At TSCA at 10, a Reminder That Lasting Reform Requires Lasting Consensus

One of the most valuable aspects of convening conversations on chemical law and policy is the opportunity to hear directly from those who helped shape the laws that continue to guide regulatory decision-making today. During the Environmental Law Institute’s recent TSCA at 10 event, co-hosted by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. and the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, former U.S. Senator Tom Udall offered precisely that perspective.

As one of the architects of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Senator Udall reflected on the extraordinary bipartisan effort that transformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016. His remarks served as both a look back at an important legislative achievement and a reminder of what made that achievement possible in the first place: a willingness to work across political divides in pursuit of durable policy solutions. Senator Udall was joined by Bonnie Lautenberg, the late Senator’s wife, who herself was an indispensable force of nature in getting Lautenberg over the goal line. Both Senator Udall and Ms. Lautenberg stressed the importance of personal relationships among Senators at the time as critically important to bridging years of debate and for a successful, bipartisan, legislative package.

Perhaps notably, Senator Udall expressed the view that the upcoming TSCA fee reauthorization process is not the appropriate venue for reopening broader debates about the statute itself. While stakeholders across the political spectrum undoubtedly have ideas for improving TSCA implementation, Senator Udall cautioned against using a fee-focused exercise as a mandate to pursue more sweeping statutory changes.

Currently, there is much controversy, disagreement, and litigation surrounding many key provisions of the 2016 amendments. This was partly, if not significantly, due to the political partisan swings of administrations between Presidents Obama, Trump, Biden, and Trump (round two). The message of relationships leading to compromise and agreement seem like a contrary tone to the current political environment, and while professional and respectful, the presentations of some of the speakers at the event provided glimpses of the underlying disputes.

Senator Udall’s comments underscore an important and enduring reality about environmental and public health legislation — relevant for not only the creation of legislation, but also for the implementation described as bipartisan consensus at the time the amendments were approved. The 2016 TSCA amendments were not the product of a single party, administration, or interest group. Rather, they emerged from years of negotiations among lawmakers, industry representatives, environmental advocates, state governments, and other stakeholders who often disagreed on policy but shared an interest in modernizing a law that all sides recognized was no longer functioning effectively. At the time of enactment, congratulatory statements about achieving what some characterized as consensus on the legislative text were heard from all corners of the debate. Then, as now, not everyone agreed consensus existed.

The result was a statute that has endured multiple administrations with very different regulatory philosophies. While debates continue over implementation, chemical prioritization, risk evaluation methodologies, new chemical review, and risk management approaches, the fundamental framework established in 2016 remains intact. That durability reflects the strength that comes from bipartisan policymaking and broad stakeholder engagement, and reminders of the original consensus might help reach — or move closer to — agreement over some of the current policy disputes.

At a time when political discourse often emphasizes division, Senator Udall’s remarks offered a reminder that some of the most significant policy accomplishments occur when participants focus less on ideological victories and more on practical solutions. Chemical regulation presents complex challenges that rarely lend themselves to simple answers. Developing effective policies requires technical expertise, stakeholder input, and a recognition that lasting progress often depends on compromise.

This is particularly relevant as Congress considers TSCA fee reauthorization. Stakeholders will undoubtedly have strong views on funding levels, cost allocation, administrative efficiency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to discharge its mandatory statutory responsibilities. Those discussions are important and necessary. But as Senator Udall suggested, maintaining focus on fee collection authority is important to position EPA for successful implementation. Clearly identifying the problems and working collaboratively on practical solutions may ultimately help preserve a broader consensus that has been difficult to achieve over the last decade.

The discussion also emphasized something that is easy to overlook in today’s political environment: relationships matter. The bipartisan coalition that produced TSCA reform in 2016 was built through years of dialogue, trust-building, and a shared commitment to finding common ground. Those same qualities remain essential today as policymakers confront increasingly complex environmental, public health, and economic challenges — not only about TSCA, but environmental regulation generally.

Ten years after the Lautenberg amendments reshaped U.S. chemicals management, Senator Udall’s reflections provided more than a historical perspective. They offered a timely lesson on the importance of collaboration, civility, and consensus-driven policymaking. Whether one agrees with every aspect of TSCA’s implementation or not, the law’s history demonstrates that durable reforms are often the product of bringing people together rather than pulling them apart.

As the next chapters of TSCA implementation unfold, that may be one of the most important lessons to remember.