The above Bill (which has both bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy benefits proposals) introduced earlier in the month is in this category. For companies in bankruptcy, it would toughen the standard for eliminating certain kinds of benefits (the changes would need to be the "minimum necessary to prevent liquidation" instead of simply "necessary to permit reorganization" and changes for rank and file employees would need to apply to officers and directors).
The more important change to watch relates to retiree medical. The bill would create a presumption that those benefits were vested when someone has completed 20 years of service or retired. The presumption could only be rebutted by "clear and convincing evidence" that the plan terms permitted the benefits to be eliminated AND that the participant was apprised of that fact before becoming a participant.
I'm not concerned yet, but note that this is at least the second time in recent memory that Congress has considered limits on an employer's ability to eliminate retiree medical (the Supreme Court is looking at the question in the collectively bargained context, as reported elsewhere in this blog). Employers that are considering changes to or terminations of retiree medical coverage may want to evaluate the timeframe for that action, in case one of the legislative efforts gets some traction.