PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 327.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 17, 2006
Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 to reauthorize to October 1, 2011: (1) the Mark-to-Market program; and (2) provisions of the FHA-insured Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance Restructuring program regarding projects and programs for which binding commitments have been entered into under such Act.
(Sec. 3) Permits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to waive rent level limits for up to 9% (currently 5%) of all units subject to restructured mortgages in any fiscal year, based on certain findings of special need.
(Sec. 4) Revises requirements for an approved mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan with respect to modification or forgiveness of all or part of a second mortgage held by the Secretary (debt relief) if the project concerned is acquired by a tenant organization or tenant-endorsed community-based nonprofit or public agency.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth requirements for alternative periods of eligibility for such nonprofit debt relief if the purchaser acquires the project subsequent to the date of recordation of the related affordability agreement, and two years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(Sec. 5) Declares disaster-damaged eligible projects eligible without regard to the relationship between rent level for the assisted units and comparable market rents.
(Sec. 6) Requires each mortgage restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan to determine for units assisted with project-based assistance in eligible multifamily housing projects, if rents cannot be determined, adjusted rent levels: (1) for disaster-damaged eligible projects equal to 100% of the fair market rents for the relevant market area; and (2) for other eligible multifamily housing projects equal to 90% of the fair market rents for the relevant market area.
States that, with respect to a disaster-damaged eligible project, the owner contribution toward rehabilitation needs shall be determined in accordance with specified requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Ney, Robert W. [R-OH-18] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 327.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 109-572.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 109-572.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on 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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.5527 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.5527 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.5527 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.5527 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.