“Executive Order Congressional Oversight Restoration Act”

← Back to Category — Democratic Reform

Limit Executive Order Power

AKA “Congressional Oversight Restoration Act”


Which agency/agencies promulgated the regulation? *
• The President of the United States (via Article II of the U.S. Constitution; authority codified in 3 U.S.C. § 301) • Congress (via the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 801–808)
Which title, parts, and/or sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) should be rescinded? *
• 3 U.S.C. § 301 — vests the President with authority to prescribe regulations and directives with the force of law, without express Congressional approval. • 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3) — excludes presidential directives (Executive Orders) from the definition of “rule” subject to Congressional Review Act disapproval procedures.
What is your name?
—OPTIONAL--
Is your proposed rescission a notice of proposed rulemaking, final rule, direct final rule, interim final rule, or interpretive rule? *
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
What is the name of the regulation being rescinded, if applicable? *
“Executive Order Congressional Oversight Restoration Act”
Please provide a short summary of the justifications for the rescission. *
Presidential directives carry the force of law under 3 U.S.C. § 301 and skirt meaningful legislative oversight because they’re exempt from CRA review under 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3). Rescinding these provisions restores the constitutional balance of powers, ensuring any binding executive directive must either pass through Congress or face a joint-resolution veto process.
Please insert the address of the agency. [NPRM, DFR, and IFR only]
U.S. House Oversight Committee 2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Please insert the contact information for the agency. *
(202) 225-5074
What is the background for the regulation being rescinded? *
• 3 U.S.C. § 301 originated in 1933 to streamline executive branch rulemaking, but it’s been interpreted to let Presidents issue legally binding regulations and directives without new legislation. • 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3), part of the 1996 Congressional Review Act, carved out EOs as “non-rules,” so Congress cannot overturn them via simple joint resolution like agency rules.
Explain the reasons for the rescission. *
• 3 U.S.C. § 301: Removing this authority forces the President to rely on statutes or obtain fresh Congressional authorization before issuing binding directives. • 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3): Including EOs in the CRA’s “rule” definition gives Congress the power to disapprove executive directives with a simple majority in both chambers.
Describe the text of the relevant C.F.R. provisions as it will exist after the rescission. *
— 3 U.S.C. § 301 deleted; the President no longer has standalone rulemaking authority—binding directives require explicit statutory or legislative authorization. — 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3) removed; “rule” under the CRA includes Executive Orders, making them subject to Congressional disapproval.
Please insert the name of the current agency head. *
Jim Jordan
Please insert the title of the agency head. *
Chair, U.S. House Oversight Committee

← Back to Category — Democratic Reform