4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Apr 16, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The v4 version of H.R. 6398 updates the legislative status from 'Engrossed in House' to 'Referred in Senate' and includes the name of the Clerk in the attestation. There are no substantive policy changes between v3 and v4.

H.R. 6398119th CongressIntroduced Dec 3, 2025

RED Tape Act

Passed HouseEnvironmental ProtectionMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]
Committees: Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
Last action: Apr 17, 2026

Bottom line

This bill significantly narrows the Environmental Protection Agency's statutory mandate to review and comment on federal projects and proposed regulations, potentially reducing environmental oversight.

What it actually does

This bill, known as the 'RED Tape Act,' amends Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. It removes the statutory requirement for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to review and comment in writing on certain federal actions, specifically 'newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal agency action' and 'proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal Government.'

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that the current EPA review process under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act is duplicative, creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, and delays critical infrastructure projects and regulatory development. They contend that this bill, the 'RED Tape Act,' streamlines federal processes by eliminating redundant environmental reviews, thereby fostering economic growth and regulatory efficiency without compromising environmental protection, as other environmental review processes remain in place.

Opponents contend

Opponents contend that this bill would significantly weaken environmental protections by removing a crucial layer of oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency. They argue that EPA's independent review of federal projects and proposed regulations is essential for identifying potential environmental harms and ensuring that federal actions align with environmental standards, and that removing this mandate would lead to less rigorous environmental assessments and potentially greater environmental degradation.

The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its direct legislative changes.

Section 2(1) and (2)

Narrowing EPA's Review Mandate under Clean Air Act Section 309

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 309(a) and (b) of the Clean Air Act. It removes the requirement for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to review and comment on 'newly authorized Federal projects for construction and any major Federal agency action' and 'proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal Government.' Previously, the EPA was mandated to review these actions for their environmental impact.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)ImpactReduced statutory authority and responsibility for reviewing federal projects and regulations.MechanismDirect amendment to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.ScaleSignificant reduction in oversight scope.

GroupOther Federal AgenciesImpactReduced requirement for EPA review of their proposed projects and regulations.MechanismElimination of EPA's statutory review mandate.ScalePotentially faster project and regulation approval processes.

GroupEnvironmental advocacy groups and the publicImpactReduced independent environmental oversight of federal actions.MechanismRemoval of a key EPA review function.ScalePotential for less thorough environmental impact consideration in federal projects and regulations.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this change eliminates redundant reviews, as other environmental laws (like NEPA) already require environmental assessments. They assert it will expedite federal projects and regulatory development, reducing 'red tape' and fostering economic efficiency without sacrificing environmental standards, as agencies will still be accountable for environmental compliance.

Critics contend

Critics contend that removing EPA's explicit review mandate under the Clean Air Act weakens a critical safeguard. They argue that EPA's specialized expertise is vital for identifying air quality and other environmental impacts that might be overlooked by other agencies, and that this provision could lead to less comprehensive environmental protection.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the desire for regulatory efficiency and expedited federal action against the potential for reduced independent environmental oversight and the risk of overlooking environmental impacts.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.