PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 24, 2011
Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code to authorize the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), provided certain conditions are met, to allow the sponsor of an underfunded multiemployer benefit plan to accept from an employer a ratified collective bargaining agreement that provides for a reduction in plan employer contributions as well as appropriate reduction in the level of future benefit accruals for plan participants for up to five years during the plan funding adoption period, funding improvement period, rehabilitation adoption period, and rehabilitation period.
Conditions such an allowance upon the PBGC's determination that: (1) the contributing employer will be unable to pay its debts when due and to continue business without a reduction in its contribution rates; (2) the contributing employer's aggregate withdrawal liability with respect to all multiemployer pension plans exceeds $750 million (or an appropriate lower amount as the PBGC may determine); (3) the collectability of the withdrawal liability is very doubtful if the contributing employer were to withdraw from the plan; (4) the reduced contributions are not reasonably expected to have an adverse effect on the PBGC deficit; and (5) other creditors, stakeholders, and parties to which the contributing employer is obligated have accepted comparable reductions.
People & committees
Rep. Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS-2] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1969 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1969 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1969 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1969 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.