{
  "id": "R44722",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "R",
  "number": "R44722",
  "active": true,
  "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov",
      "title": "Proposed Multiemployer Composite Plans: Background and Analysis",
      "retrieved": "2020-09-07T12:22:27.908459",
      "id": "R44722_5_2020-07-07",
      "formats": [
        {
          "filename": "files/2020-07-07_R44722_813fe5f6740360ec4b316f66338bbce171c057fe.pdf",
          "format": "PDF",
          "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44722/5",
          "sha1": "813fe5f6740360ec4b316f66338bbce171c057fe"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/2020-07-07_R44722_813fe5f6740360ec4b316f66338bbce171c057fe.html"
        }
      ],
      "date": "2020-07-07",
      "summary": null,
      "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov",
      "typeId": "R",
      "active": true,
      "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44722",
      "type": "CRS Report"
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 460068,
      "date": "2017-03-27",
      "retrieved": "2017-03-31T18:55:48.294928",
      "title": "Proposed Multiemployer Composite Plans: Background and Analysis",
      "summary": "Multiemployer pension plans are sponsored by more than one employer in the same industry and are maintained as part of a collective bargaining agreement. The challenges facing one type of multiemployer plans\u2014defined benefit (DB) plans, in which participants receive regular monthly benefit payments in retirement\u2014have led stakeholders to seek alternative pension plan designs that could alleviate some of the concerns but retain some of the beneficial features.\nOn September 9, 2016, Representative John Kline, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in the 114th Congress, issued a discussion draft of a bill that would authorize a new multiemployer pension plan called a composite plan. A composite plan would be neither a DB pension nor a defined contribution (DC) pension (such as 401(k) plans, in which participants have individual accounts that are the basis of income in retirement). Since composite plans would be neither DB nor DC plans, authorizing legislation would be necessary to implement the proposal.\nThe composite plan proposal is the third element of a proposal by representatives of an organization of multiemployer pension and health plans to reform multiemployer DB pension plans. The first two elements were adopted as the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA, enacted as Division O in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015; P.L. 113-235). These elements consist of (1) proposals to strengthen the current multiemployer system and (2) measures to assist plans in very poor financial condition.\nThe main features of a composite plan include the following:\nEmployer contributions would generally be a stable amount and would not need to increase in response to investment losses.\nParticipants would receive monthly benefits for the lifetime of the participant (and spouse, if married).\nParticipants\u2019 benefits could decrease if the plan\u2019s assets experienced investment losses.\nComposite plans would not be covered by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insurance and would not receive financial assistance from PBGC if a composite plan were to become insolvent and unable to pay participants\u2019 benefits.\nComposite plans would not feature withdrawal liability, which is an exit fee employers in underfunded multiemployer DB plans must pay to leave the plan.\nFor employers, composite plans would offer several advantages over DB plans. For example, employers would not have to pay withdrawal liability when leaving the plan and the plan would not have to pay PBGC insurance premiums. In addition, the likelihood of stable contributions likely would be an attractive feature.\nRetired participants in composite plans would receive monthly benefit payments. However, the benefit amounts could increase or decrease, depending on the investment experience of the plan. The composite plan proposal contains a procedure to address situations in which plan assets fall below 120% of plan liabilities, such as could occur if there were investment losses. This realignment program includes proposed, though not mandatory, contribution increases and mandatory benefit reductions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44722",
          "sha1": "1414c1391982e8729ff194832b9c82a2a9f41ff1",
          "filename": "files/20170327_R44722_1414c1391982e8729ff194832b9c82a2a9f41ff1.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44722",
          "sha1": "876cd6b13fd957688023a2537a8ff5a1705b95a3",
          "filename": "files/20170327_R44722_876cd6b13fd957688023a2537a8ff5a1705b95a3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4869,
          "name": "Pensions & IRAs"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 457927,
      "date": "2016-12-29",
      "retrieved": "2017-01-03T22:36:43.047758",
      "title": "Proposed Multiemployer Composite Plans: Background and Analysis",
      "summary": "Multiemployer pension plans are sponsored by more than one employer in the same industry and are maintained as part of a collective bargaining agreement. The challenges facing one type of multiemployer plans\u2014defined benefit (DB) plans, in which participants receive regular monthly benefit payments in retirement\u2014have led stakeholders to seek alternative pension plan designs that could alleviate some of the concerns but retain some of the beneficial features.\nOn September 9, 2016, Representative John Kline, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in the 114th Congress, issued a discussion draft of a bill that would authorize a new multiemployer pension plan called a composite plan. A composite plan would be neither a DB pension nor a defined contribution (DC) pension (such as 401(k) plans, in which participants have individual accounts that are the basis of income in retirement). Since composite plans would be neither DB nor DC plans, authorizing legislation would be necessary to implement the proposal.\nThe composite plan proposal is the third element of a proposal by representatives of an organization of multiemployer pension and health plans to reform multiemployer DB pension plans. The first two elements were adopted as the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA, enacted as Division O in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015; P.L. 113-235). These elements consist of (1) proposals to strengthen the current multiemployer system and (2) measures to assist plans in very poor financial condition.\nThe main features of a composite plan include the following:\nEmployer contributions would generally be a stable amount and would not need to increase in response to investment losses.\nParticipants would receive monthly benefits for the lifetime of the participant (and spouse, if married).\nParticipants\u2019 benefits could decrease if the plan\u2019s assets experienced investment losses.\nComposite plans would not be covered by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insurance and would not receive financial assistance from PBGC if a composite plan were to become insolvent and unable to pay participants\u2019 benefits.\nComposite plans would not feature withdrawal liability, which is an exit fee employers in underfunded multiemployer DB plans must pay to leave the plan.\nFor employers, composite plans would offer several advantages over DB plans. For example, employers would not have to pay withdrawal liability when leaving the plan and the plan would not have to pay PBGC insurance premiums. In addition, the likelihood of stable contributions likely would be an attractive feature.\nRetired participants in composite plans would receive monthly benefit payments. However, the benefit amounts could increase or decrease, depending on the investment experience of the plan. The composite plan proposal contains a procedure to address situations in which plan assets fall below 120% of plan liabilities, such as could occur if there were investment losses. This realignment program includes proposed, though not mandatory, contribution increases and mandatory benefit reductions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44722",
          "sha1": "8daaa1b0999210ce65f01fd08de4fba3469a8575",
          "filename": "files/20161229_R44722_8daaa1b0999210ce65f01fd08de4fba3469a8575.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44722",
          "sha1": "be55a80f36f9d2b978a1b763bf49c03911991dcc",
          "filename": "files/20161229_R44722_be55a80f36f9d2b978a1b763bf49c03911991dcc.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Domestic Social Policy"
  ]
}