Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to reject a specific federal agency rule. If Congress passes the joint resolution and the President signs it, the named rule would be nullified and would have no force or effect. It also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress passes new legislation. The resolution is a formal disapproval that undoes that particular rule.
The FDIC rule titled "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" published at 89 Fed. Reg. 64538 on August 7, 2024.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval resolutions receive expedited consideration in the Senate and cannot be filibustered, so they need only a simple majority to pass; if both houses approve the joint resolution and the President signs it, the rule is blocked. These disapprovals must be acted on within a limited period after the rule was submitted to Congress.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule titled “Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models” (89 Fed.
Reg. 64538 (Aug 7, 2024)).
If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect.
Content is narrow and procedurally straightforward, increasing plausibility, but final outcome hinges on chamber majorities and executive approval or veto risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval: it identifies the specific Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule and states that the rule shall have no force or effect under chapter 8 of title 5. The mechanism and integration with existing law are clear, but explanatory findings, fiscal acknowledgement, and attention to downstream or transitional matters are absent.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and bias prevention.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and bias prevention.
Likely opposed; views the FDIC rule as a consumer- and fairness-oriented safeguard for automated valuation models (AVMs).
Disapproval is seen as removing protections against biased or inaccurate valuations.
Some may accept congressional oversight in principle but not this rollback.
Mixed/uncertain.
Sees value in agency standards for AVM reliability, but also acknowledges congressional review of federal rules.
Would want clearer evidence of rule harms or benefits before full support.
Likely supportive; views disapproval as limiting regulatory burden and agency overreach.
Considers nullifying the rule beneficial for industry flexibility and innovation in AVMs.
Prefers congressional check on financial regulators.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and procedurally straightforward, increasing plausibility, but final outcome hinges on chamber majorities and executive approval or veto risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and bias prevention.
Content is narrow and procedurally straightforward, increasing plausibility, but final outcome hinges on chamber majorities and executive a…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval: it identifies the specific Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule and states that the rule shall have…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.