![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Press, White House, Congress
Q: As you re-acquainted yourself with the job, did you encounter unexpected problems or were you able to go ahead as planned?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: There were certainly unexpected problems. The press was extremely mistrustful of me and of many people in the agency, simply because they had operated that way for months. So I started a weekly press briefing at lunch in the administrator's office. I invited the press, but they had to bring their own lunches. They did show up every week, although I have subsequently found out some of them didn't like the meetings. But they were afraid not to come for fear they would miss a story. These sessions were helpful in publicizing my views on an informal basis, and explaining what was going on at EPA and what I thought we needed to do to make improvements.
The relationship with the White House was important. I tried very hard to start off on the right foot with OMB Director David Stockman and to improve the relationship between the agency, the OMB, and the White House. I think it was okay for a couple of months, but then began to deteriorate again.
I worked hard with the Congress. By that time we had 13 years experience with the Clean Air Act, 11 years with the Clean Water Act, and a lot of experience in trying to make these statutes work. But it was clear to me that we needed to adjust both laws to meet new realities, new challenges, and try different approaches. While there was a good deal of understanding in the Congressional committees I reported to, those who were not dedicated to change were very fearful of opening up these issues because the Reagan Administration had become so discredited on the environment. While they agreed with me privately, they were not about to take on any of these things publicly.
So the administration's avowed purpose of lessening the impact of regulation on society really had the opposite effect, at least with respect to the environment. To the extent it acted at all, Congress increased the degree of regulation, imposing new restrictions on flexibility and on the administration of the statutes. I thought the situation in Congress was complicated and not fruitful. I felt my relationship with most of the members was all right, but the climate was very confrontational and political.
Q: Did it improve over your tenure?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: Not much. I think my own relationship with most of them was pretty positive, but the public interaction was very hostile and confrontational. Sometimes spectacular charges were launched and committee chairmen would ask me to testify. They gave me the questions ahead of time, but in public acted tough and confrontational. This would give them television coverage, after which the hearings were adjourned. They even invited me to their districts for the same purpose. As I mentioned, the administrator reported to some 50 committees, and I tried to avoid these public shows to the maximum extent possible; it was not always possible. That part of it was pretty unpleasant. I didn't think it was worth much because it was all a big game--not an awful lot happened. Wild accusations were made at the hearings, but after adjournment not much resulted.
At the same time, there were several major issues the agency was dealing with. Amendments to the Clean Air Act required the issuance of new standards. We had a major problem with the pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB), a grain and citrus fumigant which some studies found to be a major animal carcinogen. It first arose in Florida and then spread to the rest of the country.
Pesticides, in general, generated an enormous amount of public panic. For example, the grocery manufacturers contacted me through the Agriculture Department and insisted we take action against EDB. They wanted us to remove certain products from the grocery shelves because they were worried about a national panic. The chemical was showing up in cake mixes, flour, and various food stuffs. Of course, EDB has already been used for 35 years, whatever damage it was going to do had already been done. But it was scaring everybody to death, so it was a major issue at EPA. We finally got EDB bled out of the food distribution system. Until then, even the Russians got into it. They threatened to cancel an $8 billion grain sale because they feared the taint of EDB. This was the kind of issue I dealt with all the time.