Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a rule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued on automated valuation models. If both chambers pass the resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the rule is nullified and cannot take effect. The CRA also bars the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. These disapproval measures must be enacted within a limited time after the rule was submitted and follow expedited procedures in Congress.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" rule (published at 89 Fed. Reg. 64538, Aug. 7, 2024).
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)
Under the CRA, disapproval resolutions are not subject to a Senate filibuster and require only a simple majority in each chamber; they must be enacted within a limited period after the rule was submitted. As a joint resolution, it would be presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 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.
Procedurally simple and narrow, but outcome hinges on Senate concurrence and executive willingness to sign; overall low–moderate chance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies and nullifies a specific administrative rule but contains minimal supporting detail.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-bias enforcement
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-bias enforcement
Likely opposed: views the CFPB rule as a consumer-protection measure addressing bias and accuracy in automated valuation models (AVMs).
Sees congressional disapproval as weakening oversight of housing valuations and fair lending enforcement.
Mixed: sees a legitimate role for oversight of AVMs but views a CRA disapproval as a blunt instrument.
Prefers targeted fixes, cost-benefit clarity, or negotiated revisions instead of outright nullification.
Likely supportive: views disapproval as limiting federal overreach and reducing regulatory burdens on valuation providers and lenders.
Prefers lighter-touch rules or market-based solutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Procedurally simple and narrow, but outcome hinges on Senate concurrence and executive willingness to sign; overall low–moderate chance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and anti-bias enforcement
Procedurally simple and narrow, but outcome hinges on Senate concurrence and executive willingness to sign; overall low–moderate chance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies and nullifies a specific administrative rule but contains minimal supporting detail.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.