Lawmakers’ plans to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal federal regulations are meeting with opposition from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

The coalition’s 125 members – who represent consumer, small business, labor, good government, financial protection, community, health, environmental, civil rights and public interest groups -- have sent a letter to the Senate urging legislators to avoid using the CRA to repeal “public protections that are critical to the public’s health and safety, the environment, and a stable financial system that works for Main Street and not Wall Street.”

The letter continues:

The CRA is an unreasonably blunt instrument that threatens to deny consumers tens of billions of dollars in pocketbook savings over the next few decades from rules that were fully vetted and considered over a long period of time. These rules enjoyed substantial support across all stakeholder communities.

By promising to use the CRA to indiscriminately block a variety of crucial public safeguards, the leadership of the 115^thCongress has made clear that catering to special interests take precedence over public protections to ensure:

• clean air, water and climate change action,
• much-needed reforms to Wall Street to prevent the next financial crisis,
• banks are held accountable when they deceive customers,
• workplaces are safe from toxic chemicals,
• non-discrimination and fair pay are guaranteed for all,
• affordable access to broadband and secure communications,
• natural resource revenues are used to benefit citizens,
• heavy duty truck rule and air conditioner rule that increase efficiency and save consumers money,
• common-sense gun control measures for individuals with severe and disabling mental health issues,
• people can see the health care provider of their choice,
• paid sick days for employees of federal contractors, and
• schools are held accountable for fraud and students are not left stuck under mountains of debt when schools defraud them or abruptly close.

It is irresponsible for Congress to use the CRA to repeal important public protections that are supported by bipartisan majorities of the public. The CRA allows Congress to overturn a recently finalized rule—major or otherwise—through an expedited process called a Resolution of Disapproval. In the U.S. Senate, these resolutions only require a simple majority vote to adopt and then cannot be filibustered or amended.

Once a rule is overturned, it may be difficult for an agency to advance the objectives of the overturned rule in the future. The CRA allows agencies to finalize a rule in the future, but only if that rule is not “substantially similar” to the one that was disapproved. Because the scope of the “substantially similar” language has not yet been tested in any meaningful way, we have massive uncertainty around necessary future regulations that implement laws passed by Congress and address pressing health, safety, financial and environmental risks to consumers and the public.

If Congress decides to use the CRA to repeal public protections that save lives, protect our environment, prevent discrimination or put money back into the pocket of consumers, those who voted for repeal in Congress will be responsible for the consequences to their constituents. In the absence of strong and effective public protections, Congress will revert back to a system of “self-regulation,” which shifts costs on to the public. As a result, regular Americans wind up paying the price.

Those in Congress pushing to use the CRA rely on two demonstrably false claims. First, critics of public protections claim that potential CRA challenges in the beginning of the 115^th Congress will only apply to “midnight” regulations that were rushed at the end of the Obama administration. The truth is that virtually all of these standards are better characterized as “marathon” regulations since they were under development for years, if not decades, and are thus the very opposite of rushed. Rules issued at the end of administrations take longer to finish than rules issued outside of this period. Such rules also underwent longer, not shorter, review by the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

Additionally, critics claim that regulations cost jobs and repealing them will create jobs. The truth is that all studies which linked new regulations to job loss claims have been debunked by independent experts and none of the numerous assertions in the past about job losses due to regulations have come true. For example, the recently finalized U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) stream protection rule is crucial to making sure streams around coal mining projects are not impacted by toxic coal waste that can then pollute downstream water sources. Critics of the rule, including U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have claimed it will lead to job losses in the coal industry. Yet, even Sen. McConnell conceded that repeal of regulations such as the stream protection rule will not bring back coal jobs because market forces are pushing the energy industry away from coal.

Voters in this election did not vote for deregulation of Wall Street, more polluted air and water, inaction on climate change, unsafe workplaces, fewer protections against discrimination and unequal pay, more food safety scandals, the gutting of consumer protections, and more. In fact, this election was a referendum on the need to hold big interests accountable. Unfortunately, using the blunt instrument of the CRA rejects the electoral message and moves in the wrong direction by rolling back and undermining public protections.

We strongly urge you to reject the use of the CRA to undermine critical consumer, public and environmental protections. Please do not repeal rules that enforce the law and protect public health, safety, financial security and our environment.

Thank you,

• 9to5, National Association of Working Women
• Action on Smoking & Health
• AFL-CIO
• AFSCME
• Alaska Wilderness League
• Alliance for Appalachia
• American Association for Justice
• American Association of University Women (AAUW)
• American Family Voices
• American Federation of Teachers
• American Forests
• Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)
• Americans for Financial Reform
• Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending
• Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)
• Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Center for Digital Democracy
• Center for Economic Integrity
• Center for Justice & Democracy
• Center for Large Landscape Conservation
• Center for Media Justice
• Center for Progressive Reform
• Center for Responsible Lending
• Center for Science in the Public Interest
• Civil Justice, Inc.
• Clean Air Task Force
• Clean Water Action
• Connecticut Association for Human Services
• Consumer Action
• Consumer Federation of America
• Consumer Federation of California
• Consumer Law Office of William E. Kennedy
• Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
• Corporate Accountability International
• Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED)
• Daily Kos
• Dann Law Firm
• Demand Progress
• Donovan Litigation Group, LLC
• Earthjustice
• EarthRights International
• Earthworks
• Economic Policy Institute Policy Center
• Environment America
• Environmental Integrity Project
• Equal Rights Advocates
• Equal Rights Advocates
• Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection
• Floyd W. Bybee, BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC
• Food & Water Watch
• Free Press Action Fund
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
• Global Witness
• GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, LLC
• Green America
• Greenpeace
• Health Justice Project
• Higher Ed, Not Debt and Generation Progress
• Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA)
• Indiana Consumer Law Group
• Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
• Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
• Janelle Mason Mikac, J. Hegg Law, PLLC
• Jared M. Hartman, Esq., Hartman Law Officesm Inc., Semnar & Hartmen, LLP
• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
• League of Conservation Voters
• League of Women Voters of the United States
• Leonard Gryskewicz, Jr., Sabatini Law Firm, LLC
• Lyons Law Firm, P.A.
• Main Street Alliance
• Mark F. Anderson | Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP
• MFY Legal Services, Inc.
• Micah S. Adkins, The Adkins Firm
• National Association for College Admission Counseling
• National Association of Consumer Advocates
• National Black Justice Coalition
• National Center for Law and Economic Justice
• National Center for Lesbian Rights
• National Center for Transgender Equality
• National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• National Coalition for the Homeless
• National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients)
• National Consumers League
• National Council of Jewish Women
• National Council of La Raza
• National Employment Law Project
• National Employment Lawyers Association
• National Fair Housing Alliance
• National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
• National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
• National Parks Conservation Association
• National Partnership for Women & Families
• National Women’s Law Center
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Nature Abounds
• New America’s Open Technology Institute
• North Carolina Justice Center
• Oceana
• People’s Action Institute
• Physicians for Social Responsibility
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America
• Progressive Congress Action Fund
• Public Citizen
• Public Knowledge
• Publish What You Pay – United States
• River Network
• Secular Human Rights Worldwide
• SEIU
• Tennessee Citizen Action
• The Greenlining Institute
• The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care
• The Wilderness Society
• TURN-The Utility Reform Network
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• United Church of Christ, OC Inc.
• United Methodist Church
• US PIRG
• Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
• Voices for Progress
• West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy
• Western Environmental Law Center
• Women Employed
• Woodstock Institute