Democrats in Congress have had months to dig through the archives of late-game Trump administration regulations and determine which ones to try to overthrow using the Congressional Review Act. Under this 1996 legislation, Congress can, with a simple majority vote in both houses, overrule settlements finalized in the previous 60 legislative days (in practice, this means whatever Trump agencies have finalized after last August).

The deadline for submitting such “disapproval resolutions,” as they are called, was Sunday April 4. A coalition of advocacy groups has been identified 28 different notable regulations which would be eligible and desirable for repeal, affecting a host of areas including immigration, the environment, LGBTQ and racial discrimination, critical wildlife habitats, financial regulation and long-haul trucking.

In the end, only six resolutions were proposed. These resolutions have until May 21 to advance to the president’s office in order to be eligible for cancellation.

Learn more about David Dayen

Unless and until the Senate changes the filibuster rules, there is no further legislation other than CRA resolutions both of which will be ready within the next six weeks and will only need a majority vote in the Senate. Democrats can certainly take care of executive branch and judicial appointments as the massive US jobs plan and a public welfare companion to be announced are developed. But that leaves time to reverse the nefarious rules of the Trump era, without subjecting Biden’s executive branch to lengthy, time-consuming and legally vulnerable administrative procedures to reverse them.

However, the office of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has so far not made a commitment to vote on these six resolutions, following a request from the Perspective. And even this set of resolutions is a bit small compared to the last partisan transfer of power to Washington. After the Obama-Trump run, 16 rulers were killed by the action of the ARC. The Republicans were quick to put themselves in this situation; the first resolution of the CRA adopted on February 14, 2017, and at that time four years ago, 11 resolutions had advanced.

So why did the CRA process give such a small set of options this time around, when the partisan roles were turned? Clearly, Democrats weren’t sure whether they would control the Senate before the Georgia election in January, and between a late organizing resolution for the 50-50 House, an impeachment trial, confirmations for the entire Cabinet and a $ 1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. , there was not much speaking time available.

But much of the problem has to do with the difference between Democrats and Republicans in Congress when it comes to regulatory issues. Most Republicans have a regulatory reform staff member in their offices. Most Democrats don’t. As a result, the process was a scramble, channeled by a Democratic leadership in the House and Senate that had a muted interest, at best, in using the tool. A strong pullback outside of Congress ultimately resulted in the handful of resolutions that managed to pass the deadline. But even though it landed in a non-disastrous place, it’s a worrying signal that Congressional Democrats are not fully committed to maximizing their power.

According to sources with knowledge of the process who have requested to remain anonymous due to their ongoing work, the Democratic leadership in coordination with the White House has determined the scope of the ARC. And the White House hasn’t really provided as many contributions as Congress intended, leaving staff with limited knowledge and interest in the CRA to figure out what to do with it.

The presentation of an ARC resolution does not commit Congress to vote. Members could have been encouraged to bring forward whatever RCAF resolution they wanted and then gain support for the passage through advocates and the caucus. This was not the path taken. Staff of Democratic members have been led to believe that “there is a cost to asking for a resolution from the CRA,” according to a source. In other words, only the resolutions that received the green light from the leaders would move on to the introduction stage.

All of this presupposes that the Democrats had a good set of goals for the CRA. Although at least one House committee chairman, Natural Resources Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), told me his committee was looking at Trump-era rules to cancel even before elections, leaders did not go through the committees with the best knowledge of the relevant rules. Instead, they appointed two members with nominal jurisdiction over the ARC – Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), whose House Judiciary subcommittee deals with administrative and procedural law, and Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), who chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and government affairs, to outline a universe of possible resolutions.

The process was a rush, channeled by a Democratic leadership in the House and Senate that had a muted interest, at best, in using the tool.

On the House side, a note explaining the process and its various deadlines was released. But because of the way the leadership handled the process, the Senate necessarily had to make the appeals. The leaders first tried to determine which resolutions could be passed by Congress, and then allowed only those resolutions to be presented. They worked backwards from the expected result, in other words. And if all this work had to be handled up front, it was inevitable to find yourself in a situation where, in a few weeks, no resolution was presented.

External groups with expertise were also advised, but asking them to raise one priority over another put them in politically impossible positions. Most outside groups on regulatory issues operate in a coalition and asking them to make such choices would necessarily hurt that partnership.

What ended up succeeding had either significant Congressional champions or broad coalition support. Reverse The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) ‘conciliation’ rule, which undermines the pre-litigation process where the agency tries to reach agreements with employers on anti-discrimination claims and makes more likely costly litigation for victims, was a priority for Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) for a while. Literally hundreds of consumer protection groups have called for Congress to act on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.fake lenderWhich allows lenders to launder high-cost loans through federally chartered banks to bypass state interest rate caps. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency rule canceling monitoring and prevention of methane leaks from oil and gas wells has sparked near universal opposition among Democrats, making it a simple ARC resolution.

Schumer officially signed up last month in a letter to colleagues using ARC for EEOC and methane rules. The other resolutions – the bogus lender rule, a “sunset” rule that would require the Department of Health and Human Services to let all of its regulations expire if they don’t submit a five-year review, a rule of the Securities and Exchange Commission which raised the threshold for investors to force a shareholder vote, and a Social Security Administration rule that changed administrative law hearings to make it more difficult to appeal against decisions denying Social Security benefits – yet have that commitment.

Representative Chuy Garcia (D-IL), one of the sponsors of the CRA’s False Lender Rule resolution, told Reuters that there is majority support in both chambers for this resolution. Of course, the way the process went, it’s likely that all six have majority support, otherwise they wouldn’t have been introduced.

Four of the six resolutions involve independent agency rules, over which Biden may not have majority control for a period of time. The industry is divided over methane, with companies like BP and Shell trying to green their image and opposing the Trump-era rule; this lack of unified opposition makes it easier for the Democrats to pass the resolution. Likewise, many health care providers don’t want things like payments to recipients to be withheld every five years, which puts obvious standards for children’s health programs and food safety on the chopping block. There probably won’t be a lot of opponents there.

Some Democrats were concerned that because under the CRA a rule subject to disapproval cannot be re-edited “in much the same way,” it would hamper the Biden administration in rule-making. But Trump reissued rules who were hit by the ARC and no one hit an eyelash. Moreover you would want to to block the publication of rules allowing high-cost loans, or preventing shareholders from exercising their rights to make proposals, or allowing polluters to release harmful greenhouse gases like methane into the air.

Even if all six resolutions are passed and Trump’s six harmful rules rescinded, the process seemed unnecessarily small and ill-thought out, and required far too much outside pressure to get things done. It’s hard to conclude by observing the process that Democrats wanted a lot to do with the CRA, despite being a powerful tool that doesn’t rely on breaking a filibuster. This is symptomatic of a party that should pay more attention to the inner workings of governance.

“Democrats are making themselves understood day in and day out on regulatory issues,” said one observer. “The problem was, they didn’t want to do the job.”