Word on the street is that the Senate will vote today on S.J.Res. 52, the "resolution of disapproval" that would nullify the FCC's recent net neutrality repeal, and so you may use the tools in the upper right-hand corner of this page (or the bottom of this page, if you're on a cellphone) to call your Senators and tell them to vote "yes" on S.J.Res. 52. The FCC, in repealing net neutrality, has allowed big internet service corporations to censor or slow down websites you want to visit, just because they can (or just because big corporations paid the necessary tribute to have their websites loaded more quickly), thus restoring the "freedom" of corporations to curtail your freedom to go where you want to go on the internet. The FCC's anti-internet freedom rules may die an ugly death in court -- which they may, since the FCC openly said they ignored most of the comments submitted to them on the matter-- but I'd be OK if Congress acted, too.
Meanwhile, the EPA and the DOT are now acting counter to the people's will and to common sense by rolling back fuel efficiency standards. You'd think making cars that get more miles to the gallon would be a no-brainer for our government, but they tell you that higher fuel efficiency standards mean more expensive cars, and what a shame it would be if you had to spend a little more now to save a lot more on gas later! Such good guys, looking out for us like that! If you buy that malarkey, of course, you should ask an auto corporation CEO if his high compensation package drives up car prices. Then they'll tell you that rising prices are really a very complex matter, with no one factor yadda yadda yadda. (Or they'll tell you I earned it, which is also not the same as you're incorrect and here's irrefutable evidence to prove it. If they can't say that, they lose! It's that simple!) So Consumer Reports helps you tell the EPA to cut it out with its efforts to destroy fuel efficiency standards already.
Finally, the Environmental Defense Fund helps you tell the EPA to reject its plan to limit the scientific study the EPA can use to make decisions about our clean air and clean water. Mr. Pruitt's plan -- to limit EPA decision-making only to studies that can be publicly released -- might sound all common-sensical and such, but it actually isn't, because a lot of studies can't be publicly released because they contain personally-identifiable data, which would violate the privacy of those folks who contributed their experiences with carcinogens and toxins to those studies. But the EPA's proposal would, oddly, provide a lot of loopholes for big corporate "science" research. The result? Big fossil fuel corporations could push their own "science," "proving" that their pollution doesn't actually cause anyone to get sick, while the EPA could say nothing. So conservatives who complain about regulations making everything worse have no standing to ignore this EPA regulating that actually will make everything worse.