WeVote
Log In

Bill

TI

Bill

S 148

Sexual Abuse and Incest

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tameika Isaac Devine

RED TAPE Act: prohibits non-monetized factors in regulatory impact analyses; mandates monetized benefits/costs, public disclosure, and court-ordered invalidation for violations.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 148

Summary — S.148 (119th Congress, 1st Sess.) — “RED TAPE Act”

Note on source materials: the documents provided include text from multiple, different bills (a federal S.148 addressing regulatory analyses; a Massachusetts child-welfare draft identified as “Senate No. 148”; and a South Carolina statute-of-limitations draft regarding sexual abuse/incest). The summary below focuses on the federal S.148 introduced in the U.S. Senate on January 17, 2025 (sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst, cosponsored by Sen. James Lankford), which contains the clearest, complete bill text.

Purpose and intent

S.148, titled the “Regulations Evaluated to Determine The Anticipated Price and Effect Act” or “RED TAPE Act,” seeks to restrict federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from relying on non‑monetized or unquantified factors in regulatory impact analyses and benefit‑cost analyses. Its stated intent is to require agencies to prioritize tangible, immediately quantifiable monetary benefits and minimize regulatory costs or burdens.

Key provisions

  • Definitions (amendments to 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, section 601)
    • Adds statutory definitions referencing OMB Circular A‑94 and A‑4 (revised Nov. 9, 2023) and Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 for “benefit‑cost analysis” and “regulatory impact analysis.”
  • Prohibition on non‑monetized/unquantified factors (new 5 U.S.C. § 613)
    • Agency prohibition: Agencies may not consider any non‑monetized or unquantified factor when conducting regulatory impact analyses or benefit‑cost analyses for proposed, final, or interim final rules.
    • OMB prohibition: OMB may not authorize guidance or otherwise permit such consideration, nor may it consider unquantified factors presented by other agencies.
  • Public transparency requirements
    • Agencies must publish in the Federal Register, with each proposed, final, or interim final rule: (1) a summary of each regulatory impact analysis and benefit‑cost analysis; (2) the full text of those analyses, including methodology and specific analyses used to estimate economic impacts and rationales; and (3) any additional information relevant to those analyses (including decision‑making processes).
  • OMB guidance deadline
    • OMB Director must issue revised guidance to agencies within 90 days of enactment to ensure compliance.
  • Judicial review and remedies
    • Any party affected by a rule that considered non‑monetized/unquantified factors in violation of the section may sue in U.S. district court.
    • If court finds an agency relied on such factors in violation, the court must declare the rule invalid.
    • The judicial-review provision applies to rules issued on or after November 9, 2023.
  • Effective date
    • Amendments take effect 30 days after enactment.

Who would be affected

  • Federal executive agencies that promulgate regulations subject to regulatory impact analyses or benefit‑cost analyses (essentially all major rulemaking agencies).
  • OMB, which would be barred from endorsing or accepting unquantified considerations.
  • Regulated entities, stakeholders, and members of the public — because rulemaking rationales and methods must be fully disclosed and monetization will be required for any factor an agency uses in its economic analyses.
  • Courts, which would see new causes of action and a mandatory remedy (invalidation) where agencies violate the prohibition.

Likely impacts and considerations

  • Would constrain agencies to quantify and monetize benefits and costs rather than rely on qualitative or unquantified evidence (e.g., many public‑health, environmental, equity, and nonmarket benefits that are difficult to monetize).
  • Could increase administrative burdens on agencies to produce monetized estimates, possibly delaying rulemakings or narrowing the range of factors considered.
  • Could raise litigation risk and lead to more lawsuits challenging agency rules on the ground of using unquantified factors, with courts required to invalidate offending rules.
  • May shift regulatory decisionmaking toward narrowly measured economic metrics and away from qualitative judgments or precautionary considerations.
  • Transparency provisions would increase public access to methodologies and data used in economic analyses.

Procedural status (from provided record)

  • Introduced in Senate: January 17, 2025 (read twice and referred to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs per the federal text); other records show referral to Committee on Judiciary in some state documents — this discrepancy stems from multiple different bills in the materials.
  • Sponsors: Sen. Joni Ernst (primary) with Sen. James Lankford (cosponsor).
  • Related/companion: HR 572 (companion).

If you want, I can:
- Produce a short plain‑language explainer of how this would change a specific agency’s rulemaking (for EPA, FDA, etc.), or
- Summarize the separate Massachusetts and South Carolina bill texts found in your materials.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.