4871 (emphasis added). Similarly, Senator Harrison A. Williams expressly stated that the congressional intent was for ERISA to codify the principles of traditional trust law: The objectives of these provisions are to make applicable the law of trusts; ... to establish uniform fiduciary standards to prevent transactions which dissipate or endanger plan assets, and to provide effective remedies for breaches of trust. 120 Cong.Rec. S-15737, Aug. 22, 1974, reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5177, 5186 (emphasis added). Thus, permitting the set-off in this case would effectuate Congress’s intent, by making available to the Pension Fund a common law remedy utilized in pre-ERISA days by state and federal courts for breaches of trust. See, e.g., In re Watson, 449 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (<HOLDING>); In re Van Nostrand’s Will, 177 Misc. 1, 29
holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that  1326a2 mandates chapter 13 trustee to return any undistributed funds to debtor after paying attorneys fees holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds holding that trustees act of conveying entire corpus terminated the trust holding that successor trustee properly applied former trustees undistributed income to satisfy prior judgment for improper distribution of trust corpus