![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Relations with Congress
Q: You alluded to your relations with Congress. How would you characterize the overall relationship?
MR. TRAIN: Overall, I would say very positive. This is a very important point to make because I think the climate has changed a lot in that regard. In my day, EPA's principal association in the Senate was the Public Works Committee. Senator Ed Muskie was the number two Democrat on it, and the principal mover in air and water legislation. Much of what he eventually came to support was shaped by the recommendations of the Nixon and Ford Administrations, although he opposed much of what we tried to do in the early days. The chairman of that committee was Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, with whom I always had a good relationship. He was an old-style politician, more interested in public works than the environment. He pretty well left Muskie to run the environment on the Democratic side. I always had a good relationship with Muskie, although it had its ups and downs. Ed was a very mercurial individual, tended to lose his temper quite quickly and recover it equally quickly. Ed had a very active and aggressive staffer on environmental matters named Leon Billings. Leon didn't let many days go by without calling and telling you what you did wrong. But these relationships were manageable.
On the Republican side, I received remarkable support. Give Senator Howard Baker a lot of credit for that. Howard was highly respected by the less senior members of the committee, was always extremely helpful to me, and worked well with Muskie and with Jennings Randolph. I always had good support from Republicans in dealing with the White House, especially from Senator Jim Buckley, the head of the Environmental Subcommittee on the Public Works Committee. Although very conservative, Buckley happened to be an old personal friend, and we had an excellent relationship. Jim became a strong ally when EPA opposed the new Supersonic Transport (SST) aircraft. (The Agency recommended reduced appropriations and tough permits). Of course, Buckley opposed the SST because he thought it was uneconomical, while we opposed it because we were worried about the ozone layer and other environmental problems. I would say generally that in those years the legislative product of the Public Works Committee was really a bipartisan effort.
The relationships on the House side were more complicated. There were more committees and subcommittees involved, and the relationships were more politicized. But by then I had known many members of the House for some time. For instance, I had quite a good relationship with John Dingell. I had also known Paul Rogers for a long time. In fact, Rogers' father had been on the Ways & Means Committee when I was on the staff, as had Dingell's father. So we had long associations, and generally speaking, the Agency had good Congressional relationships.
The House Appropriations Committee was a special case. The present Chairman of Appropriations, Jamie Whitten, was then Chairman of the Subcommittee which dealt with CEQ and EPA. Jamie was difficult. He and I got along very well personally, had a good relationship, and trusted each other. But I learned that when I made a decision on something like an agricultural pesticide - something that was going to make Jamie really unhappy - the best thing to do was to let him know just a little bit in advance so he wasn't taken by surprise. As long as Jamie wasn't taken by surprise, we got along fine; but he could be very difficult on environmental issues. Generally, he was certainly not pro-environment. Ed Boland, a Democrat, became Chairman of that Subcommittee later on, and it became an entirely different situation. Boland was from Massachusetts and was an extraordinarily able and even-handed Appropriations Subcommittee chairman. He ruled that subcommittee, but he had a good staff, and you always got a very fair shake from Ed. I don't recall the other members now, but Ed Boland was absolutely first rate.
Again, I would generalize that our Congressional associations were very good, very supportive. Obviously, some individual members behaved in a manner which drove me right up the wall. These were the ones who hauled me up to Capitol Hill and beat me over the head, either publicly or privately. But that's part of the process. You expect that. Overall, I think we had extremely good support.