PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 22, 2012
Preservation Enhancement and Savings Opportunity Act of 2012 - Amends the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA) to entitle the owner of a property subject to a plan of action or use agreement to distribute: (1) annually, all surplus cash generated by the property; and (2) upon request made to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), any funds accumulated in a residual receipts account. Entitles the owner to such distribution, however, only if the individual is in material compliance with the use agreement.
Declares that neither LIHPRHA, nor any plan of action or use agreement implementing it, shall restrict an owner from obtaining a new loan or refinancing a loan secured by a low-income housing project, or from distributing the proceeds of such a loan, except that the treatment of the loan for purposes of budget-based project rents shall be within the Secretary's discretion.
Grants an owner who received a direct capital loan under the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, upon 30 days written notice to the Secretary, including payment of the present value of the loan as determined under a discount rate equal to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) nominal Treasury rate of appropriate duration based upon the loan's maturity, the right to defease the loan or to obtain the release of the instrument securing it.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 with respect to the requirement that the Secretary, upon expiration of a project-based contract for low-income housing assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for a project subject to an approved plan of action under either LIHPRHA or the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, provide the owner with benefits comparable to those provided under the plan of action, including distributions, rent increase procedures, and duration of low-income affordability restrictions. Revises the requirement to require that the benefits provided to the owner be at least comparable to those provided under the plan of action. Authorizes the owner to request a rent increase.
People & committees
Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3] · R–MN
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 Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
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 14, 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.4253 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.4253 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.4253 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.4253 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.