39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–34

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO PLAN ASSETS 

AND LIABILITIES OF SINGLE-EMPLOYER PENSION PLANS 

APRIL 12, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHNER, from the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

[To accompany H. Res. 134] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred the resolution (H. Res. 134) requesting the President to 

transmit to the House of Representatives certain information relating to plan assets and liabilities of single-employer pension plans, 

having considered the same, report unfavorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the resolution not be agreed to. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

ON H. RES. 134 

PURPOSE

H. Res. 134, a resolution of inquiry, requests the President to 

transmit to the House of Representatives certain specified information relating to plan assets and liabilities of certain single-employer 

pension plans for the previous two plan years. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

109th Congress 

On March 2, 2005, Representative George Miller introduced H. 

Res. 134, a resolution of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives certain information relating to 

plan assets and liabilities of certain single-employer pension plans. 

Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

provides that if a resolution of inquiry is not reported by the committee(s) of jurisdiction to the House within fourteen legislative 

days of its introduction, a motion to discharge such committee(s) 

from consideration of the resolution shall be privileged on the Floor 

of the House. 

2

1 Although the resolution does not so state, the information requested is filed with the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’), and presumably is to be transmitted to the House of 

Representatives via the President. 2 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (‘‘ERISA’’), a ‘‘controlled group’’ is generally a group of related businesses or trades (whether or not incorporated) which are under 

common control. The Department of Labor generally does not find common control where the 

common ownership interest in a group of related businesses or trades is less than 25 percent. 3 Under the single-employer insurance program, the PBGC pays guaranteed and certain other 

pension benefits to participants and beneficiaries if their plan terminates with insufficient assets. 

H. Res. 134 was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce on March 2, 2005. The Committee held no hearings on 

the bill. 

On April 6, 2005, the Committee by unanimous consent reported 

H. Res. 134 unfavorably to the House of Representatives with the 

recommendation that the resolution not be adopted. 

SUMMARY

H. Res. 134 directs the President 1 to transmit to the House of 

Representatives within fourteen days certain specified information 

relating to plan assets and liabilities of certain single-employer 

pension plans for the previous two plan years. 

Specifically, the resolution calls for the production of all information filed with the PBGC by contributing sponsors of certain singleemployer defined benefit pension plans pursuant to sections 

4010.8(a)(1) and (2) of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

for the two most recent plan years. By way of explanation, section 

4010.8(a)(1) requires that contributing sponsors of certain singleemployer pension plans provide the PBGC with the fair market 

value of the plan’s assets; section 4010.8(a)(2) requires sponsors to 

provide the PBGC with the value of the plan’s benefit liabilities at 

the end of the plan year.

The resolution also requests information relating to the identities 

of the contributing sponsors of each single-employer pension plan 

from whom the PBGC has obtained this information, as well as the 

members of those plans’ sponsors’ controlled group.2

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

Background: ERISA Reporting Requirements 

Title I of ERISA contains fundamental protections for participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans. Part 1 of Title 

I sets forth the duties of plan administrators to notify participants 

and beneficiaries of the terms of the benefit plans in which they 

participate, their rights under these plans, and the benefits which 

have accrued under the terms of their plans. When ERISA was enacted in 1974, Congress provided for such disclosure of meaningful 

plan information to protect employees’ retirement security. 

Title IV of ERISA contains provisions dealing with the PBGC’s 

Plan Termination Insurance Program, which insures the pension 

benefits of participants and beneficiaries in single- and multi-employer pension plans.3 In general, section 4010(a) of ERISA requires that the contributing plan sponsor (as well as members of 

the contributing sponsor’s controlled group) of single employer 

plans that are underfunded by a certain dollar amount in the aggregate must provide certain specified information annually to the 

PBGC. These filings are commonly known as ‘‘4010 filings.’’ 

3

4 ERISA also requires that plans less than 90 percent funded generally must provide a notice 

to participants regarding the funding status of the plan and the limitations of the PBGC’s benefit guarantee to workers and retirees annually. Specifically, ERISA section 4011 requires companies to provide an annual notice to participants and beneficiaries if the plan is less than 90 

percent funded; notice is not required, however, if the plan is not subject to the variable rate 

premium requirements. Under current law, the variable rate premium is $9 for every $1,000 

of unfunded vested benefits. No variable rate premium is required if the plan meets its full 

funding limitation under ERISA. 5Prior to the enactment of the RPA, the PBGC published an annual list of 50 companies with 

the largest plan underfunding. This list was initiated by the PBGC without statutory direction 

and was compiled from public sources, such as corporate annual reports and Form 5500 filings. 

However, because the new 4010 filings provided the PBGC with significant information in order 

to determine and monitor the financial health of single employer pension plans, it was no longer 

necessary to publish the annual list. On September 3, 1997, PBGC announced that it would no 

longer publish the annual list of 50 companies with the largest pension underfunding. 

The purpose of the 4010 filing requirement is to improve PBGC’s 

ability to monitor companies with underfunded pension plans, 

which represent potential liabilities that PBGC may have to assume in the future.4 The standards for determining whether a plan 

is required to make a 4010 filing were set by amendments to 

ERISA that were contained in the Retirement Protection Act of 

1994 (‘‘RPA’’). Section 4010(b) requires information to be provided 

to the PBGC if, at the end of the preceding plan year, the aggregate unfunded vested benefits of all underfunded plans maintained 

by the contributing sponsors and members of its controlled group 

is greater than $50 million; if minimum funding waivers exceeding 

$1 million have been granted with respect to any plan maintained 

by the contributing sponsor or controlled group member; or if there 

were missed required plan contributions in excess of $1 million for 

the preceding plan year. 

In addition to setting the 4010 filing standards, the RPA amended ERISA to expand 4010 reporting requirements for underfunded 

plans to include generally: (1) Identifying information about the 

plan sponsor and its controlled group; (2) actuarial information regarding the plan’s fair market value of assets and the value of liabilities on a termination basis; (3) financial information of the 

company including, but not limited to, audited financial statements, income statements, cash flow statements, and proprietary 

information; and (4) any other financial information that PBGC requires by regulation. 

Section 4010(c) of ERISA provides that any of the information 

that a contributing sponsor or controlled group member provides to 

the PBGC will not be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.5

Section 4010’s Determination of ‘‘Underfunded’’ Status is Outdated, 

Inaccurate, and Does Not Provide Meaningful Information Regarding Underfunded Plans 

The resolution calls for the production of information pertaining 

to plan assets and liabilities based on the total of aggregate unfunded vested benefits in excess of $50 million. It is the view of the 

Committee that this standard is outdated, inaccurate, and does not 

provide a meaningful indication of whether a plan is underfunded 

or at risk of termination. Indeed, the disclosure or use of 4010 information based on an absolute dollar amount is neither practical 

nor useful in determining whether a plan is considered underfunded or at risk of termination. In light of this fact, the Committee opposes adoption of the resolution. 

4

The threshold of $50 million as a measure for determining if a 

plan is severely underfunded and is therefore required to make a 

4010 filing is inappropriate. A more appropriate threshold would 

reflect the percentage of plan underfunding, rather than an absolute dollar amount, which inherently penalizes large companies 

that offer multiple plans to their workforce or large defined benefit 

plans with a sizeable amount of assets. A $50 million (or any arbitrary, absolute dollar amount) threshold is not indicative of and 

should not serve as a proxy for significant plan underfunding or atrisk status, simply because pension plans governed by ERISA 

range in their assets from thousands to billion of dollars. Put more 

simply, while $50 million could represent a considerable amount of 

unfunded vested benefits to a small plan, it could represent only 

a fraction of unfunded vested benefits to a very large plan with billions of dollars in assets. That smaller plan might legitimately be 

considered ‘‘underfunded’’ and at risk, which the larger plan would 

not.

It is the view of the Committee that, because the threshold for 

determining when a plan is considered significantly underfunded is 

not appropriate, the disclosure of plan information based on such 

threshold is inherently misleading and should not be disclosed 

until a more accurate proxy for measuring the financial health of 

a plan is established. 

The Committee fully believes and endorses the proposition that 

plan participants and beneficiaries are entitled to and should receive accurate and timely information as to their plans’ funding 

status, and that the PBGC should monitor closely those plans 

which are genuinely underfunded or at risk. The Committee is 

committed to pursuing comprehensive reform of the defined benefit 

pension plan system that will address this issue in its proper context. At this time, the Committee does not support a piecemeal approach based on an outdated and misleading standard. 

Conclusion 

For each of the foregoing reasons, the Committee opposes the 

adoption of H. Res. 134, and reports it unfavorably to the House 

of Representatives with the recommendation that the resolution 

not be adopted. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Requests the President to transmit to the House of 

Representatives not later than fourteen days after adoption of the 

resolution copies of all information in his possession relating to the 

information described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 

4010.8(a), title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, for the two most 

recent plan years. The resolution further requests information relating to the identities of all contributing sponsors, as well as members of their controlled group(s), of such plans. The information 

sought includes the name, address, telephone number, and Employer Identification Number of each plan sponsor and each member of the controlled group, and the legal relationship among each. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

5

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clauses 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H. Res. 

134. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for H. Res. 134 from the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 12, 2005. 

Hon. JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H. Res. 134, a resolution requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives 

certain information relating to plan assets and liabilities of singleemployer pension plans. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Geoffrey Gerhardt. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure.

H. Res. 134—A resolution requesting the President to transmit to 

the House of Representatives certain information relating to 

plan assets and liabilities of single-employer pension plans 

H. Res. 134 would request that the President provide the House 

of Representatives with certain data filed with the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) under section 4010.8 of title 29 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations. These data include information 

about assets and liabilities filed by tax-deferred, single-employer 

pension plans for the two most recent plan years. CBO estimates 

that implementing H. Res. 134 could affect PBGC’s administrative 

costs, which are recorded as direct spending, but that any additional spending would be negligible. 

6

Section 4010.8 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires defined-benefit pension plans whose benefits are insured by 

PBGC to supply the agency with certain information about their finances. Regulations further state that financial information filed 

under section 4010 that is not already publicly available shall be 

treated as confidential and not released to the public. However, 

plans’ data may be released to the Congress or to a Congressional 

committee upon formal request. 

Based on information from PBGC, CBO expects that H. Res. 134 

would cause PBGC to release data to the Congress that it would 

otherwise keep confidential. The costs of providing that data would 

be insignificant. 

The CBO staff contact is Geoffrey Gerhardt. This estimate was 

approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget 

Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H. Res. 134 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)(4) 

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the rule does not 

apply because H. Res. 134 is not a bill or joint resolution that may 

be enacted into law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that H. Res. 134 

makes no changes to existing law.

Æ