PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1892-1893)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 8, 2004
Pension Fairness Act of 2004 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code to limit the availability of benefits for corporate directors and executives under an employer's nonqualified deferred compensation plans in the event that any of such employer's defined pension plans are subjected to a distress termination, or to a termination where the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) takes over plan liabilities, in connection with bankruptcy reorganization or a conversion to a cash balance plan.
Sets forth a termination fairness standard for nonqualified deferred compensation plans in cases where the corporation which is plan sponsor of a defined benefit plan adopts a plan amendment which: (1) terminates an underfunded workers' pension plan; or (2) converts a workers' pension plan into a cash balance plan that cuts benefits for workers with ten or more years of service under the plan, or takes away their choice to stay in their original plan.
Disqualifies any director or executive officer of the corporation, for a five-year period after adoption of such an amendment, from: (1) accruing any amount under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan; and (2) receiving any distribution of accrued deferred compensation, if a nonqualified deferred compensation plan or amendment is established or adopted during or after the one-year period preceding the notice date of the defined benefit plan termination or conversion.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1892-1893)
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: Aug 18, 2025. 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.5292 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.5292 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.5292 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.5292 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.