PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 27, 2017
Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill applies the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) during any period either such enterprise is under conservatorship or receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The FOIA exemption for trade secrets and commercial or financial information shall apply without regard to whether such information was obtained from a person outside Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
The FOIA requirements apply to records requests filed after the effective date of this bill that relate to any Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac record created before, on, or after the effective date.
(Sec. 3) To cover the cost of administering FOIA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shall establish fee schedules to collect fees from requests for records intended for a commercial use.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 425 - 0 (Roll no. 233).
House roll call 233 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 425 - 0 (Roll no. 233).
House roll call 233 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1694.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2923-2925)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1694 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Ross moved that the committee rise.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 280, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Clay amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Johnson(GA) amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Clay demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceeding until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 280, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Johnson (GA) amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 280, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Ross amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1694.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Doug Collins to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 280 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1694 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of April 29, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 280. (consideration: CR H2920-2923; text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2922)
Rule H. Res. 280 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 280 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1694 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of April 29, 2017, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 53.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 115-93.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 115-93.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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.1694 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.