Home | About NCTR | Resources | Meetings | News Room | Member Directory

One Win, Two Losses on Public Pension Issues in the 106^th Congress

By Cindie Moore, NCTR Washington Counsel

December 20, 2000

The 106^th Congress was one of the more maddening ones I’ve experienced.  It finally ended on December 15, one of the longest sessions in memory.  NCTR worked on three major issues during that time:  support for pension reform, including the public pension portability provisions; support for the public pension provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill; and opposition to restriction on state and local governments’ use (including by their retirement systems) of Social Security numbers. 

We got the House and Senate to pass the pension reform legislation numerous times, but they never passed it at the same time, so it never reached the President’s desk!  The bankruptcy bill, on the other hand, did pass both chambers, but was pocket-vetoed by the President.  The only positive news relates to the possible restriction on Social Security number usage.

It appears that the restriction will not become law.  The situation surrounding it is quite complicated, but I will attempt to give the abbreviated version.  The restriction was in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill.  It eventually became Section 635 in H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia Appropriations bill.  Congress passed H.R. 4942 and sent it to the President on December 15.  He has not yet signed it, but is expected to do so.  So, initially we had thought, with some justification, that the provision would be enacted.  However, H.R. 4577, the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, contains the following language in Section 213(a):  “The provisions of H.R. 5548 (as enacted into law by H.R. 4942 of the 106^th Congress) are amended as follows:  ….(6) In title VI, by striking Section 635 and Section 636.”  (Emphasis added).  Congress also approved H.R. 4577 and forwarded it on December 15 to President Clinton.  Like H.R. 4942, the President has not yet signed it, but we anticipate him to do so.  The staff members of the House Social Security Subcommittee interpret the two contradictory provisions as meaning that the restriction was not enacted. 

Representative Clay Shaw (R-FL) introduced similar legislation (H.R. 4857), which was reported by the Ways and Means Committee on October 24.  In addition, the Congressman also requested the General Accounting Office to study the issue.  He will likely introduce similar legislation in the next Congress.  Thus, even though it appears that the restriction failed to pass this year, we may have to work on the issue next year.

            On a related note, because reform of the Social Security System never took place during the 106^th Congress, advocates for “mandatory coverage” had no opportunity to press their cause.  Under mandatory coverage, newly hired state and local government employees in positions not currently covered by Social Security would have to join the System.