H.R. 6398 (119th)Bill Overview

RED Tape Act

Environmental Protection|Air qualityBuilding construction
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Dec 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill amends Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609) to change how the EPA reviews certain federal actions. It inserts language about the Administrator providing written comments and clarifies or adds categories of matters subject to review, including newly authorized federal construction projects, major federal agency actions covered by NEPA, and proposed regulations published by federal departments or agencies.

Why people may split

Whether bill actually weakens or strengthens EPA oversight is disputed.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill aims to effect a substantive change to EPA review authorities by amending Clean Air Act section 309, but the provided text is incomplete and contains malformed insertions/strikes that obscure the precise changes.

This bill amends Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609) to change how the EPA reviews certain federal actions.

It inserts language about the Administrator providing written comments and clarifies or adds categories of matters subject to review, including newly authorized federal construction projects, major federal agency actions covered by NEPA, and proposed regulations published by federal departments or agencies.

The amendment also removes or replaces limited language in subsection (b).

Passage40/100

Narrow, low-cost administrative tweak improves chances, but subject-matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features reduce certainty.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill aims to effect a substantive change to EPA review authorities by amending Clean Air Act section 309, but the provided text is incomplete and contains malformed insertions/strikes that obscure the precise changes. The statutory amendment approach is appropriate, but the execution details, fiscal acknowledgement, and oversight mechanisms are minimal or absent.

Contention65/100

Whether bill actually weakens or strengthens EPA oversight is disputed.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesIncreases cross-agency environmental review and coordination for proposed federal laws, projects, and regulations.
  • Potential benefitCreates a formal written record of EPA views that agencies can use to avoid duplicative regulation.
  • Potential benefitMay identify regulatory conflicts earlier, potentially reducing later compliance costs and litigation.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAdds workload to EPA, likely requiring additional staff time and budget for reviews and comments.
  • Federal agenciesMay delay agency rulemaking, federal projects, or legislative processes due to added review steps.
  • Federal agenciesCreates potential overlap with existing interagency review processes, increasing administrative duplication.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Whether bill actually weakens or strengthens EPA oversight is disputed.
Progressive25%

Likely skeptical.

The bill’s title frames deregulation, and the text is ambiguous about whether it actually strengthens EPA oversight or reduces regulatory protections.

Progressives would want assurance it will not weaken air-quality protections or limit EPA’s ability to review and object to harmful federal actions.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Pragmatic caution.

Centrist observers will note potential transparency gains from required written comments, but worry about ambiguity, administrative cost, and unintended delays or gaps in authority.

They would seek clarifying amendments and cost estimates before endorsing it.

Split reaction
Conservative80%

Generally favorable.

The bill’s title and purpose align with reducing redundant regulation.

Conservatives will welcome efforts to identify duplicative rules and to formalize EPA comments that could be used to argue consolidation or repeal of overlapping requirements.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Narrow, low-cost administrative tweak improves chances, but subject-matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features reduce certainty.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Bill text appears partially garbled; exact legal change unclear
  • No cost estimate or agency implementation analysis provided
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

HOUSE · Apr 16, 2026
Final passage✓ PassedClose voteParty-line

The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.

What is a final passage?

The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).

Yes 52% No 48%
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
HOUSE · Apr 16, 2026
Send back to committee✗ FailedClose voteParty-line

The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.

What is a send back to committee?

A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.

Yes 50% No 50%
Showing a quick cross-section of legislators, with followed members first when available.
06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Whether bill actually weakens or strengthens EPA oversight is disputed.

Narrow, low-cost administrative tweak improves chances, but subject-matter sensitivity and lack of compromise features reduce certainty.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill aims to effect a substantive change to EPA review authorities by amending Clean Air Act section 309, but the provided text is incomplete and contains malformed insert…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis