S. 2403Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the President's deskLabor and Employment

Retire through Ownership Act

Sponsored byRoger MarshallR-KSIntroduced Jul 23, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Presented to President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Oct 9, 2025

This bill allows the fiduciary of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) to rely on a valuation provided by an independent valuation expert or business appraiser in determining the fair market value of the plan's securities if the securities are not traded on a national securities exchange (i.e., not publicly traded) and the expert or appraiser follows specified methodologies.

In general, ESOPs are defined contribution pension plans where employees accrue shares of their employers' stock in individual accounts as part of their compensation. After separating from employment or retiring, employees receive the cash value of their shares.

Under the bill, an independent expert or appraiser must adhere to the methodology established under the Internal Revenue Service Ruling 59-60, which prescribes the factors a professional business appraiser should consider in forming a valuation of the stock for a closely held business.

Face Value

as reported to the Senate
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On decisive vote

    House · Sep 16, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    401 – 14

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

5 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Yea21d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
1
hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Yea21d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
3
hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Yea21d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
2
greta.okaforDemoTX-36voted Yea21d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea21d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on S. 2403No positions yet