RED Tape Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6398
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

ID: J000302

Follow the money

The bill

RED Tape Act

HR. 6398, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$66,400 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

62% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

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

April 16, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the intellectually bankrupt inhabitants of Congress. The "RED Tape Act" - because who doesn't love a good acronym? It's like they're trying to win a prize for most creative way to disguise a blatant attempt to gut environmental regulations.

Let's dissect this mess, shall we? The bill amends the Clean Air Act, specifically Section 309, which deals with review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of proposed legislation. But don't worry, it's not like they're trying to weaken the EPA's oversight or anything... oh wait, that's exactly what they're doing.

The changes are subtle, but devastating. They remove language requiring the EPA to comment on proposed federal projects and regulations, effectively neutering their ability to review and critique these proposals. It's like removing the warning labels from a pack of cigarettes - sure, it might make them look prettier, but it doesn't change the fact that they're still toxic.

The affected industries? Oh, just the usual suspects: fossil fuel companies, polluters, and other eco-villains who can't be bothered with pesky regulations. They'll be thrilled to know that their profits will no longer be hindered by trivial concerns like public health and environmental protection.

Compliance requirements? Ha! Who needs those when you've got lobbyists whispering sweet nothings in politicians' ears? The timelines for implementation are conveniently vague, allowing industries to drag their feet while the EPA is left to twiddle its thumbs.

Enforcement mechanisms? Don't make me laugh. The penalties will be so toothless, they might as well be written on a Post-It note. It's like trying to punish a toddler with a time-out - they'll just smile and continue throwing tantrums until they get their way.

The economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say that the only thing that'll be "reduced" is the life expectancy of anyone living near a polluted area. The operational impact will be a surge in profits for industries that don't have to bother with those pesky regulations. It's a win-win... for them.

In conclusion, the "RED Tape Act" is a masterclass in legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: corruption, greed, and a complete disregard for human life. The diagnosis? Terminal stupidity, with a side of malignant narcissism. Prognosis? We're all doomed.

Related Topics

Water & Air Quality RegulationsClimate Change & Sustainability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$66,400
16 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,400

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
SPELL, JOE
2 transactions
$7,000
2
EDATTEL, PAUL
2 transactions
$6,600
3
KIMBELL, JEFFREY
2 transactions
$6,600
4
FAISON, JAY W.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
SHOAP, VICKI
1 transaction
$3,300
6
WALKER, KENT
1 transaction
$3,300
7
ALAM, MURAD
1 transaction
$3,300
8
RAYDER, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
9
REDL, DAVID J.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
WILLCOX, DARREN
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$3,300
12
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$3,300
13
STEERE, WILLIAM C. JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
COPELAND, JR, GERRET
1 transaction
$3,300
15
MARTIN, ANNE E.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
MARTIN, DONNA F
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 52 nodes and 20 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $66,400

Top Donors - Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]

Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount

16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

  • Oil & Gasconfidence 0.80

    Section 2 of the bill amends the Clean Air Act, which could lead to stricter regulations on oil and gas companies, thereby imposing a cost on them.

  • Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.70

    The bill's focus on environmental regulation, as seen in Section 2's amendment to the Clean Air Act, could lead to increased regulatory burdens on electric utilities, potentially increasing their costs.

  • The potential for stricter environmental regulations due to the bill's amendments could affect companies involved in energy infrastructure, such as pipelines and storage facilities, by increasing their regulatory compliance costs.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate61.7%
Pages: 458-460

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment.

Introduction

Moderate61.7%
Pages: 458-460

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Introduction

Moderate61.3%
Pages: 452-454

— 420 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Subsequently, especially during the Obama Administration, EPA experienced massive growth as it was used to pursue far-reaching political goals to the point where its current activities and staffing levels far exceeded its congressional man- dates and purpose. This expansive status is entirely unnecessary: It has nothing to do with improving either the environment or public health. The EPA’s initial success was driven by clear mandates, a streamlined structure, recognition of the states’ prominent role, and built-in accountability. Fulfilling the agency’s mis- sion in a manner consistent with a limited-government approach proved to be extremely effective during the agency’s infancy. Back to Basics. EPA’s structure and mission should be greatly circumscribed to reflect the principles of cooperative federalism and limited government. This will require significant restructuring and streamlining of the agency to reflect the following: l State Leadership. EPA should build earnest relationships with state and local officials and assume a more supportive role by sharing resources and expertise, recognizing that the primary role in making choices about the environment belongs to the people who live in it. l Accountable Progress. Regulatory efforts should focus on addressing tangible environmental problems with practical, cost-beneficial, affordable solutions to clean up the air, water, and soil, and the results should be measured and tracked by simple metrics that are available to the public. l Streamlined Process. Duplicative, wasteful, or superfluous programs that do not tangibly support the agency’s mission should be eliminated, and a structured management program should be designed to assist state and local governments in protecting public health and the environment. l Healthy, Thriving Communities. EPA should consider and reduce as much as possible the economic costs of its actions on local communities to help them thrive and prosper. l Compliance Before Enforcement. EPA should foster cooperative relationships with the regulated community, especially small businesses, that encourage compliance over enforcement. l Transparent Science and Regulatory Analysis. EPA should make public and take comment on all scientific studies and analyses that support regulatory decision-making. — 421 — Environmental Protection Agency ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE AND REORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY The Office of the Administrator (AO) is intended to provide executive and logistical support for the EPA Administrator. Its stated purpose is to support EPA leadership and activities. To implement policies that are consistent with a conservative EPA, the agency will have to undergo a major reorganization. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy position within the Administrator’s office should be renamed the Deputy Chief of Staff for Regulatory Improvement. This position would oversee a reorganization effort that includes the following actions: l Returning the environmental justice function to the AO, eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. l Returning the enforcement and compliance function to the media offices (air, water, land, and emergency management, etc.) and eliminating the stand-alone Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, which has created a mismatch between standard-setting and implementation. l Using enforcement to ensure compliance, not to achieve extrastatutory objectives. l Developing a plan for relocating regional offices so that they are more accessible to the areas they serve and deliver cost savings to the American people. l Restructuring the Office of International and Tribal Affairs into the American Indian Environmental Office and returning the international liaison function to media offices where appropriate. l Eliminating the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education as a stand-alone entity and reabsorbing substantive elements into the Office of Public Affairs. l Relocating the Office of Children’s Health Protection and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization from the AO and reabsorbing those functions within the media offices (air, water, land, and emergency management, etc.). l Reviewing the grants program to ensure that taxpayer funds go to organizations focused on tangible environmental improvements free from political affiliation.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills