PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2003
Air Line Pension Act of 2003 - Sets forth special funding requirements for certain pension plans maintained by commercial passenger air carriers (plans), notwithstanding any contrary provisions of the Internal Revenue Code or of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Provides for such plans, if they have a funded percentage of less than 80 percent as of January 1, 2003, the following: (1) modifications of funding rules, including funded percentage, assumed interest rate for determining current liability, and estimation of current liability; (2) a moratorium on the deficit reduction contribution, under specified conditions; (3) a one-time amortization of 2008 unfunded current liability; and (4) recognition of a waiver in the deficit reduction contribution.
Provides for such plans, if they are maintained for benefit of the carrier's employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and if they terminated during calendar year 2003, the following: (1) restoration by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to the plan's pre-termination status and transfer of control of plan assets and liabilities to the employer, unless the collective bargaining agreement provides that the plan should not be restored; (2) exclusion of any expected increase in current liability due to benefits accruing during each plan year; (3) amortization of unfunded amounts under the restoration payment schedule; (4) inapplicability of certain contribution requirements to a restored plan until a plan year beginning on the initial post-restoration valuation date, with modified required annual payments; and (5) resetting of funding standard account balances.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits PBGC liability with respect to certain plans under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Camp, Dave [R-MI-4] · R–MI
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 Employer-Employee Relations.
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.
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.2719 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.2719 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.2719 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.2719 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.