Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congress is using the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal agency rule, declaring that rule null and preventing it from taking effect. If this joint resolution becomes law, the targeted rule would be revoked and the agency would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. This resolution specifically targets a Federal Housing Finance Agency rule on automated valuation models.
The rule titled "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" published at 89 Fed. Reg. 64538 (August 7, 2024).
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval resolutions in the Senate are not subject to the usual filibuster and need only a simple majority to pass; they must be enacted within a limited time after the rule was submitted. This is a joint resolution that must be passed by both chambers and signed by the President to take effect.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8, title 5, U.S. Code) to disapprove and nullify the Federal Housing Finance Agency rule titled "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models" (89 Fed.
Reg. 64538, Aug. 7, 2024).
If enacted, the rule would be without force or effect and Congress would bar reissuing a substantially similar rule under CRA provisions.
Narrow, low-cost repeal increases feasibility, but lack of compromise language and partisan tendencies lower the chance of bicameral approval.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act-style disapproval resolution that precisely identifies the target rule and applies the standard disapproval declaration. It omits explanatory findings, fiscal discussion, and oversight provisions, consistent with common short-form CRA resolutions but providing little additional scaffolding.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and anti-bias rules
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and anti-bias rules
Likely opposes the resolution as removing necessary federal oversight of AVMs.
Views the FHFA rule as consumer protection, bias mitigation, and market-stability measures.
Sees nullification as rolling back safeguards for borrowers and fairness in housing finance.
Views the resolution with caution: supportive of oversight but concerned about regulatory cost, clarity, and technical feasibility.
Wants clearer cost-benefit analysis and targeted, proportionate standards rather than broad, prescriptive rules.
Likely supports the resolution as a check on regulatory overreach.
Views the FHFA rule as burdensome, costly, and likely to stifle AVM innovation and private-sector efficiency.
Prefers market-driven standards or lighter supervisory guidance.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, low-cost repeal increases feasibility, but lack of compromise language and partisan tendencies lower the chance of bicameral approval.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and anti-bias rules
Narrow, low-cost repeal increases feasibility, but lack of compromise language and partisan tendencies lower the chance of bicameral approv…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act-style disapproval resolution that precisely identifies the target rule and applies the standard disapproval declaration…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.