Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 147.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 25 · Reported to Senate · Jul 15, 2019
Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act of 2019 or the SMART Act of 2019
This bill requires agencies, when publishing a proposed or final major rule, to include a framework for assessing whether the rule achieves its regulatory objective. An agency must assess a rule in the time frame included in the framework. The assessment must compare the rule's anticipated and actual benefits and costs.
The bill defines a major rule as a rule likely to cause (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, health, safety, the environment, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 147.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson without amendment. With written report No. 116-55.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson without amendment. With written report No. 116-55.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 116-86.
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 116-86.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1420 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1420 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1420 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1420 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.