S. 4965Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarTransportation and Public Works

Railroad Retirement Board Stability Act

Sponsored byBill CassidyR-LAIntroduced Jul 14, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 4, 2026) under General Orders. Calendar No. 540.

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

Discussion

10 comments

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

Sort
22
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay18d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
21
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay22d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
7
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay24d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
7
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay18d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
-1
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay25d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
14
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay22d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
13
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay27d ago
Opposed, mainly on process — this hasn't had a hearing that I can find, and it's moving fast for something with this much reach.
10
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Nay20d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
9
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay22d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
1
civicsnerdDemoGA-10voted Nay24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
Your position on S. 496538% Yea · 26 VoteWire users