PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 4, 2010
Amends the National Housing Act to revise the maximum mortgage loan principal amounts the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may insure for elevator-type multifamily structures for: (1) rental housing; (2) cooperative housing; (3) rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation housing; (4) housing for moderate income and displaced families; (5) housing for elderly persons; and (6) condominiums.
Replaces the current specific dollar amount limitations per family unit by which the insurable mortgage principal obligation for elevator-type multifamily structures may be increased. Prescribes instead an increase limitation per family unit of up to 50% higher than the corresponding limitations for non-elevator-type multifamily structures.
Authorizes the Secretary to prescribe a higher maximum (up to 50%) for the principal obligation of mortgages insured for multifamily projects located in an extremely high-cost area (similar to that for mortgage insurance for property in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands).
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 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 S.3700 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 S.3700 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 S.3700 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 S.3700 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.