The Select Committee will hold at least five public hearings, with witness invitations equally divided along party lines. By November 30 of this year, the committee is expected to produce a report on its findings, and if compromise can be reached, legislation for a solution, assuming a majority of the committee's members can agree on a bill.

That will be a considerable bar to meet. Lawmakers are divided on existing legislative proposals, generally along party lines. Democratic leaders have insisted that all pension benefits be preserved. Under the Democrat-sponsored Butch Lewis Act, the Treasury Department would issue securities to institutional investors. Proceeds would be used to channel low interest loans over 30 years to plans facing insolvency. No pensions would be cut.

The plan would require new debt issuance that could to reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars, at a time when some economists are projecting indefinite $1 trillion deficits to the federal budget. The House version of the Butch Lewis Act has 143 co-sponsors, including six Republicans as of last week.

Other Republicans, and some Democrats, favor the creation of so-called composite plans, which provide defined benefits that can be adjusted if plans fall below set funded ratios.

This week, Rep. Phil Roe, M.D., R-TN, and Rep. Donald Norcross, D-NJ, introduced the Give Retirement Options to Workers Act, which would facilitate the adoption of composite plans.

In a press release, the lawmakers said the GROW Act should be part of "larger reforms" to the multiemployer pension system. Rep. Norcross, a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and former president of the southern New Jersey AFL-CIO, contributed to a multiemployer retirement plan for nearly 40 years.

Unions split on support for composite plans

The National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, which advocates for multiemployer plans and their employer sponsors, was the driving force behind the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, which gave pension trustees of plans facing impending insolvency the ability to cut benefits.

It also advocated for composite plans, which ultimately did not make it into the law. Among the NCCMP's board of directors are the heads of several unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the Buildings Trades Unions.

Under NCCMP's vision, composite plans would set benefits based on contributions to the plan. If plans fall below a projected funded level of 120 percent, trustees would be required to adjust contributions, and benefits, to assure future solvency.

Employers that choose to transition to composite plans would be required to continue to fund legacy multiemployer plans.

Not all unions and retirement advocates are on board with composite plans.

"Composite plans are not a solution for under funded pensions," said Karen Friedman, executive vice president for the Pension Rights Center. "They are meant to be a transition for reasonably well-funded plans. We're trying to solve a multiemployer plan crisis. What worries me is that people are conflating the two issues."

Several labor unions, including the United Steelworkers and the Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Teamsters Pension Trust, are opposing composite plans.

Among their concerns, said Ms. Friedman, is that composite plans would not pay premiums to the PBGC. And funds would have to be drawn from existing multiemployer plans to fund new composite plans. That could lead to the underfunding of plans that are now reasonably healthy, potentially resulting in reduced benefits for participants in legacy plans

"We think composite plans would ultimately undercut the multiemployer pension system," said Mr. Friedman. The PRC supports the Butch Lewis Act, and does not think composite plans should be part of any solution that emerges from the Joint Select Committee.

Ms. Friedman said she is "cautiously optimistic" that a workable solution will emerge from the Joint Select Committee.

"No question" that additional action required beyond composite plans

Under the GROW Act, employers that adopt composite plans would still be required to fund legacy pensions.

"While benefit accruals in the legacy plans will cease, employers will still be required to contribute to the plan to ensure that beneficiaries receive what they were promised," said Rep. Roe in an email. "This plan is both pro-worker and pro-employer because it paves the way for workers to receive a lifetime payment while providing certainty for employers and a safety net for future retirees."

The GROW Act has the merit to be considered as stand-alone legislation, thinks Roe. Whether it will be considered as part of the Joint Select Committee's solution is too early to tell.

"It's premature to draw any red lines on what should be included in any potential legislative proposal that comes out of this new joint committee, but it's fair to say that the decisions will be harder and more painful than they would have been had Central States been allowed to go through with its initial strategy to deal with this crisis," Roe said in an email.

In 2016, the Treasury Department rejected the Teamsters Central States pension fund's application to reduce benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act.

Had the plan been approved, about 270,000 participants would have seen some cuts to pensions. Central States' proposal was based on inflated investment return expectations, and the benefit cuts were not spread equitably among participants, according to the Treasury Department. The Central States plan is the largest multiemployer plan facing insolvency, and is projected to run out of money in less than 10 years. That liability would effectively bankrupt the PBGC.

Employers and labor groups see composite plans "as a solid, commonsense step to preserve the retirement security for millions of hardworking Americans," noted Dr. Roe.

But he is under no illusion that they alone can save the worst-funded pension plans.

"There's no question that to address the fiscal health of multiemployer plans will require additional actions because of the previous administration's unwillingness to utilize the tools given to it as part of MPRA," said Dr. Roe.