[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1078-1086]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 1079]]

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 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; privatiz-
ers 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

[[Page 1080]]

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 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

[[Page 1081]]

     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 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. 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

[[Page 1082]]

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 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,

[[Page 1083]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1084]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1085]]

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 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

[[Page 1086]]

     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.).
       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.

                          ____________________