Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a recently issued federal agency rule. If both chambers of Congress pass this joint resolution and the President signs it, the named rule would be void and the agency would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule unless Congress enacts new law. The CRA also triggers expedited procedures for considering such disapproval measures in Congress.
The rule titled "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" published at 89 Fed. Reg. 64538 (August 7, 2024).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve)
Under the CRA, disapproval resolutions are considered under expedited procedures and are not subject to a filibuster in the Senate, so they can pass by a simple majority. As a joint resolution, it must be approved by both chambers and presented to the President for signature to take effect.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” (89 Fed.
Reg. 64538, Aug. 7, 2024).
If enacted, the rule would be void and have no force or effect.
Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that is concise and mechanically clear about the action to be taken (nullifying a specific Federal Reserve rule). It invokes the correct statutory vehicle and identifies the rule precisely.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight
Likely to oppose the resolution because it removes supervision intended to ensure accuracy and fairness in automated valuation models (AVMs).
Concern centers on consumer protection, anti‑discrimination, and preserving regulatory guardrails for credit markets.
They would emphasize the potential for biased or inaccurate valuations if the Fed’s standards are removed.
A pragmatic view: the resolution raises valid questions about regulatory cost and scope, but also risks removing useful standards.
Likely to seek a middle path requiring clearer economic impact analysis and targeted exemptions for smaller firms.
Would favor adjustments rather than wholesale nullification if harms to consumers might follow.
Likely to support the resolution as a check on federal regulatory overreach and costly compliance mandates.
Emphasis on limiting the Fed’s ability to impose prescriptive model governance and protecting community banks and market innovation.
Views the nullification as restoring flexibility and lowering regulatory burdens.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti‑bias oversight
Narrow procedural vehicle increases feasibility, but substantive pushback from regulators and consumer/financial stability concerns reduce…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that is concise and mechanically clear about the action to be taken (nullifying a specific Federal Reserve…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.