PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 26, 2015
Enterprise Secondary Reserve Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act of 2015
This bill amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to direct the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to: (1) establish for any government sponsored enterprise (GSE, including the Federal National Mortgage Association [Fannie Mae] and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Freddie Mac]) operating in conservatorship a secondary reserve fund, and (2) deposit in it from any GSE revenues an amount equal to its required minimum capital level.
The GSE must hold secondary reserve fund amounts in escrow until the Director uses them according to this Act or until the fund is abolished.
The Director shall: (1) decide whether to use funds held in the secondary reserve of a GSE operating in conservatorship if the GSE's losses will exceed other available amounts, and (2) abolish any secondary reserve upon dissolution of the GSE's conservatorship.
Any amounts remaining in a secondary reserve upon abolishment shall revert first to meet the GSE's capital requirements and then to its earnings.
People & committees
Rep. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN-7] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 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.1673 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.1673 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.1673 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.1673 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.