United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Ways and Means, House of 

Representatives 

PENSION BENEFIT 

GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Need for Improved 

Oversight Persists 

September 2008

 

GAO-08-1062 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Need for Improved Oversight Persists

Highlights of GAO-08-1062, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and 

Means, House of Representatives 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (PBGC) insures the 

pension benefits of 44 million 

private sector workers and retirees 

in over 30,000 employer-sponsored

pension plans. In July 2007, GAO 

reported that PBGC’s governance

structure needed improvements, 

and asked Congress to consider 

expanding the board of directors to 

include additional members. GAO 

also recommended that the board 

develop policies and mechanisms 

consistent with corporate 

governance practices, and develop

formal guidelines to clarify the 

roles and responsibilities of the 

board chair, members, their 

representatives, and the director. 

On the basis of that work, this 

report addresses (1) the steps 

PBGC has taken to improve policy 

direction and oversight and (2)

how Congress applies oversight to

PBGC and what other oversight 

mechanisms exist for government

corporations.

GAO reviewed PBGC’s new 

corporate bylaws and the structure

and reporting requirements of

selected government corporations. 

GAO also interviewed PBGC and

Department of Labor officials.

Although PBGC’s board has strengthened the corporation’s governing bylaws, 

the three-member board of directors is still limited in its ability to provide 

policy direction and oversight to PBGC. In implementing our earlier 

recommendation, the board revised the corporation’s bylaws to more clearly 

define the roles and responsibilities of PBGC’s board members, 

representatives, director, and senior management. PBGC also contracted with 

a consulting firm to provide a background report to assist the board in its 

review of alternative corporate governance structures, including restructuring 

the board of directors as GAO suggested in 2007. However, because of its 

small size, the board has not been able to develop procedures and 

mechanisms to monitor PBGC’s operations, such as standing committees, 

which are mechanisms used by other government corporations. PBGC may

also be exposed to challenges as the board, its representatives, and the 

director will likely change with the upcoming presidential transition in 

January 2009. While PBGC management has experienced a partial leadership 

change in recent years and provides operational and financial information to 

those newly appointed, PBGC Inspector General and GAO reports have 

recently identified additional financial and operational challenges facing the 

corporation. This additional information could help the new board members 

better understand the vulnerabilities and challenges facing the corporation. 

PBGC is subject to routine congressional oversight, but certain other 

government corporations have other types of reporting requirements in 

place—such as congressional notifications and reporting protocols for their 

advisory committees—to ensure effective communication exist between the 

corporations and Congress. Congressional oversight of PBGC in recent years 

has ranged from formal committee hearings to investigations and studies 

conducted by its congressional support agencies. For example, since 2002, 

PBGC officials have testified 19 times before several different committees on 

issues such as the status of its financial condition. Further, GAO, the 

Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service have

issued a variety of reports and testimonies on PBGC financial and operational 

matters. However, PBGC does not have reporting requirements applied to 

other government corporations for providing additional information to 

Congress. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the 

Commodity Credit Corporation are required to notify Congress prior to 

conducting certain financial transactions. The advisory committee of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation formally reports to its board of 

directors, while the Export-Import Bank of the United States’ advisory 

committee formally reports to its board and Congress each year on matters 

related to their respective organizations. In addition, the advisory boards of 

other government entities with retirement-related responsibilities—such as 

the Social Security Administration, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board—provide reports to their 

overseeing bodies. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that PBGC 

provide Office of Inspector General 

and GAO reports on the 

corporation’s management and

financial challenges to the newly 

appointed board members, board 

representatives, and director. In 

response, PBGC agreed to provide

such reports to new appointees. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1062. 

For more information, contact Barbara 

Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or 

bovbjergb@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4

Revised Bylaws Improve Policy Direction and Oversight, but Board 

Structure Continues to Limit Attention and Oversight 7 

Congress Has Overseen PBGC in Several Ways, but Some Other 

Government Corporations Have Additional Reporting 

Requirements 10

Conclusions 15

Recommendation for Executive Action 16 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 18 

Appendix II Selected PBGC Single-Employer Plan Pension 

Data by State 20 

Appendix III Bylaws of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, May 23, 2008 22 

Appendix IV List of Selected Reports and Testimonies Related 

to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 25 

Appendix V Comments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation 28 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 28 

Tables 

Table 1: PBGC Appearances before Congress since 2002 11 

Page i GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Table 2: Examples of Advisory Committees at Government 

Corporations 15

Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Payees Receiving Single-Employer Program 

Benefits from PBGC, Fiscal Year 2006 6 

Abbreviations 

Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

CBO Congressional Budget Office 

CCC Commodity Credit Corporation 

CRS Congressional Research Service 

ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

GCCA Government Corporation Control Act of 1945 

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation 

OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

PBGC Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

SSA Social Security Administration 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

September 10, 2008 

The Honorable Charles Rangel 

Chairman 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insures the pension 

benefits of 44 million private sector workers and retirees in over 30,000 

employer-sponsored pension plans. Since its creation in 1974, PBGC’s 

assets have increased significantly, making its financial portfolio one of 

the largest of any federal government corporation. PBGC holds 

approximately $68 billion in assets and approximately $82 billion in 

liabilities from underfunded plans—many of which were terminated in the 

past decade. As a result, PBGC has an accumulated deficit that currently 

stands at about $14 billion. Recognizing the effect PBGC’s financial 

condition could have on the federal budget, in 2003, we placed PBGC’s 

largest insurance program on GAO’s High Risk list; a list composed of 

federal programs that need attention and transformation.1

 PBGC’s 

insurance program remains on the list today. 

PBGC is governed by a three-member board of directors consisting of the 

Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, and Commerce, who are responsible 

for providing policy direction and oversight of PBGC. In July 2007, we 

reported that the board structure was not sufficient in size to include the 

expertise or diverse set of interests needed to provide policy direction and 

oversight of PBGC. Consequently, we asked Congress to consider 

restructuring the corporation’s board of directors by appointing additional 

members with diverse backgrounds who possess knowledge and expertise 

useful to PBGC’s responsibilities. We also recommended that the board 

develop policies and mechanisms consistent with corporate governance 

practices and develop formal guidelines to articulate the roles and 

responsibilities of the board chair, members, their representatives, and the 

director.2

 You asked us to update the progress PBGC has made in 

improving its governance structure to provide policy direction and 

 1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: January 2007). 

2

GAO, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Governance Structure Needs 

Improvements to Ensure Policy Direction and Oversight, GAO-07-808 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 6, 2007). 

Page 1 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
oversight since our report. Specifically, this report addresses (1) the steps 

PBGC has taken to improve its policy direction and oversight and (2) how 

Congress applies oversight to PBGC and what other oversight mechanisms 

exist for government corporations. 

To identify the steps PBGC has taken to improve its governance structure, 

we updated our prior work, collecting and reviewing documents related to

PBGC’s bylaws, which were published in May 2008. We also reviewed 

reports on PBGC’s organizational structure. To identify how Congress has 

recently exercised oversight of PBGC, we reviewed congressional hearings 

from 2002 to the present related to PBGC matters, examined the work of 

the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and 

PBGC’s Office of Inspector General, and reviewed PBGC’s congressional 

reporting requirements. To identify oversight mechanisms that exist at 

other government corporations, we collected information on the federal

government corporations we identified for our July 2007 review that have

similar missions or designations to those of PBGC. Moreover, we reviewed 

government agencies with retirement-related responsibilities to determine 

what additional mechanisms may exist. We also met with officials from 

PBGC and the Department of Labor. 

We conducted this performance audit between June 2008 and September 

2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I discusses our scope 

and methodology in further detail. 

Although PBGC’s board has strengthened the corporation’s governing 

bylaws, the three-member board of directors is still limited in its ability to 

provide policy direction and oversight to PBGC. In implementing our 

earlier recommendation, the board revised the corporation’s bylaws to 

more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of PBGC’s board 

members, representatives, director, and senior management. PBGC also 

contracted with a consulting firm to provide a background report to assist 

the board in its review of alternative corporate governance structures, 

including restructuring the board of directors as we suggested in 2007. 

However, because of its small size, the board has not been able to develop 

procedures and mechanisms to monitor PBGC’s operations, such as 

standing committees, which are mechanisms used by other government 

Results in Brief 

Page 2 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
corporations. PBGC may also be exposed to challenges as the board, its 

representatives, and the director will likely change with the upcoming 

presidential transition in January 2009. While PBGC management has 

experienced a partial leadership change in recent years and provided 

operational and financial information to those newly appointed, PBGC’s 

Inspector General and our reports have recently identified additional 

financial and operational challenges facing the corporation. This 

additional information could help the new board members and their 

representatives better understand the vulnerabilities and challenges facing

the corporation. 

PBGC is subject to routine congressional oversight, but some government

corporations have other types of reporting requirements in place—such as

congressional notifications and reporting protocols for their advisory 

committees—to ensure effective communication exists between the 

corporations and Congress. Congressional oversight of PBGC in recent 

years has ranged from formal committee hearings to investigations and 

studies conducted by congressional support agencies. For example, since 

2002, PBGC officials have testified 19 times before several different 

committees on issues such as the status of PBGC’s financial condition. 

Further, GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional 

Research Service have issued a variety of reports and testimonies on 

PBGC financial and operational matters. However, PBGC does not have

reporting requirements applied to other government corporations for 

providing additional information to Congress. For example, the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Commodity Credit Corporation 

are required to notify Congress prior to conducting certain financial 

transactions. The advisory committee of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation formally reports to its board of directors, while the ExportImport Bank of the United States’ advisory committee formally reports to 

its board and Congress each year on matters related to their respective

organizations. In addition, the advisory boards of other government 

entities with retirement-related responsibilities—such as the Social 

Security Administration, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the Federal

Retirement Thrift Investment Board—provide reports to their overseeing

bodies. 

To ensure that recently identified management and financial challenges 

facing PBGC are shared with those newly appointed, we are making a 

recommendation that PBGC provide Office of Inspector General and GAO 

reports on the corporation’s financial and management challenges to the 

newly appointed board members, board representatives, and director so 

that they can take appropriate action as needed. In response to our draft 

Page 3 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
report, PBGC’s director stated that PBGC agreed with our 

recommendation. 

Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA) to protect the interests of participants and beneficiaries of private 

sector employee benefit plans. 3

 Before the enactment of ERISA, few rules 

governed the funding of defined benefit pension plans,4

 and participants 

had no guarantee that they would receive promised benefits. ERISA 

established PBGC to insure private sector plan participants’ benefits and

to encourage the continuation and maintenance of private sector defined 

benefit pension plans by providing timely and uninterrupted payment of 

pension benefits.5

Background 

PBGC is a wholly owned government corporation—that is, the federal 

government does not share ownership interests with nonfederal entities,

and PBGC is subject to requirements under the Government Corporation 

Control Act of 1945, as amended, such as annual budgets, audits, and 

management reports.6

 According to public administration experts, a 

government corporation is appropriate for the administration of 

government programs that are 

• predominately of a business nature, 

• produce revenue and are potentially self-sustaining, 

• involve a large number of business-type transaction with the public, 

and 

• require greater budget flexibility than a government department or 

agency. 

 3

Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829 (codified, as amended, at 29 U.S.C. §§1001-1461). 

4

A defined benefit plan is a pension plan where the plan sponsor provides a benefit 

generally expressed as a monthly payment based on a formula that combines salary and

years of service to the company. Defined benefit plans usually express benefits as an 

annuity, but may offer departing participants the opportunity to receive lump sum 

distributions. 

5

ERISA also established rules for funding defined benefit plans, instituted pension 

insurance premiums, promulgated certain fiduciary rules and mandated annual reporting 

requirements. 

6

31 U.S.C. §§ 9101(c)(3)(J) and 9103-9106. 

Page 4 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
The United States government is not liable for any obligation or liability 

incurred by PBGC.7

 The corporation is funded through insurance 

premiums from employers that sponsor insured pension plans, as well as 

assets from terminated pension plans and investment income. 

PBGC insures certain private sector defined benefit plans through its 

single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs.8

 Through its 

single-employer insurance program, PBGC paid nearly $4.1 billion in 

benefits to 622,000 participants and beneficiaries across the United States 

in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 1). The geographic breakdown of PBGC-insured 

participants largely matches the overall population. Appendix II includes 

information on PBGC’s single-employer plans by each U.S. state and 

territory, as shown in figure 1. 

 7

29 U.S.C § 1302(a), (g)(2). 

8

PBGC administers two insurance programs: the single-employer and multiemployer 

insurance programs. A single-employer plan is established and maintained by only one 

employer. Single-employer plans can be established unilaterally by the sponsor or through

a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(41). A multiemployer 

plan is a collectively bargained arrangement between a labor union and a group of 

employers in a particular trade or industry. Management and labor representatives must

jointly govern multiemployer plans. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37). 

Page 5 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Figure 1: Number of Payees Receiving Single-Employer Program Benefits from

PBGC, Fiscal Year 2006 

Source: GAO analysis; Map, Map Resources.

0-9,999

10,000-19,999

20,000-29,999

30,000-39,999

40,000 and above

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

Va. W.

Va. Ky.

S.C.

Tenn.

Wisc.

Vt.

P.R.

Hawaii

Alaska

PBGC is governed by a board of directors that consists of the Secretaries 

of the Treasury, Labor, and Commerce, with the Secretary of Labor 

serving as chair of the board.9

 Prior to the passage of the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006,10 ERISA provided the Secretary of Labor with 

 9

29 U.S.C. § 1302(d). PBGC board members have designated officials and staff within their 

respective agencies to conduct much of the day-to-day work related to PBGC on their 

behalf. These officials are referred to as board representatives and act as liaisons between 

their cabinet secretaries and PBGC. They hold the rank of assistant secretary or above. 

10Pub. L. No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780. 

Page 6 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
responsibility for administering PBGC’s operations, personnel, and budget. 

The Secretary has historically delegated the responsibility for 

administering PBGC to an executive director. The Pension Protection Act

replaced the chair of the board as PBGC’s administrator with a Senateconfirmed director. The corporation is also aided by a seven-member 

Advisory Committee appointed by the President to represent the interest 

of labor, employees, and the general public.11 This committee has an 

advisory role, but has no statutory authority to set PBGC policy or conduct 

formal oversight. PBGC also has an Office of Inspector General that 

reports to the board through the chair. With 22 staff, the Office of 

Inspector General generally conducts audits, inspections, and 

investigations of PBGC’s programs and operations in order to promote 

program administration effectiveness and deter waste, fraud, and abuse of 

PBGC resources. 

PBGC’s board has taken steps to improve its governance structure by 

revising the corporation’s bylaws. PBGC also contracted with a consulting 

firm to assist the board in its review of alternative corporate governance 

structures. However, the board consists of three cabinet secretaries, a fact 

that limits their ability to provide policy direction and oversight. PBGC 

may also face additional challenges as the board members, their 

representatives, and director will all likely change with the upcoming 

presidential transition, thus limiting the corporation’s institutional 

knowledge.

PBGC has taken steps to improve its policy direction and oversight 

through the revision of its bylaws. In our July 2007 report, we 

recommended PBGC’s board of directors establish formal guidelines that

articulate the authorities of the board, the Department of Labor, other 

board members, and their respective representatives.12 As part of its May 

2008 bylaw revision, the board of directors more clearly defined the roles 

and responsibilities of its members, representatives, and director. For 

example, the new bylaws state that the board is responsible for 

Revised Bylaws

Improve Policy 

Direction and 

Oversight, but Board 

Structure Continues 

to Limit Attention and 

Oversight 

PBGC Has Taken Steps to 

Address Concerns

 1129 U.S.C § 1302(h)(b) specifies that the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply 

to PBGC’s advisory committee. 

12GAO-07-808. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
establishing and overseeing the policies of the corporation. The new 

bylaws explicitly outline the board’s responsibilities, which include 

approval of policy matters significantly affecting the pension insurance 

program or its stakeholders; approval of the corporation’s investment 

policy; and review of certain management and Inspector General reports. 

In addition, the new bylaws explicitly define the role and responsibilities 

of the director and the corporation’s senior officer positions. See appendix 

III to view PBGC’s new bylaws. 

Our July 2007 report also asked Congress to consider restructuring the 

board of directors to appoint additional members of diverse backgrounds 

who possess knowledge and expertise useful to PBGC’s responsibilities 

and can provide the attention needed for strong corporate oversight. In 

response to these findings, PBGC contracted with a consulting firm to 

review governance models and provide a background report to assist the 

board in its review of alternative corporate governance structures. The 

consulting firm’s final report describes the advantages and disadvantages 

of the corporate board structures and governance practices of other 

government corporations and select private sector companies, and 

concludes that there are several viable alternatives for PBGC’s governance 

structure and practices.

Board’s Limited Ability to 

Provide Policy Direction 

and Oversight Persists 

Our July 2007 report found that PBGC’s board has limited time and 

resources to provide policy direction and oversight and has not 

established procedures and mechanisms to monitor PBGC operations. 

Although board members have met more frequently since 2003, the three 

cabinet secretaries who compose the board have numerous other 

responsibilities. Because of their responsibilities and the small size of the 

board, it is difficult for the board to establish and manage oversight 

mechanisms, such as the use of standing committees—which are common 

mechanisms used by both government and private corporate boards. 

According to board officials, the board representatives, assisted by their 

staff, undertake some of the oversight functions that could be conducted

by standing committees.13 Other government corporations, such as the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Overseas Private 

 13Each representative has a dedicated staff person whose assignments include working on

PBGC matters. In 2007, we reported that although the board representatives can draw on 

the expertise of other staff within their respective agencies as needed, these staff persons 

have other job responsibilities, which could limit the amount of time they can dedicate to 

PBGC. 

Page 8 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak), have established standing committees to conduct

certain oversight functions. For example, FDIC’s board of directors 

established standing committees, such as the Case Review Committee and 

the Audit Committee, to conduct certain oversight functions. 

Instead, PBGC’s board continues to rely on the Inspector General and 

PBGC’s management oversight committees to ensure that PBGC is 

operating effectively.14 However, our prior work found that while the 

board requires the Inspector General to brief it at its semiannual meetings, 

there were no formal protocols requiring the Inspector General to 

routinely meet with the board or its representatives and staff. 

Consequently, when the board and its representatives likely change, it is 

unclear whether the board would be aware of this informal protocol. 

Further, we reported that the board relies on PBGC’s executive 

committees and working groups for monitoring and reviewing PBGC’s 

operations. However, these committees and working groups are neither 

independent of the PBGC director nor required to formally report all 

matters to the board.15

PBGC may also be exposed to challenges as the board, its representatives, 

and director will likely change with the upcoming presidential transition in 

January 2009, thus limiting institutional knowledge of the challenges 

facing the corporation. As we noted in 2007, because PBGC’s board is 

composed of cabinet secretaries, PBGC board members, their 

representatives, and the director typically change with each 

administration. Other government corporations’ authorizing statutes—

such as OPIC’s—have established board structures with staggered terms 

for their directors, possibly avoiding gaps in their organization’s 

institutional knowledge. PBGC management has experienced partial 

leadership transitions in recent years, and in anticipation of the 

forthcoming complete leadership change, PBGC is developing additional 

 14PBGC’s executive management has established committees and working groups for 

policy and oversight. According to PBGC, the Executive Management Committee is 

responsible for corporate policy decisions and coordination of the work of various PBGC 

offices. The Internal Control Committee has oversight responsibility for PBGC’s internal 

controls. The Budget Planning and Integration Team provides a standardized process to 

promote integrated approaches for the alignment of budgetary resources and strategic 

planning. The Operations Integration Board provides a forum for senior leadership to

commission and review corporationwide programs, projects, and internal policies.

15GAO-07-808. 

Page 9 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
materials to include in its official transition package for newly appointed 

officials. This new information includes information on standards of 

ethical conduct, appointments, compensation levels, and information on 

presidential transitions. While PBGC typically provides newly appointed 

members, representatives, and directors with information on its 

operations and financial position, PBGC’s Office of Inspector General and 

our work recently identified additional financial and operational 

challenges facing the corporation. This additional information could help

the new board members and their representatives better understand the 

vulnerabilities and challenges facing the corporation. 

Congressional oversight of PBGC in recent years has ranged from formal 

congressional hearings to the use of its support agencies, such as GAO, the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Congressional Research 

Service (CRS). However, unlike some other government corporations, 

PBGC does not have certain reporting requirements for providing 

additional information to Congress. In general, our prior work has shown 

that congressional oversight is designed to fulfill a number of purposes, 

including but not limited to ensuring executive compliance with legislative

intent; improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of 

government operations; evaluating program performance; and conducting

investigations. 

Since 2002, PBGC officials have testified 19 times before various 

congressional committees—mostly on broad issues related to the status of 

the private sector defined benefit pension policy and its effect on PBGC 

(see table 1). For example, in 2005, the PBGC director testified before the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee 

on Aviation regarding pension challenges facing the airline industry. The 

director’s testimony discussed the possible effects such defaults would 

have on the defined benefit pension industry and the financial position of 

the corporation. Congress also recently began exercising oversight of 

PBGC through the confirmation process of PBGC’s director. With the 

passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, PBGC’s director now must 

be confirmed by the Senate.16 During the confirmation hearing conducted 

in 2007, members expressed concerns about key defined benefit pension 

Congress Has 

Overseen PBGC in 

Several Ways, but 

Some Other 

Government 

Corporations Have 

Additional Reporting 

Requirements 

Congress Has Overseen 

PBGC in a Variety of Ways 

 16Pub. L. No. 109-280, § 411(a)(1), 120 Stat. 780, 935 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1302(a)). 

Page 10 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
policy issues and PBGC’s financial condition, as well as sought the 

nominee’s thoughts on addressing weaknesses in PBGC’s governance 

structure, such as the concerns we raised about the corporate governance 

practices.17

Table 1: PBGC Appearances before Congress since 2002 

Date Congressional committee Subject of hearing or testimony

Feb. 27, 2002 Committee on Finance; United States Senate Enron Corporation’s defined benefit pension plan

June 20, 2002 Committee on Ways and Means; Subcommittee on

Oversight; House of Representatives 

The state of defined benefit pension system 

Jan. 14, 2003 Committee on Appropriations; Subcommittee on

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education;

United States Senate 

Restoration of U.S. Airways pension plans 

Mar. 11, 2003 Committee on Finance; United States Senate The state of defined benefit pension system 

Apr. 30, 2003 Committee on Ways and Means; Subcommittee on

Selected Revenue Measures; House of

Representatives 

Defined benefit pension plan funding 

Sept. 4, 2003 Committee on Education and the Workforce; House 

of Representatives 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

Sept. 15, 2003 Committee on Governmental Affairs; Subcommittee 

on Financial Management, the Budget and 

International Security; United States Senate 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

Oct. 14, 2003 Special Committee on Aging; United States Senate The financial health of PBGC and future of defined

benefit pension plans

Oct. 7, 2004 Committee on Science, Commerce and

Transportation; United States Senate 

The financial and policy challenges facing the

private defined benefit pension system and

PBGC’s federal pension insurance program 

Mar. 1, 2005 Committee on Finance; United States Senate Defined benefit pension plan funding and the 

health of PBGC 

Mar. 2, 2005 Committee on Government Reform; Subcommittee 

Government Management, Finance and

Accountability; House of Representatives 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

Mar. 2, 2005 Committee on Education and Workforce; House of

Representatives 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

Mar. 8, 2005 Committee on Ways and Means; Subcommittee on

Select Revenue Measures; House of Representatives 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

Apr. 26, 2005 Committee on Health, Education, Labor and

Pensions; Subcommittee on Retirement Security 

and Aging; United States Senate 

Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

 17The Senate Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions both have jurisdiction over the nomination. 

Page 11 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Date Congressional committee Subject of hearing or testimony

June 7, 2005 Committee on Finance; United States Senate Private pension reform and the Administration’s 

proposals

June 15, 2005 Committee on Budget; United States Senate Defined benefit pension plan funding and the

health of PBGC 

June 22, 2005 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; 

Subcommittee on Aviation; House of 

Representatives 

Pension challenges facing the airline industry and

role of PBGC 

July 25, 2007 Committee on Finance; United States Senate Confirmation of PBGC Director

Sept. 6, 2007 Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions; United States Senate 

Confirmation of PBGC Director

Source: PBGC. 

Beyond formal congressional hearings, PBGC staff told us that they 

frequently discuss pension policy matters with congressional staff. In 

addition, PBGC must annually submit reports to Congress on its prior 

fiscal year’s financial and operational matters, which include information 

on PBGC’s financial statements, internal controls, and compliance with 

certain laws and regulations.18 For example, the Pension Protection Act of 

2006 requires that PBGC provide a comparison of the average return on 

investment earned with respect to asset investments by the corporation, 

which PBGC includes in its annual report. 

Through its support agencies—GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, and 

the Congressional Research Service—Congress has also provided 

oversight and reviewed PBGC. Specifically, Congress has asked GAO to 

conduct assessments of policy, management, and the financial condition 

of PBGC. For example, we conducted more than 10 reviews of PBGC over 

the past 5 years, including assessments related to PBGC’s 2005 corporate 

reorganization and weaknesses in its governance structure, human capital

management, and contracting practices. Our work also raised concerns 

about PBGC’s financial condition and the state of the defined benefit 

industry. In addition, CBO has published nine specific reports on PBGC 

since 2005. 19 For example, in April 2008, CBO reported that PBGC’s 

 18PBGC is required each year to submit to Congress and the President an annual report, 

which must include the actuarial assumptions and methods PBGC uses to evaluate the 

expected 5-year operations and status of its pension benefit guaranty funds, and a 

comparison of its funds’ investment returns with a designated index. 29 U.S.C. § 1308. 

19The U.S. Congressional Budget Office is charged with providing Congress with objective, 

nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide

array of programs covered by the federal budget and the information and estimates 

required for the congressional budget process. 

Page 12 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
investment policy is likely to produce higher returns over the long run, but 

noted the new strategy increases the risk that PBGC will not have 

sufficient assets to cover retirees’ benefit payments when the economy 

and financial markets are weak.20 Further, CRS has published eight studies

related to PBGC since 2006. Appendix IV includes a list of selected GAO, 

CBO, and CRS reports and testimonies related to PBGC. 

Some Government 

Corporations Have 

Additional Congressional 

Reporting Requirements 

Some government corporations have additional reporting requirements for 

notifying Congress of significant actions. The Millennium Challenge 

Corporation is required to formally notify the appropriate congressional 

committees 15 days prior to the allocation or transfer of funds related to 

the corporation’s activities.21 The Commodity Credit Corporation is subject

to a similar requirement, which obliges the Secretary of Agriculture to 

alert the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate

and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives prior to 

making adjustments to a certain price support program.22 The Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation is required to submit a detailed report to 

the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives at least 60 days prior to 

issuing, among other things, political risk insurance for losses due to 

business interruption for the first time.23 These examples demonstrate how 

Congress has required additional reporting requirements for certain 

activities conducted by government corporations. While PBGC generally

has no requirements to formally notify Congress prior to taking significant 

financial or operational actions, PBGC officials said that they informally 

 20U.S. Congressional Budget Office, A Review of the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s New Investment Policy (Apr. 24, 2008). 

21The Millennium Challenge Corporation is a U.S. government corporation designed to 

work with foreign countries to reduce global poverty through the promotion of sustainable 

economic growth. 22 U.S.C. §§ 7701, 7703.

22The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a U.S. government corporation created to

stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices. CCC also helps maintain balanced 

and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and aids in their distribution. 15 U.S.C.

§ 714. 

23OPIC undertakes programs to provide political risk insurance to U.S. investors, 

contractors, exporters and financial institutions involved in international transactions. 

22 U.S.C. § 2194b. Political risk insurance can cover currency inconvertibility, 

expropriation, and political violence, and is available for investments in new ventures,

expansions of existing enterprises, privatizations, and acquisitions with positive 

developmental benefits. 

Page 13 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
notify Congress prior to certain policy shifts. For example, in fiscal year 

2008, PBGC officials met with congressional staff before modifying the 

investment policy to decrease the corporation’s fixed-income asset 

investments. In addition to its annual reporting requirements, PBGC is 

required to report proposals for certain premium rate revisions, including 

reasons for such revisions, to specific congressional committees; however, 

these premium rate revisions are not considered effective until 30 days 

after enactment of a law approving them.24

Like other government corporations, PBGC has an advisory committee. 

PBGC’s advisory committee is charged with advising the corporation on its 

policies and procedures related to the corporation’s appointment of 

trustees in termination proceedings, investments of monies, whether 

terminated plans should be liquidated immediately or continued in 

operation, and any other matters the corporation may request. Unlike 

PBGC’s advisory committee, the advisory boards or committees of other 

government corporations—such as the Export-Import Bank and FDIC—

are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act25 and some submit 

formal reports to their board chair and directors (see table 2). In contrast,

PBGC’s advisory committee is not subject to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. According to PBGC officials, the corporation is exempt 

because of the proprietary nature of its work. PBGC’s advisory committee 

typically reports only to the director, although representatives of PBGC’s 

board members frequently attend advisory committee meetings and 

officials said that the committee can submit concerns to the board if it 

believes it is warranted. 

 2429 U.S.C. § 1306(a)(2), (b). 

25The Federal Advisory Committee Act became law in 1972 and defines how federal 

advisory committees operate, including open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and 

reporting for such entities. Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972) (codified as amended at 

5 U.S.C. app. 2).

Page 14 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Table 2: Examples of Advisory Committees at Government Corporations

Federal government 

corporation Advisory committee Reports to 

Number 

of 

members 

Subject to Federal 

Advisory 

Committee Act 

Export-Import Bank of the

United States 

Advisory Committee of the Export-Import 

Bank of the United States 

Board of Directors 

and Congress 

17 Yes

Saint Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation

Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation 

Administrator 5 Yes

Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation 

Advisory Committee on Economic 

Inclusion 

Chairman of the 

board

Not to 

exceed

20 

Yes 

Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation 

Advisory Committee of the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Director 7 No

Source: GAO analysis.

Beyond reporting to the chairman of its board, the Export-Import Bank’s 

advisory committee is also required to submit an annual report to 

Congress on the extent to which the Export-Import Bank is providing 

competitive financing to expand U.S. exports, along with suggestions for 

improvements. In addition to government corporations, some government

agencies with retirement-related responsibilities—such as the Social

Security Administration (SSA), the Railroad Retirement Board, and the 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board—have advisory committees 

as part of their governance structures, which annually report to their 

respective overseeing bodies. For example, when Congress established 

SSA as a separate and distinct agency from the Department of Health and

Human Services, it also established an independent seven-member 

bipartisan Advisory Board to advise the President, Congress, and the 

commissioner of Social Security on respective policy issues. 

With more than 44 million Americans insured by PBGC, it is essential that 

the corporation is soundly governed and efficiently managed to guarantee 

that retirement income will be available to all those covered. Despite 

PBGC’s efforts to improve its bylaws, the three-member board of directors 

is still one of the smallest and least diverse of any government

corporation. Other government corporations’ governance structures 

include oversight mechanisms, such as standing committees, and 

additional reporting requirements to conduct certain oversight functions 

and assist their boards of directors. While PBGC’s board should be 

restructured, additional reporting requirements, like some government 

corporations have, may not be appropriate for PBGC given the proprietary 

Conclusions 

Page 15 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
nature of its financial work; thus, any reporting changes would need to be

carefully considered. 

The limitations of the board structure will become even more apparent in

the coming months as the board, its representatives, and the corporation’s 

director will likely be replaced with a new presidential administration. 

Because board members and their representatives serve by virtue of their 

positions in the federal government, there is no assurance that these 

individuals will have the needed expertise to understand the corporation’s 

business or financial vulnerabilities. Without adequate information and 

preparation, this transition could limit not only the progress made by the 

current board, its representatives, and director, but may also curtail the 

corporation’s ability to insure and deliver retirement benefits to millions of 

Americans that rely on the corporation. 

To ensure that recently identified management and financial challenges 

facing PBGC are shared with those newly appointed, we recommend that 

PBGC provide Office of Inspector General and GAO reports on the 

corporation’s financial and management challenges to the newly 

appointed board members, board representatives, and director so that 

they can take appropriate action as needed. 

We obtained written comments on a draft report from PBGC’s director, 

which are reproduced in appendix V. In addition, the Departments of the 

Treasury, Labor, and Commerce provided joint technical comments, which 

were incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

In response to our draft report, the PBGC director stated that PBGC 

prepares substantial in-depth briefing materials on its operational issues 

for incoming administrations. The director agreed with our 

recommendation, stating that PBGC will ensure that the transition 

materials provided to those newly appointed will also include pertinent 

PBGC Office of Inspector General and GAO reports. Further, the director 

stated that PBGC will continue to work in concert with the board to 

provide oversight information necessary to address the important issues 

that they confront in providing pension security to Americans. 

Page 16 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Treasury, 

Labor, and Commerce, as well as the PBGC director and other interested

parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you or

your staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact me on 

(202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI. 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg 

Director, Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security Issues 

Page 17 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 18 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To identify the steps that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

(PBGC) has taken to improve its governance structure, we reviewed our 

work issued in July 2007, as well as collected and reviewed documents 

related to PBGC’s bylaws, which were last published in May 2008.1

 We 

reviewed reports on PBGC’s organizational structure and financial 

condition. We also identified provisions of the Employee Retirement and 

Income Security Act of 1974,

2

 the Pension Protection Act of 2006,3 and 

chapter 91 of the U.S. Code, which is commonly known as the Government 

Corporation Control Act (GCCA),4

 that outline the authority of PBGC’s 

board of directors as well as the administrative responsibilities of PBGC’s 

director. To understand the board of directors’, their representatives’, and 

PBGC’s director’s role, we reviewed documentation related to the board 

members’ activities to identify what types of actions the board members 

had considered and taken. 

To determine how Congress exercises oversight of PBGC, we identified 

the number of times PBGC officials testified before Congress since 2002,

and reviewed the issues discussed at each formal hearing. Further, we 

reviewed the work of the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional 

Research Service, PBGC’s Office of Inspector General, and our work on 

PBGC’s financial and management challenges. To determine the oversight 

mechanisms and reporting requirements that exist at other government 

corporations, we collected information on select federal government 

corporations that we identified in our July 2007 work, which are listed 

under the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, as amended, and 

have similar missions or designations to those of PBGC. We reviewed 

information on the following government corporations: 

• Commodity Credit Corporation, 

• Export-Import Bank of the United States, 

• Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, 

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

• Federal Financing Bank,

• Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), 

 1

PBGC’s board published a copy of its bylaw amendments in the Federal Register. 29 U.S.C.

§ 1302(f). See also 73 Fed. Reg. 29985, which is reproduced in appendix III. 

2

29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. 

3

Pub. L. No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780. 

4

31 U.S.C. §§ 9101-9110. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

• Financing Corporation, 

• Government National Mortgage Association, 

• Millennium Challenge Corporation, 

• National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

• Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 

• Resolution Funding Corporation, 

• Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 

• Tennessee Valley Authority, and 

• United States Postal Service. 

We also reviewed government agencies with retirement-related 

responsibilities to determine what other oversight mechanisms may exist; 

the agencies include the Social Security Administration, the Railroad 

Retirement Board, and the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

Moreover, we met with officials from PBGC and the Department of Labor. 

Page 19 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix II: Selected PBGC Single-Employer

Plan Pension Data by State 

Page 20 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Claims 1975-2006 Coverage 2005 Benefits Paid 2006 

States Plans Claims Plans Participants Payees Payments

Mean 

Monthly 

Pension 

Alabama 17 $23,807,269 248 415,872 12,116 $44,588,012 $295

Alaska 4 1,171,886 26 86,673 214 1,789,662 732

Arizona 24 10,460,945 484 545,397 6,937 56,848,787 677

Arkansas 12 9,578,594 127 165,700 3,377 12,287,719 300

California 187 978,952,261 3,848 3,233,642 31,583 287,934,252 762

Colorado 17 202,019,557 327 483,819 7,672 87,626,865 987

Connecticut 115 339,608,195 785 504,152 7,081 32,920,689 379

Delaware 8 4,878,368 130 138,983 1,273 8,528,959 544

District of

Columbia 

15 12,606,511 242 83,384 335 1,749,182 430

Florida 77 369,603,170 866 2,065,553 41,860 298,574,227 580

Georgia 61 601,098,985 511 744,446 19,217 86,596,390 365

Hawaii 22 142,207,993 213 119,957 3,052 26,084,695 920

Idaho 7 12,709,939 63 142,722 1,649 11,769,270 585

Illinois 254 8,945,225,727 1,745 1,746,522 33,912 285,817,417 676

Indiana 105 1,406,771,939 495 867,713 24,614 207,556,275 660

Iowa 39 95,456,903 353 428,284 6,107 21,091,686 274

Kansas 24 42,691,574 155 258,904 2,506 16,018,743 508

Kentucky 24 99,638,280 275 616,310 5,254 24,313,046 368

Louisiana 25 75,296,341 227 493,403 4,747 24,829,486 420

Maine 13 9,781,410 99 151,088 2,018 8,208,993 333

Maryland 69 86,663,529 566 728,300 18,141 168,551,790 738

Massachusetts 204 528,083,138 958 831,350 13,815 94,423,951 545

Michigan 295 598,758,451 1,129 1,490,039 25,220 149,174,690 476

Minnesota 44 192,710,240 500 686,475 8,558 59,500,618 548

Mississippi 11 21,097,449 116 234,496 3,892 13,404,305 282

Missouri 67 293,981,974 421 722,134 12,276 78,685,377 509

Montana 3 207,534 41 118,228 425 3,440,334 668

Nebraska 4 7,328,458 154 256,808 1,212 6,155,180 410

Nevada 8 594,387 153 189,526 3,340 35,652,807 906

New Hampshire 25 34,769,380 120 194,990 3,028 18,325,844 487

New Jersey 196 330,487,687 1,682 1,185,568 12,923 67,369,924 419

New Mexico 7 10,380,110 113 89,021 1,347 7,922,268 491

New York 481 3,303,673,171 3,978 2,399,744 32,999 186,672,223 451

Appendix II: Selected PBGC Single-Employer 

Plan Pension Data by State 
Appendix II: Selected PBGC Single-Employer

Plan Pension Data by State 

Claims 1975-2006 Coverage 2005 Benefits Paid 2006 

States Plans Claims Plans Participants Payees Payments

Mean 

Monthly 

Pension 

North Carolina 47 373,760,939 480 1,154,334 29,134 125,373,643 352

North Dakota 2 128,733 37 70,031 103 456,710 363

Ohio 328 3,304,343,666 1,637 1,635,016 58,535 374,856,178 504

Oklahoma 22 381,366,835 182 433,611 3,011 15,248,545 409

Oregon 19 34,524,982 222 510,513 2,556 21,149,671 691

Pennsylvania 337 4,668,703,939 1,874 2,031,563 80,524 547,528,915 538

Rhode Island 47 41,309,238 126 90,683 1,659 6,245,574 307

South Carolina 17 64,941,570 182 399,740 14,022 50,759,828 301

South Dakota — — 29 63,263 227 1,936,569 692

Tennessee 45 184,947,667 348 552,423 13,563 60,579,227 368

Texas 109 191,265,052 1,261 1,874,076 16,491 83,429,213 418

Utah 8 29,595,562 123 203,310 1,983 12,095,719 510

Vermont 10 8,194,563 67 54,931 1,401 7,167,453 411

Virginia 47 2,753,225,929 626 883,510 11,957 71,827,569 498

Washington 22 261,758,583 322 711,907 8,549 88,815,895 883

West Virginia 53 1,236,685,805 149 184,201 12,218 110,762,806 709

Wisconsin 82 282,816,207 660 839,370 9,251 48,528,938 421

Wyoming 1 90,887 24 48,701 262 2,223,900 734

Puerto Rico 12 16,614,401 90 69,306 2,400 8,826,510 284

U.S. Territories — — 8 2,377 153 766,996 394

Foreign countries 1 204,359 8 — 1,654 9,200,275 451

Total 3,673 $32,626,780,271 29,605 $34,041,993 622,353 $4,082,193,800 531

Sources: PBGC’s Pension Insurance Data Book 2006. Information derived from PBGC Fiscal Year Closing File (9/30/06), Pension Plan

Coverage Topic Module (May 2003) to the 2001 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), PBGC Case Administration 

System, PBGC Premium Filings, PBGC Participant System (PRISM), and fiscal year calculations. Claims and plan coverage data by 

state of plan administration; benefits and participant coverage data by state of payee residence. SIPP used to estimate participant

coverage data. 

Page 21 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix III: Bylaws of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, May 23, 2008 

Page 22 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Appendix III: Bylaws of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, May 23, 2008 
Appendix III: Bylaws of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, May 23, 2008 

Page 23 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix III: Bylaws of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation, May 23, 2008 

Page 24 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix IV: List of Selected Reports and 

Testimonies Related to the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation 

Page 25 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Appendix IV: List of Selected Reports and 

Testimonies Related to the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Some Steps Have Been Taken to 

Improve Contracting, but a More Strategic Approach Is Needed. 

GAO-08-871. Washington, D.C.: August 2008. 

PBGC Assets: Implementation of New Investment Policy Will Need 

Stronger Board Oversight. GAO-08-667. Washington, D.C.: July 2008. 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: A More Strategic Approach 

Could Improve Human Capital Management. GAO-08-624. Washington, 

D.C.: June 2008. 

High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: 

January 2007. 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Governance Structure Needs 

Improvements to Ensure Policy Direction and Oversight. GAO-07-808. 

Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2007. 

PBGC’s Legal Support: Improvement Needed to Eliminate Confusion 

and Ensure Provision of Consistent Advice. GAO-07-757R. Washington,

D.C.: May 18, 2007. 

Private Pensions: Questions Concerning the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation’s Practices Regarding Single-Employer Probable Claims. 

GAO-05-991R. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005. 

Private Pensions: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and LongTerm Budgetary Challenges. GAO-05-772T. Washington, D.C.: 

June 9, 2005.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Single-Employer Pension 

Insurance Program Faces Significant Long-Term Risks. GAO-04-90. 

Washington, D.C.: October 2003. 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Insurance 

Program: Long-Term Vulnerabilities Warrant ‘High Risk’ Designation.

GAO-03-1050SP. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2003.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Statutory Limitation on 

Administrative Expenses Does Not Provide Meaningful Control. 

GAO-03-301. Washington, D.C.: February 2003. 
Appendix IV: List of Selected Reports and 

Testimonies Related to the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation 

GAO Forum on Governance and Accountability: Challenges to Restore 

Public Confidence in U.S. Corporate Governance and Accountability 

Systems. GAO-03-419SP. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

U.S. Congressional Budget Office

A Review of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s New 

Investment Strategy. April 24, 2008. 

Effect of H.R. 2830 on the Net Economic Costs of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation. December 29, 2005. 

The effect on the 10-year net costs to the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) of enacting S. 1783, the Pension Security and 

Transparency Act of 2005. October 11, 2005. 

A Guide to Understanding the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

September 2005. 

The Risk Exposure of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. 

September 2005. 

Testimony on Multiemployer Pension Plans. June 28, 2005. 

Testimony on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Financial 

Condition, Potential Risks, and Policy Options. June 15, 2005. 

Testimony on Estimating the Costs of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. June 9, 2005. 

Testimony on Defined-Benefit Pension Plans: Current Problems and 

Future Challenges, June 7, 2005. 

U.S. Congressional Research Service 

Baird Webel. Insurance Guaranty Funds. RL32175. February 27, 2008. 

John J. Topoleski. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: A Fact Sheet. 

95-118. January 29, 2008.

Patrick Purcell. Summary of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

RL33703. May 1, 2007. 

Page 26 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
Appendix IV: List of Selected Reports and 

Testimonies Related to the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation 

Page 27 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

William Klunk. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the 

Federal Budget. RS22650. April 24, 2007. 

William Klunk. The Financial Health of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC). RL33937. March 23, 2007. 

Jennifer Staman and Erika Lunder. The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation and Single-Employer Plan Terminations. RS22624. March 

14, 2007. 

Jennifer Staman and Erika Lunder. Pension Protection Act of 2006: 

Summary of the PBGC Guarantee and Related Provisions. RS22513. 

December 20, 2006. 

Neela K. Ranade and Paul J. Graney. Defined Benefit Pension Reform for 

Single-Employer Plans. RL32991. January 26, 2006. 
Appendix V: Comments from the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Page 28 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Appendix V: Comments from the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg, (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov

The following team members made key contributions to this report: 

Blake Ainsworth, Assistant Director; Jason Holsclaw, Analyst-in-Charge; 

Susannah Compton; William King; Matthew Lee; Charlie Willson; and 

Craig Winslow. 

Page 29 GAO-08-1062 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(130860) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER