Washington ? After months of nervous poll-watching, Republican leaders announced Wednesday the House would vote by fall on legislation to establish individual accounts under Social Security.

“This is not too far too fast. … This is a step we can take right now” to modernize the Depression-era program, said Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the third-ranking GOP leader.

Democrats have blocked passage of more sweeping changes sought by President Bush, and they swiftly attacked the new version. “Once again, the Republican majority is pushing a risky privatization scheme that will weaken Social Security, cut benefits and increase the debt,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Blunt, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other Republicans said the changes in Social Security would be incorporated into a broader measure relating to pensions and other retirement issues, with a vote possible in July or September.

The leaders also issued tips to the rank-and-file on how to present the plan to constituents in the most favorable light.

Senate Republicans are still struggling to coalesce behind a plan of their own, and have announced no plan to bring legislation to a vote.

According to a bare-bones summary posted on a House Committee Web site, surplus Social Security funds would be distributed annually into accounts set up in the names of workers under the age of 55. The flow of money would end when Social Security was no longer running a surplus, 2017 according to the most recent official estimate.

These accounts would be automatically invested in U.S. Treasury bonds for three years. While Republicans said they were stopping a raid on the Social Security surplus, the Treasury could borrow the money in the accounts to pay for other government programs, as it now does with surplus money in the trust funds. A commission would recommend alternative investment options to take effect beginning in 2009 unless Congress blocked the changes.

When a worker retired, his monthly Social Security check would come from a blend of a traditional government benefit and a portion of his own account. He would be guaranteed “the full Social Security benefit as payable under current law at the time of … retirement,” but only if he had kept his investment in Treasury bonds.

A retiree would be required to use the money in his account to buy an annuity assuring that his monthly benefit would reach the government’s official poverty level.

If any funds were left, a retiree could withdraw them for his own use or else leave them as an estate for survivors.