It’s not the first time, and it may not bethe last if Congress doesn’t act. Julio Portalatin, CEO ofconsultant Mercer, is again speaking out against premium increasesfor the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. thatwent into effect with the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of2015.

In April, the PBGC said in a report that premiums were not high enough tosustain its multiemployer insurance program. It did not, however,specify how much premiums should be increased to avoid ashortfall.

Congress sets the premiums, and while there is no variable ratepremium in the multiemployer plan, there is a variable rateassessed on some sponsors in the agency’s single-employerprogram.

But there’s another wrinkle: While the money raised by the PBGCpremiums is used strictly to pay pension benefits to workers whoseemployers have gone under financially, the premiums are counted asgeneral revenue rather than designated solely for PBGC. That hasspurred proposed bipartisan legislation, set forth in April byReps. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, and Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, “toeliminate a Washington-created budget gimmick and protect employeesand their employers.”

H.R. 4955, the Pension and Budget Integrity Act, proposes thatPBGC premiums be moved “off-budget,” to “[ensure] that Congress israising premiums only if and when it is appropriate.”

Portalatin sent a letter last November advocating to themajority and minority leaders of both chambers of Congress that theincreases included in the Bipartisan Budget Act bereconsidered. Now he’s throwing his weight behind H.R. 4955, andhas written to the House Budget and Education and Workforcecommittees to support it — warning that massive premium increasesare discouraging employers from providing pension plans at all.

The bill has gathered a number of cosponsors. In a statementabout the bill, Pocan said, “This legislation will ensure that whenCongress chooses to increase these premiums, it does so for thebenefit of the PBGC and pension beneficiaries.”