Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation relating to "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models".

Bill Number: H.J.Res. 49
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Finance and Financial Sector
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Last Updated: 2026-04-06T21:17:50Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 49) aims to block a specific rule issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a U.S. government agency that insures bank deposits and regulates banks. The rule in question sets standards for automated valuation models (AVMs), which are computer software tools used by lenders to estimate the value of real estate properties, often for mortgages or loans. By disapproving the rule, Congress seeks to prevent these new standards from taking effect, using a process called the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA allows Congress to overturn recent federal agency rules with a simple majority vote and the president's signature (or veto override).

Key Provisions

Disapproval of the Rule: The resolution explicitly rejects the FDIC's rule titled "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models," published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 64538).
No Force or Effect: If passed, the rule would be nullified and could not be enforced. Agencies are also prohibited from issuing a similar rule in the future without specific congressional approval.
Legislative Path: Introduced in the House of Representatives on February 12, 2025, by Representative Clyde, and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services for review.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This resolution does not create new laws but invokes the CRA (chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code) to repeal an existing agency rule. Without this action, the FDIC's standards would have added requirements for banks and lenders to ensure AVMs are accurate, unbiased, and transparent—such as testing for errors, avoiding discrimination, and maintaining data quality.
It reverses the FDIC's attempt to implement these standards, effectively maintaining the status quo where AVM use is less regulated at the federal level, though other laws (like fair lending rules) still apply.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The FDIC would lose authority to enforce these AVM standards, potentially limiting its role in overseeing financial technology in real estate. This could encourage similar actions against rules from other agencies like the Federal Reserve or Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which jointly issued related guidance.
On Citizens and Businesses: Borrowers and homebuyers might see fewer protections against inaccurate property valuations, which could lead to over- or under-valued loans and affect mortgage approvals or interest rates. Lenders and banks could face reduced compliance costs but might encounter more legal risks from errors or biases in AVMs.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as this focuses on domestic banking practices, though it could indirectly affect U.S. financial institutions involved in global real estate or lending.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Financial Institutions: Banks, credit unions, and mortgage lenders that rely on AVMs for property appraisals would avoid new quality control mandates, potentially saving on implementation costs.
Real Estate Industry: Appraisers, software developers of AVMs, and real estate agents could benefit from less regulation but face scrutiny over valuation accuracy.
Consumers and Borrowers: Individuals seeking home loans might experience varying levels of protection against biased or faulty valuations, particularly in underserved communities.
Congress and FDIC: Lawmakers gain a tool to check agency power, while the FDIC's regulatory influence is curtailed on this issue.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Reinforces the CRA as a mechanism for Congress to review and repeal agency rules within 60 legislative days of submission, highlighting tensions between legislative and executive branches in rulemaking. If enacted, it prevents the rule from being repromulgated without congressional consent, promoting accountability in administrative law.
Constitutional: Aligns with separation of powers by allowing Congress to oversee executive agencies, but critics might argue it undermines expert-driven regulation needed for financial stability.
Political: Introduced in the 119th Congress (2025–2026), this reflects partisan efforts to roll back regulations perceived as burdensome on businesses. Success depends on bipartisan support or presidential approval, potentially signaling broader deregulation trends in finance.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]

Recent Actions

2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
2025-02-12: Introduced in House
2025-02-12: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation relating to "Quality Control Standards for Automated Valuation Models". — issued 2025-02-12 — PDF (2 pages)