PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 20, 2010
Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2010 - Requires the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to: (1) suspend immediately the compensation packages approved for 2010 for the executive officers of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) establish, in lieu of such packages, a compensation system for such officers in accordance with the rates of pay for positions in the Executive Schedule and the Senior Executive Service of the federal government.
Expresses the sense of Congress that each executive officer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should return to the Secretary of the Treasury (clawback) any compensation earned in 2009 that was in excess of the maximum annual rate of basic pay authorized for a position in level I of the Executive Schedule.
Instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer any such amounts returned to the Secretary to a specified account in the Treasury for receiving gifts and proceeds from their sale or redemption, and dedicated to reducing the public debt.
People & committees
Rep. Bachus, Spencer [R-AL-6] · R–AL
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 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.4476 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.4476 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.4476 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.4476 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.