![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Congress, White House, Courts, Environmentalists and Industry
Q: How would you characterize the agency's relationship with Congress? Do you remember any anecdotes that illustrate the agency's, or your own, relationship with Congress or congressional staff?
MR. ALM: I think it was generally okay. EPA goes before a lot of different committees. It has a few supporters and many detractors. It is tough sometimes, because there are obviously a lot of negative issues involving EPA. My sense, though, is that the appropriations committees have been generally supportive, at least when I was there. The authorizing committees, certainly the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees, were also supportive. Actually, the Congressional relationships were generally pretty good. I am not sure that is still the case.
I remember once [as AA for Policy and Planning] I had temporarily experimented with the use of an auto pen. And one day I got a call from Train, who said that our appropriations bill was held up because of some letter I sent. I traced it and found a letter had been written and autopenned back to a member of the Appropriations Committee under my signature. The letter was a peremptory brush off. That was the end of my use of the auto pen as an experiment. Needless to say, I solved that problem quickly.
Q: I guess so! You said that congressional committees such as the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee were pretty supportive of EPA, why do you say that? What do you remember about how they were supportive as opposed to perhaps other committees or as opposed to what they could have been?
MR. ALM: Well, they were supportive in the sense that they were always trying to help with resources and the like. They would play whatever role they could with the appropriations committees. And I suspect they were supportive of EPA vis-a-vis the OMB on those kinds of issues. You know, from a day-to-day point of view it used to be a pain in the neck, being dragged up by staff members and the like. But, I think overall it was a relationship that was helpful to the agency.
Q: What do you recall about EPA's relationships with its other constituents - the White House, the courts and environmental groups and industries? What anecdotes can you recall that might illustrate those?
MR. ALM: The White House relationships were somewhat difficult; I include OMB in the White House equation. Certainly, I think Bill Ruckelshaus had a hard time dealing with OMB; and, certain parts of the White House were not that supportive, other parts were. Jim Baker and some others were supportive, some were neutral. It was a difficult set of relationships in my opinion. Russ Train had a fairly good relationship with John Ehrlichman and very friendly relationships with the Ford White House.
The Courts. My feeling about the courts is not so much the feeling of what happened at EPA at the time, but what l see in more recent periods. The courts do an awful lot of second guessing of administrative agencies' decisions. I was recently involved with a Carnegie Commission Panel, which had a number of distinguished jurists. We talked about the relationship of courts and what kind of technical information they need or how they can make these decisions. All I can say is it is a real quandary when the courts begin to try and understand the technical data outside their areas of expertise. I remind lawyers how they would feel about people practicing law without legal standing. They run into the same problems when they begin to interpret science.
Environmental groups. I have had many very good personal relationships with people in environmental groups, many of whom sue the agency or criticize our actions. I never took these things personally or seriously. I remember being in various debates with people from environmental groups and they would always say "Al is a good guy, but he can't get anything done in the administration." The relationships with environmental groups were generally positive. And I still consider a lot of the people in the movement friends.
Industry. I believe manufacturing firms have come a long way for a whole bunch of reasons. Many firms are really making strong efforts to not only comply but to be proactive - to go beyond mere compliance. Industry is entering into voluntary programs to reduce pollution for a whole bunch of reasons: liability and concern in some circles about even criminal liability. They are also doing it because of concern about how they look to their customers and community. I dare say there are people in the firms that really believe that there is an obligation. Finally, I think many CEOs see an inevitable environmental transition and believe that being on top of the environmental issue will be a key element in long term competitiveness. And I think they are right.
Q: Some critics of EPA have suggested that there is a revolving door in the agency. They claim that the ease with which top officials move between corporate and government positions has detracted from the agency s credibility, and hampered its effectiveness. They have made this point with regard to some of Mr. Ruckelshaus's actions after he returned to the agency after having been with Weyerhaeuser. What is your assessment of this idea?
MR. ALM: I have never heard that criticism. But, I guess there are not very many people that have been out of the agency, who have come back. The only two I know of are Bill and myself. And, certainly, at the time, people made entreaties to our patriotism and vanity to come back. I don't think anybody was looking for any gain. I am sure that Bill lost a small fortune, coming back, and for me it was certainly most disadvantageous financially for me to come back. Still, I think that both of us felt that the agency was in a critical position. I can only speak for myself, but when you are asked, under those conditions, to serve, you probably ought to be willing to do so.
I think this revolving door syndrome is a uniquely American phenomenon. I think, on the contrary, that it would be very desirable to have people moving from industry to government, and to state governments, too. The more of that kind of movement, the better. Obviously, you need to be very careful of the direct conflicts of interest, but I don't think that a person's service in the private sector should be a barrier to their government service. It should be, in many cases, something that could be usefully tapped.