 2045
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) for organizing this Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, soon President Bush will unveil the details of his
program to cut Social Security. We already know, however, that the
President aims to dismantle a program that has been historically
successful in our country and incredibly important to the well-being
and financial security of women.
Women make up the majority of Social Security beneficiaries and are
less likely than men to receive pensions or have retirement savings.
Women are more apt to live on just Social Security. More than 24
million women receive Social Security benefits, and if these benefits
were to be taken away, the result would be nearly 60 percent of senior
women would be living in poverty. I shudder to think of the possible
consequences of breaking apart the strongest social safety net that we
have.
Social Security helps to ensure equal footing for women in retirement
by using a progressive benefit formula that proportionately pays a
greater benefit to those who earn less. Women earn only 77 percent on
the dollar compared to their male counterparts and spend less time in
the workforce, putting them at an immediate disadvantage for saving.
Women who work hard providing for their families, who leave the
workforce to raise children should not be penalized in later years for
time outside of the workforce when they were not able to add to their
private accounts. In fact, if men could have babies, I wonder what they
would be doing about their shorter work lives.
[[Page H267]]
Recently, some of my Republican colleagues have proposed that women,
because they live longer, should receive smaller benefits than men.
Imagine such an idea, that women would receive less money than men
because they live longer. If anything, the longer average life span of
a woman is an argument against private accounts which do not guarantee
paid benefits throughout a person's life. Social Security benefits
cannot be outlived and are inflation-proof. Women need to know that
they can rely on this safety net to ensure that every American can live
out their life with financial security.
Mr. Speaker, although this issue is important to seniors, we need to
recognize that the issue affects every American. Today's workers are
tomorrow's retirees. As a mother and as a grandmother, I want to make
sure that a system that Americans have relied on for so many years will
still be there when my children and grandchildren retire.
Social Security is a safety net that must remain in place so that we
ensure the welfare of our seniors. We need, however, to encourage
Americans to save for their retirement outside and above Social
Security to guarantee that they will live comfortably after they are
out of the workforce, especially low-wage earners, especially women.
The President's proposal to needlessly and recklessly dismantle the
greatest social program in our country's history will have long-lasting
and far-reaching effects.
I am deeply troubled by a proposal that would take money away from a
guaranteed benefit and subject it to the roller-coaster fluctuations of
the stock market. Our goal must be to ensure that Social Security is
fiscally sound so that the system our families rely on is not
recklessly undermined. We must keep the Social Security safety net in
place without subjecting it to the whims of Wall Street. Recently, we
have seen too many pension plans that people counted on for their
retirements be swallowed up by corporate greed and an unstable stock
market. We cannot allow the same thing to happen to our Social Security
program.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the
proposals that undermine the strength of our retirement system and the
original intent of Social Security. This program has become a
cornerstone for American workers' financial stability in their later
lives, and it must not be dismantled.
If our President wants to improve the lives of retirees, he will put
in place a savings plan on top of Social Security savings,
acknowledging that Social Security alone is not enough to live on. We
need to provide incentives so that workers at every level will save and
have a savings account, an investment account above Social Security
which is only a safety net.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her wonderful
presentation. She raised a very important point. Democrats wants to
preserve the safety net of Social Security, but we also support any
plan that encourages savings for individuals. But let us not undermine
this whole system. I believe the gentlewoman pointed that out very
well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters),
a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and an important
leader on this issue and many others.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for organizing this
Special Order. This is very important. I am here tonight, but I intend
to make many, many speeches over the next few weeks about this
important issue.
Social Security is a vital program which provides an important safety
net for our seniors. Nearly 30 million seniors receive a benefit under
the program, and Social Security is essential for keeping millions out
of poverty. Social Security is also vitally important to millions of
Americans who depend on Social Security survivor and disability
benefits.
When we include these individuals, the total number of people who
depend on Social Security in order to live at a decent standard climbs
to nearly 48 million Americans. If we privatize Social Security, as the
President suggests, millions of individuals will be thrown into
poverty. We simply cannot let this happen. We must strengthen Social
Security, not gamble with it, not destroy it. Privatization is simply
rolling the dice, gambling with a program that has proven to
be consistently solid, that we can depend on.
In my home State of California, without Social Security, 49 percent
of elderly women would be poor. Privatization would do nothing to
decrease the number of Californians in poverty. In fact, the number of
California women living in poverty would increase if we were to
privatize Social Security.
Under current law, the typical recipient of a Social Security widow's
benefit in California receives $892 per month. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, under plan 2, this is a plan, one of the
President's plans, under plan 2 of the President's Commission to
Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergartners are projected to
receive 45 percent less than they were promised under current law, even
when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the
total. Therefore, if plan 2, the President's plan, were put into law,
the typical California widow would receive only $490 a month, a
dramatic cut in benefits that would force many into poverty.
Mr. Speaker, the administration argues that privatizing Social
Security would be good for African Americans and other minorities
because we have a shorter life span than white Americans. I am really
insulted by this administration playing the race card on Social
Security. I think they should stop doing it. Not only is it insulting,
it is just not true. To quote White House press secretary Scott
McClellan, privatization ``will enable us to be able to pass on those
savings to our heirs if they happen to pass away early. African
American males have a shorter life span than other sectors of
America.''
What I dislike about this race card that the President and his
representatives are playing with African Americans is this: They have
to factor in that the health disparities that we are confronted with
are going to continue. As a matter of fact, not only do they factor it
in, they plan on it continuing. We are after the President and this
administration to help us do away with health disparities, not to
accept them and to factor them into their planning in ways that say to
us oh, we know you are going to die early, we will factor this in, we
will privatize Social Security and you can save some money and you can
pass it on to your heirs. I wish they would stop it and stop it now
because we are not going to stand for it.
Again, while it is true that African Americans have a shorter life
span, it is because of health disparities which cause many young blacks
to die early. Privatization will do nothing to help African Americans
live longer or better lives than we do under the current system.
The Social Security Administration's actuaries, as well as studies
conducted by AARP, clearly show that African Americans, minorities, and
other low-wage earners do much better under the Social Security system
than they would under other retirement plans because of the progressive
structure of Social Security. Social Security is structured so that the
lowest-income earners, which are often African Americans, receive the
highest retirement benefits.
If we take away this aspect of Social Security, millions of African
Americans would slip into poverty. If the President is really concerned
about the black community and ensuring that we receive full retirement
benefits, I would urge him to join with me and others in working to
eliminate these health disparities that cause so many African Americans
to die prematurely.
Mr. Speaker, this is the debate we should be having, not how to
privatize Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, the President consistently tells the American people
that Social Security is in a crisis and that the system is going to be
bankrupt in 50 years, but these statements are just plain wrong. We can
strengthen Social Security so it can meet its obligations, but we can
strengthen it through simple and modest changes.
Mr. Speaker, privatization will not strengthen it. It will only break
it. We should not expect our parents and grandparents to gamble their
retirement savings on the whims of the stock market.
[[Page H268]]
I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to privatize Social
Security.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement.
She made many strong points, particularly on health disparities. The
gentlewoman pointed out that health disparities are not caused by
Social Security. There are health disparities in our country, and we
should address that with better health care. The fact that some people
do not have good health care is no reason to undermine the entire
system of Social Security, but we should focus on that area of need to
help people in this country. I thank the gentlewoman for her time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton), who has worked very hard on many equality issues and, in
fact, used to run the office of economic equality in the Carter
administration, I believe.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) for her initiative. Millions of Americans want to know what
the truth is. Because of the gentlewoman's leadership, we are trying to
get those facts out here today.
Yes, I was chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under
President Carter.
The gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters) have been talking about the issue of race and gender.
Let us be clear, this argument is a nullity. Under the Constitution
of the United States, government benefits may not be distributed taking
race and sex into account. The courts have spoken on that. So if there
are racial disparities or gender disparities, they are off the table
constitutionally. Race is a suspect classification, and I do not want
to get technical, which means you can only use race if there is no
other way to accomplish the purpose.
What is the purpose we are trying to accomplish here? Does the other
side want to make sure that black men who have lower incomes than
others get what? Privatize what little income they have, take it out of
their meager earnings for private accounts? Are you going to give them
more money because they die early? Come on. Let me hear what you are
going to do to make up for the fact that black men die early, and leave
aside health, because that is very clear. You cannot do it in any way,
and maybe if you are on the Committee on Ways and Means you have not
looked at the Constitution, but some of us have. We cannot put race and
sex on the table under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
under the equal protection clause of the United States.
I do want to say how we got into this crisis. Do we forget that the
Republicans inherited a Social Security Trust Fund that was in surplus?
Why are we here? Do you forget the days of the lockbox when Clinton-
Gore said do not touch Social Security, we have a surplus, put the
money in the lockbox and we will never have to worry about Social
Security?
{time} 2100
We had enough to pay for Social Security and then a surplus. What
happened to it, my friends? George Bush and the Republicans came to
power and they decided they had a use for the funds in the lockbox and
they unlocked it, and they distributed it in disproportionate amounts
to the very rich who do not need to even think about Social Security.
They distributed it in a war, a controversial war from which they
cannot extricate themselves. And to have had the nerve to quote
President Clinton talking about the crisis. Indeed he was. He said,
over and over again, we are going to have a crisis if you get into this
lockbox, and he had hardly gotten out of Washington then George Bush
was picking the lock. They got us into this crisis, and they want to
make it worse because they want to privatize Social Security. The only
way to do that is take more money, this time not from the surplus
because they have used that up, but from deficit spending. This is not
even ancient history. It is history that many Members of this House
have lived.
Finally, let me say a word on race and gender. I know that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said he was only putting it on
the table. Thank goodness the 14th amendment keeps us from putting
certain kinds of things on the table. You cannot say to somebody,
because you are black, I think you are going to live a little less long
and so, I am not sure what the remedy is, by the way, but I am going to
do something to you for that reason. And women, wait a minute, you live
too long, so I am not sure what I am going to do to you.
Let us hear what their proposal is. Are you going to take back their
Social Security? Reduce their Social Security? Any of those things, my
friends, is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. They
should be taken off the table. You threw it out there, and you expect
us not to respond.
Finally, let me say this. One of the reasons why women and people of
color embrace Social Security so much is because, in fact, they get
disproportionately from Social Security. Because their wages are lower
and because the Social Security system is progressive, they pull from
Social Security disproportionate amounts given what they, in fact,
contributed to Social Security, because this is not a one-on-one
system, what you give to the system, you get back. This is a
progressive tax system, so you get back disproportionately. I do think
it is important to get into some of these details so that, in fact,
people can understand why we must oppose the privatization of Social
Security. You can bank on this, Democrats who gave us Social Security
are not going to be present at the funeral of Social Security. We are
here this year to save it for the American people. I thank the
gentlewoman for her leadership on this very important issue.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on so many
constitutional issues and equality issues. She has always been out
there really leading the way. We thank her for being with us tonight.
I yield to the gentleman from the Show-me State of Missouri (Mr.
Carnahan). I thank him for being here. Welcome.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss an issue that is
of paramount importance to the people of the Third District of Missouri
and across this country, Social Security. For over 60 years, Social
Security has provided a dependable and predictable income for retired
or disabled workers, their dependents and their survivors. In my St.
Louis area district alone, there are over 100,000 Social Security
beneficiaries, many who have contacted me. For those people, this
debate is vital. Changes made to Social Security will affect not only
their lives but also their families, neighbors and communities. We must
take every necessary precaution to protect this vital program and
prevent it from being undermined by risky privatization schemes that
would weaken the very foundation of Social Security.
As we all know, the President has proposed a system of private
accounts. He claims that these private accounts will solve the so-
called Social Security crisis. The Social Security system is not in
crisis. While the program faces many challenges, it will be financially
viable for at least the next half a century.
According to our own Congressional Budget Office, this is a
manufactured crisis created to help sell a privatization plan. The
President's plan will not help preserve the benefits for those people
who depend on them the most. The practical effect of the President's
plan is that guaranteed benefits will be cut in half over the life of a
retiree. That is not acceptable. A system subject to private fees,
investment risk, and massive increases to our national debt is not
acceptable.
Social Security supports and protects families across this Nation. It
is a family insurance program, not an investment scheme. It has reduced
poverty in America and given a guaranteed source of income to those who
need it most. Let us keep the solid foundation of Social Security and
look to encourage supplemental savings plans to further strengthen the
retirement security of Americans. Privatization is a gamble Americans
cannot afford to take. Let us keep Social Security safe and oppose
misguided privatization plans.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman.
I yield to one of the organizers, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone). I thank him for his leadership on putting together this
Special
[[Page H269]]
Order and his leadership on so many important issues before this body.
Mr. PALLONE. First of all I want to thank my friend from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) for organizing this Special Order this evening. She has
been a strong advocate for women in the U.S. House for many years, and
she is also a strong advocate for protecting and strengthening Social
Security. As we know, the gentlewoman from New York was so concerned by
the comments that Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas made last month
supporting the exploration of Social Security formulas based on race
and gender that she drafted a letter to President Bush that was signed
by several dozen of my Democratic colleagues, including myself. In that
letter, Democrats categorically stated that we would not accept a
Social Security formula based on race or gender.
I just wanted to comment on Social Security and women. I know many of
my colleagues have done so this night in this Special Order; but as we
know, more than 24 million women receive Social Security; and without
it, over half of all senior women would live in poverty, without those
benefits. Cutting benefits by almost 50 percent, as Republicans have
proposed, would make it impossible for millions of women and children
to achieve financial security. Cutting benefits just for women, as Ways
and Means Chairman Thomas suggested should at least be explored, he
said, would be even more unfair and that is because Social Security is
a good deal for women. Because women only make 77 cents for every
dollar a man makes and have less time in the workforce, they would
receive less than men from their private accounts. The largest group of
losers from privatizing Social Security would be women. This is true
for women in all birth years, all kinds of marital status and all
income levels. This was the most critical finding in a recent
comprehensive analysis of privatization proposals.
I just wanted to say again, I think that what the Bush administration
and the Republicans are really trying to do here, let us be honest, is
destroy Social Security. Republicans do not want to reform Social
Security. They want to destroy it. For years, Republicans have been
saying that the only way to reform Social Security programs is to
privatize it. President Bush said exactly that back in 1978 when he was
running for the U.S. House. Then House candidate George W. Bush said,
and I am quoting, I think it, meaning Social Security, will be a bust
in 10 years unless there are some changes. The ideal solution would be
for Social Security to be made sound and people given the chance to
invest the money the way they feel.
That is what he is trying to do. This is 30 years ago. They are
trying to destroy Social Security. History has proven that President
Bush was wrong. He was advocating privatization as a way to save Social
Security back in 1978. President Reagan and congressional Democrats had
a different opinion. In 1983 in a bipartisan manner, President Reagan
and House Speaker Tip O'Neill came together and reformed Social
Security without privatization. It could be done then. It can certainly
be done today. We do not have a crisis. This is something that can be
easily fixed if we sit down. We do not have to destroy Social Security.
We certainly should not deal with this on a gender or racial basis.
I really appreciate the fact tonight that so many of our colleagues
joined the gentlewoman from New York because I think it is really
crucial that we make this point.
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I would
suggest that the gentleman from New Jersey and others listen very
carefully to the State of the Union tomorrow night, ask some serious
questions and demand some answers.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record.
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2005]
Bush May Back Curbs on Accounts--President Courts Critics of Social
Security Plan
(By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman)
President Bush is privately expressing support for limits
on the cost and risk of partially privatizing Social
Security, in an effort to mollify nervous Republicans and win
over dubious Democrats, according to White House aides and
congressional Republicans.
Bush, who plans to make Social Security the centerpiece of
tomorrow's State of the Union address, has privately told GOP
lawmakers and aides that he would support phasing in changes
to the system to keep deficits under control over the next
several years and push individuals who opt for private
accounts into more conservative investments, such as bonds,
as they near retirement to mitigate long-term risks, the
sources said.
In addition, Bush has expressed strong support for
protecting lower-income workers from the brunt of any future
reductions in benefits, a chief concern of Democrats. The
Treasury Department is doing a budget analysis to determine
how many lower-income Americans could be shielded from
benefit cuts necessary to offset the overall cost of creating
private accounts, the officials said.
``The administration as a whole is committed to an
unprecedented effort to better communicate the proposal,''
especially its limits on cost and risk, said Rep. Rob Portman
(R-Ohio), a top White House adviser.
The president wants to allow younger Americans to divert a
third or more of their Social Security payroll taxes into
private investment accounts, which would take billions of
dollars from the trust fund that finances the nearly 70-year-
old retirement and disability program. In order to close that
funding gap between benefits promised future retirees and
taxes expected to be collected, the president would reduce
future Social Security benefits, at least for those who
choose to set up private investment accounts.
As a result, the president is scrambling to assure
lawmakers--and voters--that private accounts can be created
without putting the federal budget and people's retirement
nest eggs at risk.
With most Democrats opposed to the president's proposal,
Bush intends to use the State of the Union speech to begin to
detail these ideas, and to argue that new Social Security
accounts will be highly regulated and voluntary--and
necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt decades from
now.
In his speech, the president will not detail the size of
new private accounts or the benefit cuts needed to help
offset the revenue losses, according to an administration
official briefed on the speech. But Bush will talk more
specifically about how the proposed accounts would offer only
a few, regulated investments options, much like the Thrift
Savings Plan for government employees.
The speech will focus on the policy, but its aim is highly
political, Republicans say. After surveying roughly half a
dozen Senate Democrats whom the White House considers
potential converts to Bush's plan, the president and his
congressional allies realize they must limit the budget
impact of creating a new system and protect lower-income
workers, who rely heavily on Social Security for their
retirement income.
One way of holding down short-term costs would be to allow
Americans to shift gradually part of their payroll taxes into
private accounts. Critics say this would do little to reduce
the overall transition cost, which experts say could cost $1
trillion to $2 trillion over the next two decades.
Bush plans to target Senate Democrats facing reelection
with speeches and town hall meetings on Thursday and Friday.
He suffered a minor political blow yesterday, when the
Congressional Budget Office released new projections for
Social Security's financial health, pushing forward the year
when Social Security benefits begin to exceed Social Security
taxes. The CBO now projects that date for 2020, a year later
than its earlier assessment and two years earlier than the
Social Security Administration's projection.
The new forecast, by Congress's nonpartisan, official
budget scorekeeper, highlights the uncertainty about the
system's future.
CBO officials attributed the slight improvement to small
economic revisions, but CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin was
quick to say the changes are economically insignificant.
``Anyone who's making policy based on what they think is a
change in these numbers would be making a mistake,'' he said.
But what is economically significant and what is
politically significant are two very different things.
Democrats who contend that Bush is exaggerating the need to
act and the benefits of his plan pounced on the latest
report.
``Today's numbers from the Congressional Budget Office
provide further confirmation that Social Security is on solid
financial footing for decades to come,'' said Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). ``While we do face a long-term
challenge that should be addressed, there is no reason to
rush to privatize Social Security while making deep cuts in
benefits and exploding our national debt.''
Indeed, the politics of Social Security are playing a
prominent role in shaping the debate. Even before Bush has
detailed his plan, almost every Democrat has vowed to oppose
it, and a large number of Republicans have expressed deep
concerns. This has forced Bush to rethink his strategy and
rework his proposal.
MoveOn.org, a liberal group that was highly critical of
Bush throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, today will
begin airing television ads warning three House members not
to ``privatize'' Social Security: Reps. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-
Fla.), Chris Chocola (R-Ind.), and Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.).
[[Page H270]]
The 2006 elections are nearly two years away, and Chocola
is already facing MoveOn.org's ads and a flurry of automated
phone calls to his constituents from an unidentified group
condemning plans to change the system. Chocola, a second-term
lawmaker likely to face a tough reelection in 2006, said the
offensive will prove futile.
At the same time, Republican-leaning groups are readying
their own ad campaigns. The Business Roundtable, which
represents large corporations, is planning to spend $15
million to $20 million on ads and other lobbying efforts in
support of Bush's plan, according to spokeswoman Johanna
Schneider.
And Progress for America, a group with close ties to the
White House, will spend $250,000 next week on national cable
ads to support the president's efforts.
____________________