PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 14, 2014
Stop Foreclosures Due to Congressional Dysfunction Act of 2014 - Requires the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to prohibit mortgagees of certain eligible mortgages from initiating a foreclosure during a specified six-month moratorium with respect to any of those mortgages owned, held, securitized, or guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Tolls the term of such mortgages during the moratorium, and requires deferral of any principal and interest payments due.
Qualifies for this mortatorium only Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages on a 1- to 4-family residence that is the principal residence of a mortgagor who: (1) was current on principal, interest, tax, and insurance payments at the start of the moratorium; (2) has received unemployment compensation during a certain period but exhausted all rights to it; and (3) as of the beginning of the moratorium has a ratio of debt to income on the mortgage greater than 40%.
People & committees
Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-17] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4255 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4255 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4255 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4255 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.