Joint Letters on Mandatory Social Security from National Public Sector Organizations

• The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States
• The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means
• The Honorable Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Minority Member
• The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Deputy Minority Whip
• The Honorable Christopher Cox, Chairman, House Republican Policy Committee
• The Honorable Connie Mack,Chairman, Senate Republican Conference
• The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Finance Committee
• The Honorable David E. Bonior, House Minority Whip
• The Honorable Dick Armey, House Majority Leader
• The Honorable Don Nickles, Assistant Majority Leader
• The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security
• The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
• The Honorable J. Robert Kerrey, Chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
• The Honorable J.C. Watts, Jr., Chairman, House Republican Conference
• The Honorable Jeff Bingaman, Deputy Minority Whip
• The Honorable John B. Breaux, Chief Deputy Minority Whip
• The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Deputy Minority Whip
• The Honorable Martin Frost, Chairman, House Democratic Caucus
• The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Chairman, National Republican Senatorial Committee
• The Honorable Patrick Kennedy, Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
• The Honorable Patty Murray, Deputy Minority Whip
• The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt, House Minority Leader
• The Honorable Robert T. Matsui, Ranking Minority Member
• The Honorable Strom Thurmond, President Pro Tempore
• The Honorable Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader
• The Honorable Tom Davis, Chair, National Republican Congressional Committee
• The Honorable Tom DeLay, House Majority Whip
• The Honorable Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader
• The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, Senate Finance Committee

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
Fraternal Order of Police
International Association of Fire Fighters
International City/County Management Association
International Personnel Management Association
International Union of Police Associations
League of California Cities
National Association of Counties
National Association of Government Deferred Compensation Administrators
National Association of Police Organizations
National Association of State Retirement Administrators
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Education Association
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
National Council on Teacher Retirement
National League of Cities
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association
Service Employees International Union
United States Conference of Mayors

December 7, 1998

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton
The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

RE: White House Conference on Social Security

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of state and local governments, public unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Administration and Congress to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
H-329 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Dick Armey
House Majority Leader
United States House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6502

Dear Representative Armey:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Tom DeLay
House Majority Whip
United States House of Representatives
H-107 Captiol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6503

Dear Representative DeLay:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt
House Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives
H-204 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Gephardt:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable David E. Bonior
House Minority Whip
United States House of Representatives
H-307 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Bonior:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable J.C. Watts, Jr.
Chairman, House Republican Conference
United States House of Representatives
1010 LHOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Watts:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Christopher Cox
Chairman, House Republican Policy Committee
United States House of Representatives
2471 RHOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Cox:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chair, National Republican Congressional Committee
320 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Representative Davis:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Martin Frost
Chairman, House Democratic Caucus
United States House of Representatives
1420 LHOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Frost:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Patrick Kennedy
Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Representative Kennedy:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Ranking Minority Member
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Rangel:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
B-316 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Robert T. Matsui
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Social Security
House Committee on Ways and Means
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Matsui:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Strom Thurmond
President Pro Tempore
United States Senate
S-237 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Thurmond:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-230 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lott:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Don Nickles
Assistant Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Nickles:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Tom Daschle
Senate Minority Leader
United States Senate
S-221 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Daschle:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable John B. Breaux
Chief Deputy Minority Whip
United States Senate
S-148 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Breaux:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
Deputy Minority Whip
United States Senate
S-148 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Bingaman:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Patty Murray
Deputy Minority Whip
United States Senate
S-148 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Murray:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Deputy Minority Whip
United States Senate
S-148 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lieberman:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Charles S. Robb
Deputy Minority Whip
United States Senate
S-148 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Robb:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Connie Mack
Chairman, Senate Republican Conference
United States Senate
SH-405 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Mack:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Chairman, National Republican Senatorial Committee
425 Second Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Dear Senator McConnell:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable J. Robert Kerrey
Chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Senator Kerrey:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee
United States Senate
SD-219 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

 Sincerely,

January 11, 1998

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Ranking Minority Member
Senate Finance Committee
United States Senate
SH-203 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Moynihan:

On behalf of state and local governments, public employee unions, and millions of public employees, retirees, and beneficiaries, the national public organizations listed above are writing to strongly oppose any effort to impose mandatory Social Security coverage on State and local workers. The sharp payroll cost inherent in mandatory Social Security coverage will have a devastating fiscal impact on the numerous State and local governments that do not participate in Social Security spread across virtually every state.

These State and local governments have only two responses available when confronted by such a heavy cost burden coming from the Federal government -- raising taxes or cutting spending on other essential government services. Ironically, these fiscal demands will have an enormous impact on services such as elementary and secondary education and public safety, at a time when political leaders at all levels in this country are looking to improve such services.

It is important to remember that at the time Social Security was established, State and local governments and their workers were barred from participating in the program. State and local governments designed their own retirement plans in reliance on that exclusion, and benefits were structured and funded on that basis.

At the end of the day, all the Federal government would reap from the State and local government turmoil that would be caused by this proposal would be short-term additional cash flow to pay current beneficiaries. In the long-run, however, covering these additional employees would only impose additional liabilities on the Social Security system and ultimately would result in increasing the expenditures that must be paid out of the program.

We are a diverse group representing public interests. We strongly urge the Congress and the Administration to look beyond short-term Federal revenue needs and to consider the severe cost and dislocation that would be imposed on State and local governments, their taxpayers, their millions of workers, and their retirement systems. We look forward to working with you further on this issue of crucial importance.

Sincerely,

American Federation of State, County And Municipal Employees (AFSCME 202/429-1188)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT 202/879-4582)
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP 202/547-8189)
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF 202/737-8484)
International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO 703/519-0300)
International City/County Management Association (ICMA 202/289-4262)
International Personnel Management Association (IPMA 703/549-7100)
International Union of Police Associations (IUPA 703/549-7473)
League of California Cities (LCC 202/833-0007)
National Association of Counties (NACo 202/393-6226)
National Association of Government Deferred Compensation Administrators (NAGDCA
703/683-2573)
National Association of Government Employees (NAGE 703/519-0300)
National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO 202/842-4420)
National Association of State Retirement Administrators (NASRA 202/624-1417)
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL 202/624-8670)
National Education Association (NEA 202/822-7324)
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS 202/429-2230)
National Council on Teacher Retirement (NCTR 703/243-3494)
National League of Cities (NLC 202/626-3020)
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association (NPELRA 202/296-2230)
Service Employees International Union (SEIU 202/898-3413)
United States Conference of Mayors (USCM 202/861-6709)