[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10949-H10950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TREATMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL PENSION PLANS AS STATE PENSION PLANS FOR 
                            CERTAIN PURPOSES

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4572) to clarify that governmental pension plans of the 
possessions of the United States shall be treated in the same manner as 
State pension plans for purposes of the limitation on the State income 
taxation of pension income, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4572

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ON 
                   STATE INCOME TAXATION OF PENSION INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (G) of section 114(b)(1) of 
     title 4, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon ``or any plan which would be a governmental 
     plan (as so defined) if possessions of the United States were 
     treated as States for purposes of such section 414(d)''.
       (b) Correction of Clerical Error.--Section 114 of such 
     title 4 is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts received after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During the last session, the Congress passed a very useful piece of 
legislation which in essence said that when someone retires with a 
pension in a particular State and then moves to another State, that we 
would end the process by which that State could still follow and reach 
out with its long arm and gain tax revenues from a pensioner no

[[Page H10950]]

longer in the State but who earned that pension in that State. We felt 
that that was an unfair proposition.
  I remember very well my congressional classmate Barbara Vucanovich 
spearheaded the effort because, as it turned out, in her State there 
were many former California residents who were under double taxation. 
They were retired in her State, yet they had to pay California taxes on 
their pensions which were coming from California. But we decided to end 
that process. We did happily for all Americans.
  But in doing so, a glitch occurred with the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico. It appears that the definitions of ``State'' and of 
``possessions,'' et cetera, which the bill intended to cover back then 
in and the law now on the books intended to cover, did not include the 
status of Puerto Rico as a commonwealth. So all we are doing with this 
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is bringing Puerto Rico into the 
plan that was originally set forth for all Americans. And that is why 
this bill is necessary.
  It is a technical amendment because it just catches up with the 
legislation that we passed last term. But it is not just a technical 
amendment to those former residents of Puerto Rico who earned a pension 
there and who live elsewhere now when they have to be compelled to pay 
taxes to Puerto Rico. So it is more than technical to them, but for our 
purposes, it is a catchup technical amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to concur with the assessment of this legislation by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). We want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for the fine job he has done not only on 
this but many other pieces of legislation relative to these matters.
  This bill, as stated, clarifies the tax treatment of certain 
pensions. More specifically, as was stated by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), technical to others but to the people 
impacted very substantive, because the bottom line, this deals with an 
issue passed in the last Congress which protects the pension income of 
retirees who retire from a State which has an income tax to a State 
with no income tax, as cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas).
  Having said that, I believe it is the right thing to do. It makes the 
correction which is necessary under law. We support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio for cooperating and seconding the 
proposition before us. I urge support of this bill. I state for the 
Record that the manager's amendment contains one minor clerical change. 
Mr. Speaker, this does not require a filibuster of any type.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4572, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________