PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2013
Reducing Environmental Barriers to Unified Infrastructure and Land Development Act of 2013 Act or the REBUILD Act - Amends the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to authorize a responsible federal official to assign, and a state to assume, the responsibilities of such official with respect to covered federal projects within such state under such Act and under other federal environmental laws pertaining to project review or approval. Provides that any responsibility of such official not explicitly assumed by the state by written agreement shall remain the responsibility of the official.
Defines "responsible federal official" as: (1) the Secretary of the Interior; (2) the Secretary of Transportation; (3) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (4) the Secretary of the Army; and (5) the head of a federal agency, with respect to the preparation of environmental impact statements for major federal actions.
Requires each responsible federal official to promulgate regulations that establish requirements relating to information required to be contained in state applications to assume such responsibilities.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits such official to approve an application only if: (1) public notice requirements have been met, (2) the state has the capability to assume such responsibilities, and (3) the head of the state agency having primary jurisdiction over covered projects enters into a written agreement with such official to assume such responsibilities and to maintain the financial resources necessary to carry them out.
Requires such federal official to audit state compliance with federal laws for which responsibilities are assumed and authorizes such official to terminate such responsibilities, after providing notice and an opportunity to take corrective action, if a state is not adequately carrying them out.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-42] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2097 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.
Examine H.R.2097 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.
Examine H.R.2097 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.
Examine H.R.2097 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.