The bill would re-amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In 1980, five years after ERISA was passed and the PBGC was created, Congress passed the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, which allowed lawmakers to count premium receipts within the federal budget. ERISA originally did not include PBGC receipts as part of the federal budget.

Related: PBGC steps in to save pensions

Under ERISA, only Congress has the ability to set premium rates assessed within PBGC’s separate single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs.

In 2015, premium revenue to the single-employer program was about $4.1 billion, according to PBGC. Premium revenues to the single-employer program first eclipsed the $1 billion threshold in 1996, and then declined in the ensuing six years. Premium revenues have doubled since 2011.

In allowing those premiums to be counted within the federal budget, lawmakers have been incentivized to raise premiums on the single-employer program, as a way to offset unrelated federal spending in other areas of the budget, say many pension experts.

The Pension Budget and Integrity Act, which is spare in length by Congressional standards — it is barely longer than three pages — notes that PBGC revenues are double-counted, first as part of PBGC’s general operating budget, and second as part of the federal budget.

“Double-counting revenue is inconsistent with sound budgetary policy and good governance,” the bill says. The bill would apply to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 2016.

Premium increases

The question of increased premiums in PBGC’s single-employer program has been a sore subject for sponsors of defined benefit plans in the private sector.

Last year, Congress authorized yet another round of premium increases during budget negotiations.

The per-participant flat-rate premium for single-employer plans was raised to $64 in 2016, from $57 in 2015. The budget deal increased that rate to $68 in 2017, $73 in 2018, and $78 in 2019.

In the wake of last year’s increases, Alan Glickstein, senior retirement consultant at Towers Watson, likened the new increases to a corporate tax, and suggested added costs to pension sponsors would likely expedite an already active pension de-risking market.

“These are very large increases, which have already been hiked several times in the past few years. It means more uncertainty for sponsors, and that is not good for the country’s retirement income security issues,” Glickstein told BenefitsPro.

“There is no good reason for Congress to go back to the same place to raise revenue and encourage more plan sponsors to de-risk their pension plans, which is exactly what these new increases will do,” he added.

The latest premium increases come as PBGC is reporting the state of the single-employer program is sound, and even stands the chance of running a surplus by 2025.

In response to the introduction of companion legislation to decouple PBGC revenues from the general federal budget fund, Lynn Dudley, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, said: “The PBGC itself has affirmed that the single-employer pension insurance system is in good health and further premium increases would be detrimental to the system. Eliminating the ability to ‘double-count’ these premiums for other spending will keep lawmakers from using pension plans as a piggy bank.”

The American Benefits Council, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group, advocates for sponsors of the largest pension and health care plans.

The trade group says a recent poll of its members showed nearly half of all sponsors of large pensions are planning to exit the system in some capacity.

“The primary reason for these exits is PBGC premium increases,” said Dudley in a statement. “We need timely solutions like PBIA to counteract this trend.”