[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 141 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10137-H10138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ON STATE INCOME TAXATION OF 
                             PENSION INCOME

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 462) to clarify that governmental pension plans of the 
possessions of the United States shall be treated in the same manner as 
the State pension plans for purposes of the limitation on the State 
income taxation of pension income.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 462

       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 Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 462, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I recall that in the 104th Congress, I suppose 2\1/2\ 
years ago, we introduced and had passed both in the House and the 
Senate, and signed into law, a measure which would guaranty that an 
individual who earns a pension, for instance in the State of 
California, and then moves for the remainder of one's life to another 
State, the bill that we introduced and passed would prevent California 
from reaching out and taxing the proceeds of that pension of a person 
no longer living in California.
  We learned, to our dismay, that there were hundreds and thousands of 
people who, after their retirement and moving to another State, found 
that they were being pursued by a taxing authority of the State in 
which they earned the pension. Well, we cured that situation and 
passed, on a bipartisan basis, a measure originally introduced by our 
colleague, Mrs. Vucanovich, as I recall; and everyone seemed happy 
about it because we solved a very difficult problem.
  But as we did that, it was brought to our attention that our 
commonwealths, like Puerto Rico and the other territories of the United 
States, were not accorded the same privileges as we embedded in this 
particular piece of legislation. What we do here today is simply bring 
that up to date to cover Puerto Rico and the other territories, so that 
someone retiring in Puerto Rico, who goes to another State, or vice 
versa, will not have that odious tentacle of taxation from the working 
State to the retirement State follow that individual.

[[Page H10138]]

  In this endeavor to bring this matter to a close and close that 
little loophole, we were importuned by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), as well as the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo), the resident 
commissioner of Puerto Rico, and that completed the cycle. The bill 
that is in front of us now extends that special tax benefit, shall we 
say, to everyone who has ever worked in the United States or its 
territories.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, this legislation was introduced by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the 
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) on February 2, 1999. It 
would make a technical correction to the legislation enacted in the 
104th Congress which exempted from income tax certain retirement income 
paid to a nonresident of the State in which the retirement income was 
earned.

                              {time}  1500

  The proposed legislation merely clarifies that governmental plans, 
that is public employee retirement plans, includes plans provided by 
governments of possessions of the United States.
  The original bill only applied to States and, thus, excluded retirees 
from governmental entities of U.S. possessions. It would address the 
situation now faced by retirees from Puerto Rico who now reside in the 
United States who are unable to take advantage of the benefits of this 
law on par with the other retirees.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support, it is technical in nature, 
and would grant equal treatment to retirees similarly situated.
  I urge its adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). 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. 462.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________