S. 3333Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarTaxation

Emergency Savings Enhancement Act of 2025

Sponsored byTodd YoungR-INIntroduced Dec 3, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 5, 2026) under General Orders. Calendar No. 544.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

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

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • …(2) include a specific reference to an individual retirement annuity as a rollover option under a simplified 402(f) safe harbor notice. 26.H.R.6417, S.3333 Emergency Savings Enhancement Act of 2025: This legislation would double the maximum balance limit for Pension-Linked Emergency Savings… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

11 comments

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

Sort
18
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay19d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
2
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay19d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
9
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay25d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
1
magnusgrimmettCO-3voted Yea16d ago
Of course the council of life insurers want this to pass. Wonder how much they spent.
1
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay20d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
2
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea19d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
10
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Yea22d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
1
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Nay27d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
1
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay27d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
8
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay25d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
6
tomas.delgadoDemoVA-4voted Nay24d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
Your position on S. 333335% Yea · 20 VoteWire users