With the federal pension insurance program in a rapid decline and bracing itself for another year of record losses, officials in the Bush administration are close to unveiling a rescue plan - medicine they hope will be strong enough to save the agency from a costly bailout but not so strong that it kills the pension system.

The program, under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, insures pensions in case of a failure, much the way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees bank deposits when a bank fails. It has gone from an $8 billion surplus in 2001 to a $23 billion deficit in 2004, raising questions about its long-term ability to pay retirees their pensions.

Much of the recent loss stems from the months-long process of taking over the failing pension plans at United Airlines and US Airways, which are underfunded by billions of dollars. And many experts fear that those failures will set off a slow but inexorable chain reaction at other airlines, one that could eventually overwhelm the pension agency.

"The longer we wait, the closer we get to the cliff edge, where a massive taxpayer rescue would be necessary," said Douglas J. Elliott, president of the Center on Federal Financial Institutions, a research institute that studies government lending and insurance programs.

Elements of the coming rescue plan have been floated by administration officials in recent public speeches and at professional gatherings, like one being held for Congressional staff members this weekend. Critical measures include charging higher insurance premiums to companies that pose greater risks to the pension program, tightening the funding rules and requiring companies to give employees more information about the health of their pension plans.

Achieving most of these measures will require Congressional action. Those close to the planning process expect the details to be disclosed sometime next week.

Each element of the plan would have a different effect on the pension agency's fortunes. Raising the insurance premiums would be the fastest way to shore up the agency's finances, for instance, but would do little to address the broader problems that are causing pension plans to fail and land on the agency's doorstep in the first place.

Improved disclosure, meanwhile, would have little direct effect on the pension agency. But administration officials say it would strengthen the system over all, because if participants knew that their retirement money was at risk, they might take steps to protect themselves - like changing to more reliable employers or demanding bigger contributions to the plan.

The most direct source of new money for the pension agency would be a premium increase. The basic rate has not changed since 1991, when companies that run pension plans began to be billed $19 annually per participant. The premiums rise when pension plans develop big deficits, but economists say that even then, the amounts are far too low to cover the risks.

Some specialists say the government should charge higher premiums to companies that run riskier pension plans, much as insurance companies charge bad drivers higher rates. Such a shift would reward companies that managed their pension plans responsibly.

Measuring a pension plan's risk is complex, but people who have participated in the planning talks say the sponsoring company's credit rating could be used as a proxy. A robust company with enough money to pay its bondholders would presumably have enough money to make good on its pension obligations as well, the thinking goes.

Using a published credit rating would also bring an element of market discipline to the pension insurance process, rather than leaving it up to Congress to set the premium rates.

Another important component of risk is the way companies invest the money in their pension funds. A portfolio of junk bonds, hedge funds or high-risk stocks obviously poses a greater risk to the pension program than a portfolio of high-grade bonds. The administration has also been thinking about factoring portfolio risk into its premiums, but appears to have run into opposition from business and investment interests who say the government has no business telling companies how to invest. Officials may eventually settle for indirect methods of encouraging conservative investments.

James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, a business organization, said companies were willing to consider a change in the premium structure.

Mr. Klein, whose group represents large and medium-size companies, said his members were more preoccupied with prospective changes in the funding rules.

"Some changes to the funding rules would seem to be inevitable," he said.

Virtually everybody with an interest in pensions agrees that the funding rules are flawed, but there is little agreement on how to fix them. The rules are supposed to make sure that companies set aside enough money each year to pay their future obligations. But the succession of plans that have failed shows the rules are not foolproof. And, meanwhile, companies say the rules are needlessly complex and fraught with tripwires that can suddenly force them to make huge contributions - usually when they can least afford it.

Before making any other changes, the administration appears determined to make sure that companies measure their pension obligations more accurately than they have been.

The administration has also been developing plans to apply tighter funding rules to companies that pose larger risks, according to people involved in the discussions. Again, a company's own creditworthiness might, in part, determine the risk in its pension plan.

The administration also hopes to make companies freeze their pension plans when they are in bankruptcy.

To improve disclosure, the administration has suggested a new rule requiring companies to tell their employees about the health of their pension plans every year, using two measurements. One would describe how well funded the plan appears to be as it continues into the future; the other would describe how well funded it would be if it were terminated right away.

Companies owe workers information about their pensions, Mr. Klein of the benefits council said, but he added that it would not be useful to force the companies to provide figures that might alarm or confuse their employees.