The Balance the Scales Act aims to address disparities in education and workforce development by ensuring more equitable access to resources and opportunities across different communities. This report from the House Education and Workforce Committee examines how the legislation would help level the playing field for students and workers who have historically faced barriers to quality education and job training. The bill matters because it seeks to reduce achievement and opportunity gaps that affect economic mobility and competitiveness in the job market.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-504 - BALANCE THE SCALES ACT
[House Report 119-504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-504
======================================================================
BALANCE THE SCALES ACT
_______
February 20, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Walberg, from the Committee on Education and Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2958]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 2958) to amend the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to require that the Employee
Benefit Security Administration submit an annual report to
Congress on adverse interest agreements, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Balance the Scales Act''.
SEC. 2. REPORT ON ADVERSE INTEREST AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 504 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1134) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(f) Collaboration With Plaintiff Attorneys.--
``(1) In general.--In the event that the Secretary provides
adverse assistance to an individual, prior to providing the
adverse assistance, the Secretary shall--
``(A) enter into a written agreement with the
individual that details the nature and scope of such
assistance, and
``(B) provide a copy of such agreement to any
employer, plan sponsor, or fiduciary that may be
directly and adversely impacted by such assistance.
``(2) Adverse assistance defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `adverse assistance' means assistance or
advice, including the disclosure of information as described in
subsection (a), that is directed specifically toward an
attorney for potential use in a civil action under section
502(a).
``(3) Report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, and by December
31 of each year that begins after such date, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing
information on all agreements to provide adverse
assistance in effect for the preceding fiscal year,
including, in relation to each such agreement--
``(i) a copy of the agreement, with any
information described in subparagraph (B)(ii)
redacted;
``(ii) the date the agreement was entered
into;
``(iii) a detailed description of the nature
and scope of the assistance provided during the
fiscal year, including--
``(I) the information shared,
including the source, type, and amount
of the information, and the date on
which such information was shared;
``(II) a log of verbal
communications, including--
``(aa) the date of each
communication;
``(bb) the parties engaged in
such communication;
``(cc) the mode of
communication; and
``(dd) the nature of any
information shared; and
``(III) a log of meetings,
including--
``(aa) the date of each
meeting;
``(bb) the parties present at
the meeting;
``(cc) mode of the meeting;
and
``(dd) the purpose of such
meeting and the nature of any
information shared; and
``(iv) an explanation of how such agreement
is consistent with the public policy of
promoting the voluntary sponsorship of employee
benefit plans subject to this Act.
``(B) Identifying information.--The report described
under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall identify the parties to each
agreement; and
``(ii) may not include any information that
may be used to identify any other person
(including an employer, plan sponsor, plan
fiduciary, service provider, or any other
potential defendant).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), the amendments
made by this section shall apply to any adverse assistance
provided on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Existing agreements.--For the purposes of paragraph (1)
of section 504(f) (as added by this section) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1134(f)), if, not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Labor takes the actions required in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of such paragraph in relation to an existing
arrangement to provide adverse assistance, the Secretary shall
be deemed to have taken such actions prior to providing such
adverse assistance.
SEC. 3. PRIVATE PENSION PLANS AS INTEGRAL TO THE CONTINUED WELL-BEING
AND SECURITY OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDANTS.
Section 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1001) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Congress finds that the retirement security of millions of
employees and their dependents is directly impacted by the voluntary
sponsorship and maintenance of pension plans. It is hereby declared to
be a policy of this Act to promote, encourage, and facilitate the
voluntary establishment and maintenance of, and contribution to, such
plans.''.
Purpose
H.R. 2958, the Balance the Scales Act, amends the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to require that
the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) make an
annual report to Congress detailing the assistance given to
attorneys for potential use in civil litigation.
Committee Action
119TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearing
On June 5, 2025, the Committee on Education and Workforce
(Committee) held a hearing entitled ``Examining the Policies
and Priorities of the U.S. Department of Labor,'' which
reviewed the Department of Labor's (DOL) past and present
operations and looked ahead to its plans for Fiscal Year 2026,
including action taken with respect to information sharing with
plaintiff attorneys for potential use in civil litigation. The
witness was the Honorable Lori M. Chavez DeRemer, Secretary of
Labor, Washington, D.C.
On July 22, 2025, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing entitled ``Restoring
Trust: Enhancing Transparency and Oversight at EBSA,'' which
examined EBSA's information sharing authority and H.R. 2958,
the Balance the Scales Act, among other proposals to protect
the retirement savings of workers and their families. Witnesses
were Mr. Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law, Washington, D.C.;
Mr. Andy Banducci, Senior Vice President, Retirement and
Compensation Policy, ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC),
Washington, D.C.; Mr. James Bonham, President and CEO, The ESOP
Association, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Ali Khawar, Founder and
President, FCP, LLC, Washington, D.C.
Legislative Action
On April 17, 2025, Representative Michael Rulli (R-OH)
introduced H.R. 2958, the Balance the Scales Act, which was
referred solely to the Committee. On September 17, 2025, the
Committee considered H.R. 2958 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a recorded vote of 19-16. Representative
Rulli offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that
made a technical change to the bill. The amendment passed by
voice vote.
Committee Views
INTRODUCTION
Private pension plans are integral to the long-term
financial well-being and security of employees and their
families. The Committee believes that ERISA should state that
it is a policy of the statute to promote, encourage, and
facilitate the voluntary establishment of, maintenance of, and
contribution to such plans. The Committee learned in 2024 that
DOL was covertly assisting class action plaintiff attorneys by
sharing confidential information obtained through
investigations conducted by EBSA. The Committee believes that
transparency is fundamental to good government and that DOL
should be fully transparent to Congress and to affected parties
regarding the information it shares and the assistance it
provides to plaintiff attorneys.
BACKGROUND
ERISA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to administer and
enforce the statute's protections.\1\ EBSA is the agency at DOL
tasked with the primary responsibility for ensuring employer-
sponsored retirement and group health plans comply with Title I
of ERISA.\2\ This enforcement mandate is expansive: EBSA's
jurisdiction extends to about 837,000 private retirement plans,
2.8 million health plans, and 521,000 other welfare benefit
plans holding approximately $14.6 trillion in assets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ERISA Sec. Sec. 501-521, 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1131-1151.
\2\https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/about-us/what-we-
do.
\3\https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa (accessed Oct. 1,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA exercises its enforcement authority through
investigations. EBSA investigators may compel testimony,
subpoena documents, and coordinate with DOL's Office of the
Solicitor to pursue civil litigation or refer criminal matters
to the Department of Justice. ERISA provides that the Secretary
of Labor may ``make available to any person actually affected
by any matter which is the subject of an investigation . . .
information concerning any matter which may be the subject of
such investigation.''\4\ Information sharing is an important
tool Congress granted to DOL to administer and enforce ERISA's
provisions. However, the Biden-Harris administration abused
this authority by secretly feeding information to plaintiffs'
class action attorneys in a way that amounted to an end-run
around federal rules of procedure and discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\29 U.S.C. Sec. 1134(b), ERISA Sec. 504(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA'S ABUSE OF INFORMATION-SHARING AUTHORITY UNDER THE BIDEN-HARRIS
ADMINISTRATION
EBSA's enforcement activities include using common interest
agreements to share information with outside litigants. A
common interest agreement (CIA) is a legal arrangement
typically used when two parties with common legal interests are
cooperating toward common litigation. The CIA allows them to
share privileged information with each other without waiving
confidentiality.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Harrison v. Envision Mgmt., No. 1:21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB, at 17 (D.
Colo. filed Sept. 11, 2024) (order) (Braswell, Mag. J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the EBSA context, under the guise of a CIA, DOL shared
information from an ongoing EBSA investigation with a private
plaintiffs' class action law firm that was simultaneously suing
the same employee benefit plan sponsor. Effectively, EBSA was
secretly collaborating with one side of a private class-action
lawsuit against a plan fiduciary by feeding the plaintiffs'
lawyer information gathered while the agency was exercising its
investigative powers.\6\ On July 22, 2025, the defense attorney
who initially uncovered this secretive collaboration, Mr. Lars
Golumbic, Principal and Co-Chair of Groom Law Group's ERISA
Litigation Group, testified before a HELP Subcommittee hearing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\This practice came to light in late 2024 during litigation over
an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). An ESOP is an ERISA pension
plan funded by employer stock. In Harrison v. Envision Management, the
defense counsel discovered that DOL was sharing confidential
investigation information with the plaintiffs' law firm, which claimed
the sharing arrangement was privileged and must remain secret because
it was a CIA. The court disagreed. Id.
It was not until last year that [Groom Law Group]
uncovered concrete proof that the DOL has been working
hand-in-glove with the plaintiffs' bar . . . . [A]
plaintiff's firm that specializes in bringing ERISA
class action lawsuits [was] forced to produce in
discovery an agreement formally memorializing the
supposed common interest relationship between the DOL
and Plaintiff's counsel. This ``common interest
agreement'' outlined the terms governing the manner in
which the DOL would spoon-feed Plaintiffs' counsel
information designated as confidential under the
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') that the DOL
collected during its investigation to help Plaintiffs'
counsel prosecute its case.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Restoring Trust: Enhancing Transparency and Oversight at EBSA:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Health, Emp., Lab.,& Pensions of the H.
Comm. on Educ. & Workforce, 119th Cong. (2025) (written statement of
Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law Group, at 2) [hereinafter Restoring
Trust], https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
golumbic_testimony.pdf.
When this clandestine agreement surfaced, the federal
magistrate in the case refused to grant attorney client-
privilege to the plaintiffs, which would have preserved
confidentiality for the CIA, calling the arrangement a
``dangerous precedent.''\8\ The court warned that such an
arrangement ``would allow a government agency to weaponize
private litigation against some target before confirming the
target should be a target,'' essentially enabling DOL to
``litigate in the shadows'' without affording the employee
benefit plan sponsor a fair chance to defend itself.\9\ The
magistrate's opinion stated that the ``Plaintiffs'' arrangement
with the DOL has given Plaintiffs' access to information they
can leverage, use to take shortcuts, and rely upon to
circumvent ordinary discovery protocols. The Court cannot allow
that to continue.''\10\ In the court's view, EBSA's secret
partnership with the plaintiffs' attorney undermined
fundamental due process. Mr. Golumbic, who served as defense
counsel in the case, summed up the court's reaction: ``In a
series of rulings, the District Court rightly lambasted the
[class action plaintiffs'' attorneys] and the DOL for this
insidious practice, holding that they did not, in fact, share a
common interest.''\11\ Mr. Golumbic added:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Harrison, No. 1:21-cv-00304-CNS-MDB, at 16.
\9\Id.
\10\Id. at 17.
\11\Restoring Trust, supra note 7 (written statement of Lars
Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law Group, at 2).
The DOL's actions are not only distastefully
underhanded, but they also run afoul of a number of
legal protections to which plan sponsors, fiduciaries,
and service providers are entitled under the law . . .
. [I]n my experience, the DOL regularly circumvents
these safeguards when it shares such information with
the plaintiffs' bar.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 3-4).
Unfortunately, DOL's secret assistance was not an isolated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
incident. Mr. Golumbic stated:
We had uncovered proof positive that the DOL had been
secretly feeding confidential information and documents
that plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and service providers
had provided during investigations and audits to
private plaintiffs' attorneys. Since this initial
discovery [in 2024], my firm and others have uncovered
even more evidence of this secret partnership between
the plaintiffs' bar and the government. For example,
just one recent, targeted FOIA request revealed that
the DOL has shared information with plantiffs' counsel
in many other class action lawsuits in the past few
years alone, providing information and documents,
coordinating on discovery, recommending favorable
mediators, discussing legal strategy, and much more.
Our understanding is that the DOL has done so in some
matters even without the existence of a common interest
agreement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 3).
The initial discovery and subsequent events confirmed what
many in the benefits community had long suspected: that EBSA
was sharing confidential information with class action law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
firms to support their lawsuits. Mr. Golumbic stated:
The ERISA defense bar has long suspected DOL had been
supplying private plaintiffs' attorneys information it
collected during investigations. It has been common in
my experience for a frenetic DOL investigation to
suddenly stagnate after the target produces documents
or sits for interviews, only for a plaintiffs' law firm
that specializes in ERISA class action lawsuits to file
a complaint against the fiduciaries or company sponsor
of the same retirement plan concerning the very issues
at the center of the DOL's investigation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 1-2).
DOL's underhanded practices are not without harm. According
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to Mr. Golumbic:
The DOL stomps on the scales of justice when it
circumvents [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]
guardrails, creating an uneven playing field for plan
sponsors, fiduciaries, and service providers--not to
mention potentially significant pay days for the ERISA
plaintiffs' bar. Armed with key information and
documents that they would not otherwise have access to,
private plaintiffs' attorneys have far better odds of
surviving a motion to dismiss, unlocking the gates to
costly discovery and, by extension, obtaining leverage
to extort favorable settlements--even for defendants
who have fully complied with ERISA's standards but, in
the absence of a settlement, would need to endure
onerous discovery to get to trial and prove it. As the
Supreme Court recently put it: ``[I]n modern civil
litigation, getting by a motion to dismiss is often the
whole ball game because of the cost of discovery.
Defendants facing those costs often calculate that it
is efficient to settle a case even though they are
convinced that they would win if litigation
continued.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Golumbic added:
This continues to be true in the ERISA class action
space, even as defendants in such lawsuits have largely
prevailed on summary judgement and at trial, i.e., once
the case actually reaches the merits.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT ACTIONS
Employee benefit plan fiduciaries who cooperate with EBSA
inquiries reasonably expect that the information they provide
will be used for enforcement purposes only, not handed off to
private lawyers who are suing them. Yet here, under the guise
of a ``common interest,'' EBSA breached that expectation. In a
November 2024 letter to DOL's Office of Inspector General
(OIG), the Committee wrote that EBSA appeared to be using its
governmental investigatory authority to sidestep the normal
rules of court discovery.\17\ On January 23, 2025, Chairman Tim
Walberg (R-MI) renewed the request that the DOL OIG investigate
these agreements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
11.21.24_dol_oig_letter_re_ebsa_
aiding_plaintiffs_attorneys.pdf.
\18\https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
01.23.25_ebsa_info_sharing_letter_to_dol_oig.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2024, a DOL spokesperson stated that EBSA had
``entered into nine common interest agreements since 2022, of
which six were with private plaintiffs'' firms.'' DOL implied
this was a small number, noting that EBSA had over 1,600 open
civil investigations since 2022. DOL also contended that it has
legal authority to share information with ``any person actually
affected'' by an investigation under ERISA.\19\ However,
employee benefit plan sponsors and many experts strongly
challenge the propriety of this practice. They argue that while
limited information sharing may be lawful in certain contexts,
the plaintiffs' law firm was using an invalid agreement ``to
circumvent ordinary discovery protocols,'' as the magistrate
judge noted in Harrison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2025/6/dol-inspector-
general-to-audit-common-interest-agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's ongoing oversight, which included a request
that the DOL OIG review the matter, prompted the DOL OIG to
expand its initial review and open an audit in June 2025
examining DOL's use of CIAs and ``how [DOL] has shared
investigative information with non-governmental entities
involved in class action litigation.''\20\ This audit is
expected to ascertain the extent of EBSA's information sharing
and what internal controls, if any, governed these decisions.
The audit underscores the opacity of EBSA's actions in this
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/oaprojects/
DOL%20Common%20Interest%20Agreements_
Engagement%20Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEED FOR A POLICY CHANGE AT DOL
The vast majority of ERISA plans are voluntarily sponsored
and maintained by private employers. These employee benefit
plans are foundational to the well-being of American workers
and their families. Employers should be encouraged to sponsor
these plans. As the primary administrator of ERISA, DOL should
promote, encourage, and facilitate the voluntary establishment
of, maintenance of, and contribution to these plans. However,
the plan sponsor community does not view DOL as a partner in
compliance with ERISA's complicated framework. Rather, DOL is
viewed as adversarial to plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries.
Mr. James Bonham, President and CEO of The ESOP
Association, testified at the HELP Subcommittee's July 22
hearing regarding EBSA enforcement:
The enforcement and investigative actions by [EBSA]
are broken, misaligned, and abusive, and have been for
decades. Sadly, the chilling effect of this
longstanding posture on plan formation has denied
potentially millions of workers the chance for a better
retirement and a better workplace. EBSA needs
substantial reforms.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Restoring Trust, supra note 7 (written statement of James
Bonham, President & CEO, The ESOP Ass'n, at 1), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/golumbic_testimony.pdf.
With respect to EBSA's increasing hostility to plan
sponsors that voluntarily sponsor retirement and other employee
benefit plans, Mr. Golumbic stated:
The DOL's apparent practice of using common interest
agreements is a disappointing development. Earlier in
my career, the DOL was viewed as a welcome partner in a
collaborative regulatory process. While the DOL and
private sector did not always see eye-to-eye, the
relationship was not antagonistic; reasonable minds
were able to come together to reach commonsense
agreements that worked for all stakeholders. Now, the
notion that the DOL is on the same ``team'' as the
ERISA plaintiffs' bar, with the regulated community on
``the other side,'' seems to have metastasized within
the DOL--despite the fact that all are aligned in
furthering ERISA's goal of encouraging employers to
create and maintain benefit plans for their employees.
Common interest agreements are but one symptom of this
broader problem.
One reason for this unwelcome development seems to be
the revolving door between the DOL and the ERISA
plaintiffs' bar: frequently attorneys departing the DOL
slide directly into private practice with the very
plaintiffs' firms to which the DOL attorneys
backchanneled confidential information during their
tenures. This incestuous relationship creates an
alarming conflict for DOL personnel: use the DOL's
subpoena power to force businesses to produce valuable
confidential information, enrich plaintiffs' firms by
providing it to them under the guise of a ``common
interest,'' and get rewarded with a lucrative landing
spot after leaving your government post.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Id. (written statement of Lars Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law
Group, at 5-6).
Further, during the HELP Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Andy
Banducci, Senior Vice President for Retirement and Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy at ERIC, stated:
Rather than reflexively viewing plan sponsors as
adversaries, the [DOL] should see plan sponsors as key
partners in enhancing health care and retirement
security. Instead, our member companies--who invest
millions of dollars in compliance and take pride in
their benefits programs--too often are the subject of
``gotcha'' enforcement. Rebuilding this balance will
take time and leadership, but we have some good recent
developments [under the Trump administration]. For
example, the [DOL's] recently modernized opinion letter
initiative [announced June 2, 2025] is a positive first
step toward emphasizing compliance assistance.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Id. (written statement of Andy Banducci, Senior Vice President,
Retirement & Comp. Policy, ERIC, at 2), https://edworkforce.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/banducci_testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The Committee believes that it is crucial for Congress and
the employee benefit plan sponsor community to know the nature
and extent of assistance that DOL is giving plaintiff
attorneys. Mr. Banducci's testimony states that ``policymakers
should demand transparency and accountability from the
regulatory agencies charged with administering'' the laws that
govern benefit plans.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Id. (written statement of Andy Banducci, Senior Vice President,
Retirement & Comp. Policy, ERIC, at 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Golumbic agreed and noted how the Balance the Scales
Act could improve DOL's practices:
Given the current state of affairs, the ``Balance the
Scales Act'' is a much needed and welcome reform that
will help to bring the DOL's underhanded activities out
into the light of the public eye--as they should have
been from the very beginning . . . . The importance of
protecting the retirement assets of American workers
cannot be understated. It is equally as essential to
encourage employers to sponsor retirement plans in the
first place. Fewer will do so if they feel that the
playing field is tilted against them, even where they
and fiduciaries unquestionably meet their obligations
under ERISA. Together, these laws are an important
first step in remedying the broken system that has,
unsurprisingly, disrupted the careful balance that
Congress struck when it enacted ERISA's regulatory and
enforcement scheme.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Restoring Trust, supra note 7 (written statement of Lars
Golumbic, Principal, Groom Law Group, at 6), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/golumbic_testimony.pdf.
Mr. Bonham's July 22, 2025, testimony also underscores the
need for the public to understand the extent of EBSA's
assistance to plaintiff attorneys: ``While we do not yet know
the full extent of these secret agreements, it is clear that
EBSA is using its investigatory authority to support private
law firms and plaintiff litigants, thereby violating plan
sponsor due process and fairness.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Restoring Trust, supra note 7 (written statement of James
Bonham, President & CEO, The ESOP Ass'n, at 2), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bonham_testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan sponsors should not have to guess what EBSA is doing
with the information it collects during an investigation.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
SUPPORT FOR H.R. 2958
H.R. 2958 is supported by the National Coordinating
Committee on Multiemployer Pension Plans, the Society of
Professional Asset Managers and Recordkeepers Institute, the
Business Group on Health, the American Benefits Council, The
ESOP Association, ERIC, the Investment Company Institute, and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
CONCLUSION
ERISA should be amended to explicitly state that a
fundamental policy of the statute is to promote, encourage, and
facilitate the voluntary establishment, maintenance, and
funding of employee pension plans. ERISA should also be amended
to provide transparency for plan sponsors and fiduciaries by
requiring DOL to notify private parties who may be adversely
impacted by any assistance DOL provides to plaintiff attorneys.
Further, ERISA should be amended to ensure accountability by
requiring DOL to report annually to Congress, detailing the
adverse assistance that DOL gives to plaintiff attorneys. The
report should include a detailed explanation of how that
assistance aligns with ERISA's core policy objective of
promoting voluntary private pension plan sponsorship and
participation.
H.R. 2958 Section-by-Section Summary
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that the short title is the ``Balance
the Scales Act.''
Section 2. Amending ERISA to require an annual report on EBSA
investigations
Section 2(a) amends section 504 of part 4 of subtitle B of
Title I of ERISA by adding a new paragraph (f) to require an
annual report to Congress.
New subparagraph 504(f)(1) of ERISA requires the Secretary
of Labor to enter into a written agreement with an attorney
detailing the nature and scope of any adverse assistance for
potential use in civil litigation before providing such
assistance, and to provide that agreement to any employer, plan
sponsor, or fiduciary that may be directly and adversely
impacted by such assistance.
Under new subparagraph 504(f)(2) of ERISA, adverse
assistance for this purpose means any assistance or advice
(including information sharing) specifically directed toward an
attorney for potential use in civil litigation.
New subparagraph 504(f)(3) requires the Secretary to file
an annual report with Congress detailing all adverse assistance
agreements with attorneys for potential use in civil litigation
which were in effect during the previous fiscal year. A copy of
each agreement must be included with the report (with
information redacted regarding private parties such as the
employer, plan sponsor, plan fiduciary, service provider, or
any other potential defendant). The report must also include
the date the agreement was entered into, the specific
information shared, and a log of verbal communications and
meetings. Finally, the report must include an explanation of
how each adverse assistance agreement is consistent with the
public policy of promoting the voluntary sponsorship of
employee benefit plans.
Section 2(b) of the bill provides that the effective date
is the date of enactment, and the requirements for written
agreements and notice to potentially affected parties is
immediate. In the event that the Secretary is already operating
under a written common interest agreement as of the date of
enactment, the Secretary has 60 days to conform the agreement
to the terms of the statute and to provide notice to affected
parties.
Section 3. Amending ERISA to expressly state public policy
Section 3 amends section 2 of subtitle B of Title I of
ERISA to add a new section 2(d) with findings and policy to
guide DOL and EBSA in the administration of ERISA. The new
section 2(d) states that Congress finds that the retirement
security of millions of employees and their dependents is
directly impacted by the voluntary sponsorship and maintenance
of pension plans. The new Section 2(d) provides that it is a
policy of ERISA to promote, encourage, and facilitate the
voluntary establishment and maintenance of, and contribution
to, pension plans.
Explanation of Amendments
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is explained in
the body of this report.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee traditionally adopts as
its own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Earmark Statement
H.R. 2958 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House rule XXI.
Roll Call Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House of
Representatives rule XIII, the goal of H.R. 2958, the Balance
the Scales Act, is to support the voluntary maintenance of
ERISA pension plans, to provide advance notice to employee
benefit plan sponsors and others who service these plans of any
adverse assistance DOL provides to plaintiff attorneys for
potential use in civil litigation, and to provide an annual
report to Congress regarding the details any such adverse
assistance.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 2958 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
Required Committee Hearing
In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives the following hearing held
during the 119th Congress was used to develop or consider H.R.
2958: On July 22, 2025, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment,
Labor and Pensions held a hearing on ``Restoring Trust:
Enhancing Transparency and Oversight at EBSA.''
New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2958.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report,
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate for the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
H.R. 2958 would require the Secretary of Labor to notify
sponsors of employee benefit plans and employers when the
Secretary provides ``adverse assistance,'' which is defined in
the bill as information or advice that could be used by plan
participants in a civil action against the plans or employers.
Under current law, participants in retirement and health plans
can sue plan managers and employers. The Employee Benefits
Security Administration has the authority to investigate those
plans to ensure that they comply with requirements in the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In some cases,
that agency shares information from those investigations with
plan participants for use in potential litigation.
H.R. 2958 would require the Department of Labor (DOL) to
enter into a written agreement with the recipient before
sharing such information and to provide that agreement to any
employer, plan sponsor, or fiduciary that could be directly and
adversely affected by the information. The bill also would
require DOL to report annually to the Congress on each of those
agreements.
Using information from DOL and based on the costs of
similar reporting requirements, CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 2958 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2026-2030
period. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Noah Meyerson.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Committee Cost Estimate
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2958.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report,
the Committee has requested a cost estimate for the bill from
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY
Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that the growth in size,
scope, and numbers of employee benefit plans in recent years
has been rapid and substantial; that the operational scope and
economic impact of such plans is increasingly interstate; that
the continued well-being and security of millions of employees
and their dependents are directly affected by these plans; that
they are affected with a national public interest; that they
have become an important factor affecting the stability of
employment and the successful development of industrial
relations; that they have become an important factor in
commerce because of the interstate character of their
activities, and of the activities of their participants, and
the employers, employee organizations, and other entities by
which they are established or maintained; that a large volume
of the activities of such plans is carried on by means of the
mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce; that owing
to the lack of employee information and adequate safeguards
concerning their operation, it is desirable in the interests of
employees and their beneficiaries, and to provide for the
general welfare and the free flow of commerce, that disclosure
be made and safeguards be provided with respect to the
establishment, operation, and administration of such plans;
that they substantially affect the revenues of the United
States because they are afforded preferential Federal tax
treatment; that despite the enormous growth in such plans many
employees with long years of employment are losing anticipated
retirement benefits owing to the lack of vesting provisions in
such plans; that owing to the inadequacy of current minimum
standards, the soundness and stability of plans with respect to
adequate funds to pay promised benefits may be endangered; that
owing to the termination of plans before requisite funds have
been accumulated, employees and their beneficiaries have been
deprived of anticipated benefits; and that it is therefore
desirable in the interests of employees and their
beneficiaries, for the protection of the revenue of the United
States, and to provide for the free flow of commerce, that
minimum standards be provided assuring the equitable character
of such plans and their financial soundness.
(b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act to
protect interstate commerce and the interests of participants
in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries, by requiring
the disclosure and reporting to participants and beneficiaries
of financial and other information with respect thereto, by
establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and
obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by
providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access
to the Federal courts.
(c) It is hereby further declared to be the policy of this
Act to protect interstate commerce, the Federal taxing power,
and the interests of participants in private pension plans and
their beneficiaries by improving the equitable character and
the soundness of such plans by requiring them to vest the
accrued benefits of employees with significant periods of
service, to meet minimum standards of funding, and by requiring
plan termination insurance.
(d) Congress finds that the retirement security of millions
of employees and their dependents is directly impacted by the
voluntary sponsorship and maintenance of pension plans. It is
hereby declared to be a policy of this Act to promote,
encourage, and facilitate the voluntary establishment and
maintenance of, and contribution to, such plans.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Regulatory Provisions
* * * * * * *
Part 5--Administration and Enforcement
* * * * * * *
INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY
Sec. 504. (a) The Secretary shall have the power, in order to
determine whether any person has violated or is about to
violate any provision of this title or any regulation or order
thereunder--
(1) to make an investigation, and in connection
therewith to require the submission of reports, books,
and records, and the filing of data in support of any
information required to be filed with the Secretary
under this title, and
(2) to enter such places, inspect such books and
records and question such persons as he may deem
necessary to enable him to determine the facts relative
to such investigation, if he has reasonable cause to
believe there may exist a violation of this title or
any rule or regulation issued thereunder or if the
entry is pursuant to an agreement with the plan.
The Secretary may make available to any person actually
affected by any matter which is the subject of an investigation
under this section, and to any department or agency of the
United States, information concerning any matter which may be
the subject of such investigation; except that any information
obtained by the Secretary pursuant to section 6103(g) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be made available only in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
(b) The Secretary may not under the authority of this section
require any plan to submit to the Secretary any books or
records of the plan more than once in any 12 month period,
unless the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe there may
exist a violation of this title or any regulation or order
thereunder.
(c) For the purposes of any investigation provided for in
this title, the provisions of sections 9 and 10 (relating to
the attendance of witnesses and the production of books,
records, and documents) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 49, 50) are hereby made applicable (without regard to
any limitation in such sections respecting persons,
partnerships, banks, or common carriers) to the jurisdiction,
powers, and duties of the Secretary or any officers designated
by him. To the extent he considers appropriate, the Secretary
may delegate his investigative functions under this section
with respect to insured banks acting as fiduciaries of employee
benefit plans to the appropriate Federal banking agency (as
defined in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1813(q)).
(d) The Secretary may promulgate a regulation that provides
an evidentiary privilege for, and provides for the
confidentiality of communications between or among, any of the
following entities or their agents, consultants, or employees:
(1) A State insurance department.
(2) A State attorney general.
(3) The National Association of Insurance
Commissioners.
(4) The Department of Labor.
(5) The Department of the Treasury.
(6) The Department of Justice.
(7) The Department of Health and Human Services.
(8) Any other Federal or State authority that the
Secretary determines is appropriate for the purposes of
enforcing the provisions of this title.
(e) The privilege established under subsection (d) shall
apply to communications related to any investigation, audit,
examination, or inquiry conducted or coordinated by any of the
agencies. A communication that is privileged under subsection
(d) shall not waive any privilege otherwise available to the
communicating agency or to any person who provided the
information that is communicated.
(f) Collaboration With Plaintiff Attorneys.--
(1) In general.--In the event that the Secretary
provides adverse assistance to an individual, prior to
providing the adverse assistance, the Secretary shall--
(A) enter into a written agreement with the
individual that details the nature and scope of
such assistance, and
(B) provide a copy of such agreement to any
employer, plan sponsor, or fiduciary that may
be directly and adversely impacted by such
assistance.
(2) Adverse assistance defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``adverse assistance'' means
assistance or advice, including the disclosure of
information as described in subsection (a), that is
directed specifically toward an attorney for potential
use in a civil action under section 502(a).
(3) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this subsection, and
by December 31 of each year that begins after
such date, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing information on all
agreements to provide adverse assistance in
effect for the preceding fiscal year,
including, in relation to each such agreement--
(i) a copy of the agreement, with any
information described in subparagraph
(B)(ii) redacted;
(ii) the date the agreement was
entered into;
(iii) a detailed description of the
nature and scope of the assistance
provided during the fiscal year,
including--
(I) the information shared,
including the source, type, and
amount of the information, and
the date on which such
information was shared;
(II) a log of verbal
communications, including--
(aa) the date of each
communication;
(bb) the parties
engaged in such
communication;
(cc) the mode of
communication; and
(dd) the nature of
any information shared;
and
(III) a log of meetings,
including--
(aa) the date of each
meeting;
(bb) the parties
present at the meeting;
(cc) mode of the
meeting; and
(dd) the purpose of
such meeting and the
nature of any
information shared; and
(iv) an explanation of how such
agreement is consistent with the public
policy of promoting the voluntary
sponsorship of employee benefit plans
subject to this Act.
(B) Identifying information.--The report
described under subparagraph (A)--
(i) shall identify the parties to
each agreement; and
(ii) may not include any information
that may be used to identify any other
person (including an employer, plan
sponsor, plan fiduciary, service
provider, or any other potential
defendant).
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Introduction
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) within
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) protects
workers' hard-earned health and retirement benefits. EBSA's
enforcement program helps ensure that workers get their
promised benefits. H.R. 2958, the Balance the Scales Act,
amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to
limit EBSA's ability to communicate with attorneys representing
workers.\1\ The bill does not include any commensurate
limitations on EBSA's ability to communicate with attorneys
representing corporations or health insurance companies.
Committee Democrats believe that, instead of advancing this
partisan bill that is designed to favor the defense bar,
Congress should work to ensure that EBSA has the funding and
personnel it needs to fulfill its critical mission and growing
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Pub. L. No 93-406, 88
Stat. 829 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2958 Imposes a Needless, One-Sided Requirement in Response to a
Legally Permissible and Rarely Used DOL Practice
Under ERISA, the Secretary of Labor is permitted to share
information obtained during an investigation with ``any person
actually affected by any matter which is the subject of an
investigation.''\2\ Using this grant of authority, the
Department has, in a small number of cases, entered into common
interest agreements with certain parties to litigation in which
there is a shared interest in furthering the Department's
statutory mission of advancing the interest of workers through
enforcement of the requirements of ERISA.\3\ These agreements
are rare. In fact, in response to a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request covering a 15-year span (2009-2024) and more
than 31,000 investigations, EBSA reported that they were only
able to identify ``less than four common interest agreements
for every 10,000 investigations.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Id.
\3\29 U.S. Code Sec. 551 (``The purpose of the Department of Labor
shall be to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners of the United States'').
\4\U.S. Department of Labor, Freedom of Information Act Request
Response to Request Number 2025-F-05090 (Feb. 7, 2025) (on file with
Committee staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in November 2024, after finding out that EBSA had
been sharing information with plaintiff's counsel pursuant to a
common interest agreement in a case involving an employee stock
ownership plan,\5\ Committee Republicans complained that these
rare, legally permissible agreements are unfair to employers
who are the subject of investigations. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-
NC), who then chaired the Committee, wrote to the DOL Office of
Inspector General (OIG), arguing that DOL was ``abusing its
authority'' by ``secretly sharing confidential information with
a plaintiffs'' attorney for use against plan fiduciaries.''\6\
In her letter, then-Chair Foxx called on the DOL OIG to
investigate DOL's use of common interest agreements. At the
time of Chair Foxx's request for an OIG investigation, a DOL
spokesperson maintained that common interest agreements are a
``well-established tool . . . used by government and private
litigants alike.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The case, Harrison and Heath v. Envision Management Holding,
Inc. Board of Directors, et al., was brought on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Envision Management Holding, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The lawsuit alleges that numerous ERISA
violations occurred in connection with the sale of Envision Management
Holding, Inc. to the ESOP at an inflated price, which caused a multi-
million-dollar loss to the ESOP.
\6\Letter from Chair Virginia Foxx to the Inspector General of the
Department of Labor Larry Turner (Nov. 21, 2024), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
11.21.24_dol_oig_letter_re_ebsa_aiding_plantiffs_attorneys.pdf.
\7\Paul Mulholland, DOL Common Interest Agreements: A Closer Look,
American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (Dec. 20, 2024),
https://www.asppa-net.org/news/2024/12/dol-common-interest-agreements-
a-closer-look/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2025, Committee Chair Walberg renewed the
request for the DOL OIG to investigate DOL's use of common
interest agreements.\8\ In April 2025, Rep. Michael Rulli (R-
OH) introduced H.R. 2958. In June 2025, the DOL OIG confirmed
that it was ``initiating an audit to review how the U.S.
Department of Labor has shared investigative information with
non-government entities involved in class action litigation and
the extent of any related controls.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Letter from Representative Tim Walberg to the Inspector General
of the Department of Labor, Larry Turner (Jan. 23, 2025), https://
edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
01.23.25_ebsa_info_sharing_letter_to_dol_oig.pdf.
\9\U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Memo on
Audit of the U.S. Department of Labor's Information Sharing with Non-
Governmental Entities,
Project No. 09-P25-002-08-001 (Jun. 13, 2025), https://www.oig.dol.gov/
public/oaprojects/
DOL%20Common%20Interest%20Agreements_Engagement%20Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than wait for the results of the DOL OIG audit they
requested, Committee Republicans hastily advanced H.R. 2958.
The bill amends ERISA to impose barriers on EBSA's ability to
communicate (even through informal sharing of public
information) with attorneys representing workers in any matters
brought under ERISA unless the agency enters into formal,
written agreements and provides copies of such agreements to
affected employers, plan sponsors, or fiduciaries. H.R. 2958
also requires the Department to provide an annual report to
Congress listing all instances in which it provides any
assistance to attorneys representing workers, including copies
of agreements and detailed information about the scope of
assistance provided, the identity of parties receiving
information, and logs of verbal and written communications
between the Department and plaintiffs. Additionally, the bill
amends ERISA to add a new statutory purpose and requires the
Secretary to justify any common interest agreements based
solely on how they advance this purpose.
Regrettably, the transparency provided under this bill
flows only in one direction. While the Department must identify
plaintiffs to lawsuits, it explicitly shields the identities of
employers, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and service providers
(such as health insurance companies) who may have violated
ERISA. Additionally, the bill imposes requirements only on
communications between the Secretary and plaintiffs; it does
not impose any such restrictions on communications with
employers or other defendants.
Moreover, the bill forces the Department to justify how
common interest agreements are consistent with promoting
employer's sponsorship of benefit plans. Such justification
does not advance the Department's traditional mission of
protecting plan participants. This will all but invite the
Department to assist employers in secret while discouraging the
Department from assisting attorneys representing hardworking
families and retirees.
H.R. 2958 Impedes EBSA's Ability To Fulfill Its Critical Mission
EBSA is the primary federal agency charged with providing
participant protection, education, and oversight of retirement,
health care, and other employee benefit plans. EBSA has
jurisdiction over approximately 837,000 private sector
retirement plans, 2.8 million health care plans, and other
employee benefit plans such as those providing life or
disability insurance.\10\ In total, such plans cover nearly 155
million workers, retirees, and their families and hold
approximately $14.6 trillion in assets.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, About EBSA, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-
ebsa/about-us (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws within EBSA's jurisdiction include ERISA, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),\12\ the Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA),\13\ the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA),\14\ and the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).\15\
Over the past several years, additional requirements have been
placed on the agency through the Setting Every Community Up for
Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act,\16\ the Securing a Strong
Retirement Act (SECURE 2.0),\17\ the No Surprises Act,\18\ and
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).\19\ EBSA also has
interpretive and regulatory responsibilities with respect to
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) as well as audit and
oversight responsibilities with respect to the federal Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\In this document, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) refers jointly
to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148,
124 Stat. 119 (2010), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010).
\13\Making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 104-204,
tit. VII, 110 Stat.2874 (1996).
\14\Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. No.
110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008).
\15\Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub.L.
No. 99-272, 100 Stat.82 (1986).
\16\Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-
94, div. O, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019).
\17\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328,
div. T, 136 Stat. 4459 (2022).
\18\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260,
div. BB, tit. I, 134 Stat. 1182 (2020).
\19\American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat.
4 (2021).
\20\This responsibility is the result of the enactment of the
Federal Employees' Retirement System Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8477(g)(1). The
TSP is the largest defined-contribution (DC) retirement plan in the
United States, with 7.25 million participants and over $938 billion in
assets (as of April 2025). See, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
Board, Thrift Savings Fund Statistics
(Apr. 2025), www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/2025/May/att2-
FRTIB%20Participant%20Activity%20
Report%20April%202025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EBSA's responsibilities have grown in recent years,
its annual appropriations have not kept pace. In FY 2015, EBSA
received $181 million in appropriations to support 963 full-
time equivalents (FTEs).\21\ A decade later, EBSA received $191
million in its base appropriation in FY 2025, supporting only
687 FTEs.\22\ In FY 2026, the agency was again flat-funded at
$191.1 million,\23\ despite President Trump's proposal to cut
its funding to $181.1 million.\24\ Because EBSA's budget has
remained flat or received minimal increases over the years, the
number of FTEs hired through its base appropriation has
declined.\25\ This decline in FTEs limits EBSA's ability to
assist and educate workers, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and
service providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification at 10
(2024), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/budget/2025/CBJ
2025-V2 01.pdf.
\22\See U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, FY 2026 Congressional Budget Justification at 10
(2025), https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/budget/202v6/CBJ
2026-V2 01.pdf. [hereinafter FY26 Budget].
\23\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Pub. L. No. 119-75
(2026).
\24\See FY26 Budget, supra note 22.
\25\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2024, the then-Assistant Secretary of EBSA, Lisa
Gomez, testified before the Committee's Health, Employment,
Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee at which time she
contrasted the small number of EBSA employees with the enormity
of the agency's jurisdiction. Specifically, she said that EBSA
has ``less than 1 investigator'' for every 13,900 ERISA-covered
health, retirement and other benefit plans.\26\ The Trump
Administration's FY 2026 budget request would have further
exacerbated this problem by accounting for just 640 FTEs--a
decrease of 47 FTEs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Employee Benefits
Security Administration: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & the
Workforce,118th Cong. (June 27, 2024) (statement of The Honorable Lisa
Gomez), https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
gomez_testimony.pdf.
\27\See FY26 Budget, supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of advancing one-sided bills such as H.R. 2958, the
Committee should work to ensure EBSA has the funding and
personnel it needs to fulfill its statutory mission to help
workers, families, and retirees.
Conclusion
EBSA is vital to protecting the benefits owed to workers
and their families. Despite its title, this bill would, in
fact, put a thumb on the scale in favor of employers while
shifting DOL's mission away from its statutory obligation of
defending the rights of workers. For the reasons stated above,
Committee Democrats unanimously opposed H.R. 2958 when the
Committee on Education and Workforce considered it on September
17, 2025. We urge the House of Representatives to do the same.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Ranking Member.
Suzanne Bonamici,
Mark DeSaulnier,
Jahana Hayes,
Summer Lee,
Members of Congress.
[all]