Mike Rounds (R-SD)
Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act
A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill, titled the "Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act," aims to expedite housing-related activities by directing the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reclassify the application of certain requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This involves adjusting administrative regulations to categorize various housing activities under existing exemption and exclusion rules. The goal is to reduce review times and administrative costs, particularly in the affordable housing sector.
Yes· 3 of 31
- Scored +8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill is explicitly focused on streamlining affordable housing, directly benefiting low-income households.
- Scored +7
Does this make housing cost less?
The bill directly targets increasing affordable housing by streamlining project reviews.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The bill addresses housing affordability, which is a major concern for young adults.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Streamlining NEPA requirements may lead to reduced environmental oversight.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
The reclassification of housing-related activities, as described in Section 3, could lead to faster approval and implementation of projects such as tenant-based rental assistance (Section 3(a)(1)(A)), supportive services (Section 3(a)(1)(B)), and economic development activities (Section 3(a)(1)(D)). This can provide quicker access to housing and related services for individuals and families.
-
Streamlining the process for activities like rehabilitation of 1-to-4 unit residential buildings (Section 3(a)(2)(B)) and new construction on scattered sites (Section 3(a)(2)(C)) could increase the availability of affordable housing options.
-
The inclusion of infill projects (Section 3(a)(3)(F)) and conversion of existing office buildings into residential development (Section 3(a)(3)(B)) under streamlined regulations may encourage the development of housing in already established areas.
-
The buyout provision (Section 3(a)(3)(G)) for properties in high-risk areas impacted by disasters may help residents relocate to safer locations.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
The streamlining of NEPA requirements may reduce environmental review and oversight for certain housing projects, potentially leading to negative environmental impacts on communities (Section 3).
-
The reclassification of activities could lead to less public input and community involvement in housing development decisions.
-
The increased speed of project approvals might result in overlooking potential negative consequences for existing residents, like increased traffic or strain on local resources.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill is explicitly focused on streamlining affordable housing, directly benefiting low-income households. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill addresses housing affordability, which is a major concern for young adults. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill helps with housing availablity and affordability. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing can help people with disabilities secure housing and improve living conditions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill may help seniors find affordable housing, especially those on fixed incomes. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Infill projects can benefit urban residents Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can disproportionately benefit African Americans due to existing disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can disproportionately benefit Hispanic Americans due to existing disparities. Would immigrants be better off under this? — The bill might help immigrants secure housing and improve living conditions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — More housing options can benefit middle-aged individuals and families. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees may benefit from increased affordable housing options, especially those on fixed incomes. Would students be better off under this? — Students may benefit from increased affordable housing options near universities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can benefit Asian Americans. Would business owners be better off under this? — Businesses in the housing sector could benefit from faster project approvals. Would children be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing could improve living conditions for children. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill might help LGBTQ community members secure housing and improve living conditions. Would men be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can benefit men. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can benefit Native Americans, particularly in underserved communities. Would union members be better off under this? — Union workers involved in construction may benefit from increased housing projects. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill might help veterans secure housing and improve living conditions. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Increased affordable housing options can benefit White Americans. Would women be better off under this? — Affordable housing can help women in poverty, especially single mothers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — It is possible that the bill may help rural residents secure housing and improve living conditions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — The bill directly targets increasing affordable housing by streamlining project reviews. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increased availability of affordable housing can help reduce homelessness. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increased affordable housing can contribute to poverty reduction.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining housing projects could lead to increased construction and related job opportunities. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Faster housing project approvals could stimulate economic activity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Expediting housing projects could benefit small businesses involved in construction and related services. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill aims to reduce administrative costs associated with housing project reviews. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Streamlining processes may lead to more efficient use of resources.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Streamlining NEPA requirements may lead to reduced environmental oversight.
- 2/26/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/31/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/23/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ted BuddRepublican · North Carolina
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey