pollution in national parks. the film details the process of turning general language in a 1977 amendment to specific regulations, revealing behind-the-scenes negotiations and debate between epa regulators and environmental and industry interests. this is 50 minutes. >> funding for this program was made possible by grants and the u.s. department of education. ♪ >> when the cornerstone of this building was still new, thomas jefferson said the execution of our laws is more important than the making of them. i am e.g. marshall. thomas jefferson would have little notion of how far the process of american lawmaking

would advance in the century and a half that followed, or how complex it would become. within these walls, congress still passes our laws, but today this is only the beginning. determining how the laws are made workable is not the job of congress. this task falls to a powerful but little-known group of bureaucrats known as regulators. to some, they are more powerful than many of the lawmakers themselves. what they do affects nearly every part of our daily lives and has become one of the hotly debated aspects of government. our story begins in 1980, the last year of the carter administration. in a residential section of the nation's capital, david hawkins begins his daily commute. ♪ hawkins is a federal regulator for the environmental protection agency. his job, like the ever-changing

face of the city, is the result of the relentless growth of our government. ♪ a century ago, it was relatively simple. under the great capitol dome, laws were passed and the nation followed. but today, our laws are many and complex. every morning, this city's grand avenues are filled with an army of 100,000 federal workers, regulators whose tasks are to implement and enforce the will of congress. to those who defend it, regulation is an absolute necessity in making modern society run. but to its detractors, these agencies represent a bureaucratic monster that generates thousands of unnecessary rules, producing a stranglehold on our economy, our lives, even the air we breathe. ♪

a political appointee of the carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulate our air pollution laws. he will be a key figure in a clean-air battle to unfold in the months ahead. a lifelong environmentalist, he has strong opinions on our government's obligations. >> regulation tends to be developed in response to abuse. the food, drug, and cosmetic act was a response to horrors in the food industry. securities laws were a response to people losing their shirts in the stock market. it is easy to say you're in favor of less regulation, but if you ask people if they are in favor of dirtier air, they will say no. >> these programs are finally

beginning to work. they are actually causing people to have to spend money to clean up what they've been putting into the air for free all these years. >> as his day begins at the environmental protection agency, so does that of a natural adversary across town. henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry which feels the weight of david hawkins' regulations. he is the washington representative for a group of electrical power producers located in the west. to him, regulation creates as many problems as it solves. >> because the utility industry is building and operating large industrial facilities which produce a great deal of energy and therefore require the use of a great deal of fuels, they are number one on the list oftentimes for regulation.

♪ the principal problem is the atmosphere of uncertainty that exists. you are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, and every time they build a plant, all the environmental requirements that applied to the last plant they built have likely been changed. >> in the next two decades, electrical power demands of the nation will double. as the population grows, so does the threat of a future energy crisis. >> we need energy to run our economy, and any regulatory action that can affect that must be very carefully considered in light of the key importance of developing energy independence. >> and in the american west, our possible solutions to energy problems for the next 200 years. coal for electricity and synthetic fuel. shale to release the u.s. from its crippling dependence on foreign oil.

but there is a problem. facilities to convert these riches will threaten another resource, one serving the human spirit. ♪ >> the national parks are held as something sacred. i don't remember whom, but someone referred to them as islands of hope. >> in washington, barbara brown , the chief of air quality for our national parks is concerned. , the government will be inundated with some 90 new permits to locate power plants and strip mines in the shadow of the parks. the clean air battle may be the biggest of her new career. >> what really brought me to this job was i took a backpacking trip for the first

time in my life, and went out to canyonlands. i was totally stunned by the beauty of the grand canyon. ♪ the grand canyon is there because it is a natural thing of wonder. i have seen it when it is crystal-clear and all the colors shimmer, and i've seen it when it is very difficult to even see a rock on the other side of the gorge. air pollution is probably the number one threat to our national parks. there is a problem, and if something's not done about it, there might not be national parks as we know them today. ♪ >> one of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger now naturalist photographer, , gordon anderson. from a remote corner of bryce canyon, utah, his is a remote voice in the wilderness.

>> throughout the year i make several trips to bryce canyon to photograph. my favorite time to visit is the winter. the blanket of snow as a new -- adds a new dimension to the colors in the canyon. when the founding fathers of the national park system back in 1916 set aside parks to be preserved, they could not anticipate 50 years later these parks would be threatened by enormous power plants operating just outside their boundaries. >> anderson had been taking pictures of the western parks for years. as time progressed, he felt that his photographs were revealing an increasing amount of air pollution that was visible entering from nearby power , plants. could these scenic wonders survive the effects of large-scale future energy

development? five years before, in the fall of 1975, he began a one-man crusade to save these natural treasures. in our nation's capital, with the help of a small band of environmentalists, friends of the earth, anderson brought his photographic evidence to petition congress. the goal of the lobbying effort, find a key legislator who would help. congressman paul rogers, author of the monumental 1970 clean air act, was now revising the law. although a great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nation's air, the anderson slides were alarming evidence that parks were still unprotected. >> the navajo power plant in 1974.

we flew over the plant to photograph the plume from the air and smoke was blowing into the grand canyon. when this happens, the vista is reduced to less than the width of the canyon. when pollution finds its way into this huge basin, and the view becomes something more like this. this is a candlestick peak when it is being impacted by air pollution from power plants, it looks like this. >> in december of 1976, rogers and his staff went west to see for themselves. here they experienced the rugged beauty of our national parks and followed a trail of pollution that led from the grand canyon to the massive navajo power plant 50 miles to the north. from the four corners plant, they saw a screen of nitrates and sulfates that nearly alliterative shiprock monument in the navajo reservation.

to the lawmakers, the nation's energy needs were clearly conflicting with another national value, the preservation of our parks as we know them. >> i am not sure that the monitoring that you did is necessarily all-natural. in other words, it could well be man-made, as well, could it not? >> in the process of amending over 100 new sections of the clean air act, one section would read, "congress hereby declares as a national goal that the prevention of any future and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in national park areas." this is section 169-a. its final passage is swift. but the process does not end here. congress has neither the technical knowledge nor the

staff to turn its desires into reality. this is where the regulators take over. those scores of agencies formed by congress in the past century to enforce the will of the regulators. formed in 1970, epa was given the mandate to mount an attack on sources of pollution. one of the newest and largest of regulatory agencies, it regulates all sections of the clean air law. our story deals with one small part of the law, the threat of air pollution in national parks. but since the lands near the parks are rich in resources, regulation here sets the stage for a classic struggle between government and free enterprise. ultimate decisions to shape the regulation from this point will be made by david hawkins. as chief of air pollution programs for epa, his task is to implement the intent of

congress, but the clean air law has swamped his office was work, and while nearly 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks is left untouched for two years. to get things moving again, gordon anderson and friends of the earth take the matter to federal court. the judge orders the epa to draft a proposed regulation within six months and complete the job in one year. ordinarily, the task should take twice that long. with his environmentalist sympathies, hawkins will want a strong interpretation of the law, one that will in his eyes will achieve effective results. with a vaguely-worded statute such as this one, to many he becomes the real lawmaker. >> when a group of people start to think about the actual details of translating a law into specific requirements, questions often come up.

it is my job to provide those answers. the approach i took was, we are implementing a clean air act, and when in doubt we should be protecting the environment. >> dave hawkins' power at this moment is a real concern to henry nickel. he knows it could cost his clients $90 million for pollution control. a stricter implementation could force them to spend as much as $3 billion. >> the way congress rights laws, writes laws,s -- they are not models of clarity. the fact is there are a spectrum of interpretations. you want to look at the facts and pick the one that makes the most sense. >> what the procedural posture and be in the rebuttal supplemental comments? >> the sad part is that it is easier to identify the needs of

the program then it is to implement them. >> in their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense work for nickel and staff. to modify the regulation, he will form alliances with sympathetic agencies and members of congress. for the court battles he will create to delay or even kill the rule, he must constantly sift through all available evidence. to the utilities, more regulation could mean delays in constructing new facilities, huge additional costs, and a climate of uncertainty caused by changing rules. >> the regulations in question would affect the licensing of every new facility in the west. if industry does not participate, they could find themselves facing rules that could not be met. >> at national park service headquarters, there is worry that future energy development will bring more air pollution within the parks.

>> if the courts are going to overturn it, then that is the opportunity to look toward alternative ways for protection. -- of addressing protection. i would be very interested to hear those. >> barbara brown must map a strategy for the months ahead. her immediate problem is that the national park service is not a regulatory agency. she and her staff will have to fight even to be heard. >> i knew it would be a feat of hercules if a good regulation was written within a year, but i think it was a wonderful incentive to get moving. >> durham, north carolina. to the epa's office of air quality come representatives of the park service, the department of energy, the forest service, and others in the government's first attempt to write the regulation. >> i want to just start at the front and work our way through.

>> the group is made up of those who must live with the rule after it is regulated. they must draft a proposed regulation within six months, but it becomes evident that every member brings separate marching orders from his agency. >> the starting place is what is significant. what is worth spending money on. that means there has to be a significant improvement. >> no, it provides criteria. if we were going to set public -- yeah, it is other things. >> epa engineer johnny pearson is chairman of the group. a tenured bureaucrat with the -- 10 year bureaucrat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of a regulation. >> it's a resource to manage like the other ones. it is not unique or special. >> it is not whether the vista is protected it is how much , protection that is the issue. >> congress has not said the value on this. >> the working group will be aided by public input. soon in three western states,

workshops will be held to seek initial reaction to eliminating visible pollution and the parks. in denver, the industry voices its candid opinion. >> i don't give a damn what the visibility is. >> congress never envisioned these kinds of burdensome costs. >> we are on the way to ruin. >> epa's report to congress points out -- >> utilities and others remind the epa that the clean air act was, to them one of the most , burdensome and costly public laws in history. they agree that america's air is now cleaner, but to them, this regulation would only duplicate existing roles and create more paperwork and red tape. >> proposed controls simply result in wheel-spinning and more and more control by inexperienced and unknowledgeable bureaucrats who love to spend money on the

impossible. >> we have a power plant up for permitting that is 12 times cleaner than what was presented to congress. they are telling us we do not meet the class two regulation. we have to do a little more. >> my name is gordon anderson. >> as usual, the regulation industry shows up in force. one of the 2 who speaks for the environment is gordon anderson. >> i sent here all day listening -- sat here all day listening to people condemn the environmental protection agency. we should be complementing these individuals on their efforts to protect and clean up the environment. the reasons they have been criticized by industry is because the intent of industry is to weaken and destroy the provisions of this act. what good is a national park if it is full of smog? what good is the grand canyon if you can only see 15 miles because of the navajo power plant plumes filling the entire grand canyon with smog? this is one of the most important resources not just in america but in the world. this is no way to treat it. >> what we are saying is do the best job we can right now. we cut back to what we can

accomplish, recognizing the limitations. the consideration of these long-term strategies, we will begin to look at. but what are my other problems? >> as time pressures mount, johnny pearson asks the group to limit the effort to industries already polluting the park. he suggests that the group ignore for now future pollution. but before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. >> what is the national goal? any perceptible change to the human observer, from that which would upset natural conditions. >> how do we define natural conditions? >> i don't think we can define natural conditions. >> than that is meaningless. >> we are looking for cases where it is not natural conditions. >> if you don't put that in there, you could go to the l.a. basin and put up a plume there

and somebody could say, you can't see it because the l.a. smog is in your eyes, so why can't i build my source? we are saying you can't do that. >> when you use that source to -- ask that source to calculate his impact, what you going to tell him natural conditions are? >> it is natural conditions, that which occurs naturally. you can't define it as a number. >> the simple intent of the united states congress to clean the air within our national parks begins to appear unsolvable for many reasons. we looking at of calgary, and we have a hypothetical plant -- >> existing means of scientific measurement are not designed for situations of this complexity. clearly, area power plants are not the only polluters. smelters and other industries add to the picture, as do urban centers as far away as los angeles. wind conditions change hourly,

defying accurate monitoring of pollution sources. finally, one thing overlooked by congress, much of the scenery observed by visitors lies outside park boundaries. should not these integral vistas, as the bureaucrats would call them, also be protected? yet, there are hundreds of these views adjacent to the parks. limiting development of these lands would certainly be opposed by industry. with all of these problems, there is still the pressure of the first court deadline in which a proposed regulation must be ready for review by may 15. johnny pearson makes the decision. his first draft will ignore future sources and regulate existing polluters only.

a step not popular with park service officials in washington. >> it was an aggravating process at times, when you sent something over and over, and they said gotcha, and it was not what you were really saying at all. when you care about what you're doing, you identify very personally with the product you see on paper. it is not just a regulation, it means that will people see the grand canyon 100 years from now? i've seen this gobbledygook before but i'm surprised at this stage it is still gobbledygook. >> it is better than it was. >> there are sentences that are not even sentences. i begin to feel like a manic-depressive on a roller coaster. >> across town, friends of the earth received copies of the draft leaked to them by allies within the park service. >> 80 pages from epa. the second cut. quite frankly, it is pitiful. it does not mention anything

about new sources at all. >> we have to raise the issue, that is our responsibility. >> you could not intelligently evaluate what the agency was proposing because the agency had not given us all the information we needed to make a judgment. >> and information is the lifeblood to henry nickel in presenting a strong case. he invokes the freedom of information act, dispatching a team of attorneys to search park service files. >> the sort of thing we are looking for, what is known about the areas. >> first cut. >> probably finish relatively early. >> well, have at it. >> we are doing all of this with an eye ultimately to the courts, because if you don't get what you want, you have to go to court or forever waive any right you have to be heard on the question.

of course, the history of the last several years is that the ultimate decision upsets everybody. >> from durham, johnny pearson and his assistant come to washington to present the proposed regulation to top management within the epa. the draft must pass the scrutiny of the agency's steering committee. the acid test of 16 working group meetings and five months of effort. >> the next major issue is going to the investors. >> the rule will subsequently be tested. >> the deputy to dave hawkins is charged with keeping the regulation on schedule. with about five weeks before the six months court-ordered deadline, the reaction of the steering committee is critical. >> there were a number of concerns about the quality of the guidelines we have and their linkage to the regulations themselves. >> the regions, the states, the industry, the environmental groups, are looking at this set of regs as providing a new tool.

something to assess the new source for individually -- visibility. the package does not do that. >> we are not going to go out with scientific data that has not been published or accepted. particularly on modeling and monitoring, where i have lab directors beating on me unmercifully and constantly that i cannot use the tools they are developing in any way until they are peer-reviewed. i need to know which word we want to have changed and what. >> it is easy to do that when there are minor modifications that are necessary. it is not so easy to do when a major overhaul is necessary. >> we entered this exercise, talked to doug, and agreed with the schedule with the court and the environmentalists with the upfront understanding we would do the c+ job first time through. it is all you can do in this timeframe. but if we are making the transition from c+ to a-, i want to do that in the next three years.

this is the first step in a long change of events. >> we're talking about d- or below, i think. >> i answer every damn one of my phone calls, every day, i don't understand why if we are so deficient that we are at d or f, i am going to hear about it today. everybody in this room knows damn well the administration has a court order to sign something in may. >> we have been raising these major arguments at meetings for the last 2-3 months. i have copies of four memos that have commented on the inadequacy of the whole package going back over the last two months. >> and asking again, we had a working group. working group, the definition starts with w-o-r-k. we need the language. >> it involves your folks working with these people. >> there are more people critiquing this role than there are to work on it, by a long shot. i need the working group to do some work.

>> the steering committee sees the first draft as unacceptable. it does not pass its first critical test from epa leadership. five weeks from the first deadline, johnny pearson is back at square one. upset over the draft omissions, barbara brown seizes the moment. she gets a meeting with staff. >> the first draft was missing a critical piece of the puzzle. that was the future development that could have an impact on disability. -- visibility. the first draft of the regulation totally ducked the issue. >> this package is one of several tools. >> brown alerts hawkins to the dangers of not regulating future polluters. to her, this issue should have never been compromised in the

first place. >> it was like alice in wonderland. we are working to clean up the old sources but not catching up because of the pollution from the new sources. unless it was addressed, we would be on a treadmill. >> the demands of the park service team do not make them of the most popular people with the epa staff, but controlling future pollution is reinstated i -- by hawkins. a major victory for barbara brown. sit down and put words on a piece of paper. going back to court for a delay is not laying out the cards. intensive works on an new drafting effort.

each objection discussed a new. >> no one thinks there is going to be any revolutionary new invention. changes we have been talking about get us a long way there. >> two weeks before the first deadline, the regulation approaches another internal checkpoint. read border review. as a measure, the package now contains 420 pages of regulation to explain five pages of law. >> what i am going to do is put it in today. get this thing going. ok, it is signed. >> the border process is basically the last chance for the administrators to object to the administration before it

goes to the administrators. >> one of our red border packages. >> of course, we don't use a simple word like object. we say non-concur. it is either concur or non-concur rather than agreeing or object. the young people are freaking out about the numbers. >> on the morning of the first deadline, there is proof that the rush to regulate has taken its toll. a phone call brings news that the supporting cost data are filled with errors. there is no way the proposed regulation would be approved with these figures attached. >> 3.0 goes to 3.3. >> i think it is on the dependency. those numbers are too high. >> there is no sense getting comment on a set of numbers where there are severe problems. this is cutting down on

government paperwork. [chuckling] sealed the supplementary figures can be corrected and published within a few weeks. by eliminating the faulty numbers for now, epa will meet the first deadline. the front pages can stay, the back 400 will go. with epa administrator douglas's signature, the midpoint deadline is reached. the regulations reflect sympathies. future and the existing sources of pollution are to be regulated as our integral beast does lying outside. but the proposal must next to go through the all-important public comment. with signature in hand, phase two begins. in the summer of 1980, tourist season begins a new.

as they had done for so many years, some 3 million would return to that great, wondrous chasm called the grand canyon. return to marvel at the power in beauty of their land. >> you wish you could take them home. >> yes. >> the people would return to the magnificent wind-carved land. unaware of the debate nearby back they could have on the future of these lands. in salt lake city, a public comment time of 75 days would begin. here, the argument of costs, delays, and the uncertainty would again be emphasized by industry. >> these appear to have been generated only to applied by the court mandate to have regulations in effect by a

date. >> consideration should not be made in a slipshod manner. >> based upon a hope they would be worth it. >> we urge the environmental protection agency to moderate its schedule for promulgating the regulations until 1985 at the earliest. >> delay, delay, delay. this is a tactic industry is using against the epa to delay it indefinitely. this guy over the southwest is not an open sewer. >> the regulators here the views and frustrations of those that thed ultimately enforce and a tangle of other rules. >> the regulations we are addressing today sometimes cross the fine line between federal guidance and interference. we are directed to protect air

visibility, endangered species, reclaim all lands disturbed by mining. and, at the same time provide , over 200 million barrels of synthetic oil in the early 1990's. trying to balance all of those goals within the limited statutory guidelines in and resources in this country, i say in my testimony a difficult task -- it is almost an impossible task. >> in washington, the allies accelerate their campaign. i'm capitol hill, they urge members of congress to pressure epa for modification. eventually, even the white house it self is drawn into the debate. , ratherost estimate wide-ranging. they were tied to grapple with the issues to minimize the

impact on industry and the economy. what that comes down to is how are we going to dilute the regulations. >> that would be identified in terms of the particular feature that is important and that in itself is limiting. >> a white house concerned with inflation recommends the role be be significantly weekend. a victory for local utilities. >> there are fundamental questions we should be looking at. epa has equated impairment with any change. >> encouraged, they next argued that epa's move to include non-park land within the regulation is not only unfair but illegal since it was never mentioned why congress. -- by congress. dave hawkins he feels, is , overstepping his authority.

>> the job of the regulators is to implement the laws congress adopts and not create laws. i think the agency created laws. it seems to be pretty straightforward. don'tother words, if we expressly do something in two weeks, we go back to the court. >> three months before the final deadline, the public comment time officially ends. in addition to the massive legal brief are the written comments of 382 others. arguments of regulated industries, the white house, key members of congress and letter-writing campaigns of opposing environmental groups. by the day's end, a stack of paper seven feet high will be under lock and key. >> with the end of the public comment time, the people of

-- have spoken. a vaguely worded law and in perfect scientific information. the utilities industry, fearful that regulation will hamper energy development and increase cost takes advantage of these weak points. henry nickel has mounted an affected battle. working through a coalition of legislators, those sympathetic federal agencies and even a cost-conscious white house, pressure is brought. epa will exempt existing power plants from adding costly power -- pollution controls. it is worth an estimated $3 billion to industry. at the same time, barbara brown is victorious in her battle to have the regulation applied to future industrial development that might affect parks. the rule is now a total turnaround from what johnny pearson originally proposed.

perhaps the problem biggest of all, outside the park, is the epa team creating law that congress never intended. as the one your core deadline draws near, aine concern johnny pearson heads toward washington and final decision. >> as you all know, we are required by september 15, looking over 336 comments, virtually every comment we received mentioned integral the stars one way or another. in reading over all of the comments, i have some reservations about our ability to support in court the integral integralist issues. we did make an argument.

we felt we could make that in , sot with a straight face to speak. there are some very persuasive arguments being made that will again be made in court. wants tohopkins once -- go ahead with the project, that is a policy decision that has to be made. >> they do believe there are the court with action. >> the decision on integral this -- vistas gives the ammunition needed. there is an added reason for halting. a court delay now would grant time for the election of a new president, one more favorable to his cause.

with two weeks to go, barbara brown makes final recommendations. for her, each turn of phrase has attention for protecting or endangering the parks. >> in integral vista is the scene of a landmark. that is to limiting. announcer: making contact with the legal counterpart at epa.

>> this is henry. >> what is up? what if you heard? >> we had raised the question is the agency should not be rethinking the entire package. to do that, there would have to be an extension of the deadline. >> this issue will give the epa until november 24 to respond to your motion and give counsel two weeks from today. announcer: this is not henry nichols round. the regulation will go forward that both men know that when the roll is published, henry will return to the courts and another round of legal maneuver. >> thanks a lot. >> we will have our day. goodbye.

>> the regulation is a result of many efforts. barbara brown has fought to protect the parks. henry has gained concessions for the power plants existing. into even one issue of personal importance to hawkins will not remain involved. >> where we compromised on the integral vistas was allowing the states to have the final say for the impact on an integral vista. it requires an open process. if people cannot equally adopt the impact, they will have the ability to influence the decision. >> 1980, a final trip from

durham to washington. johnny pearson has arrived to deliver the completed documents personally. inside the box are 2000 pages telling a nation how to implement a congressional resolve to clean the air in our national parks. after 48 drafts created with the assistance of congress, the white house, the courts, 15 government agencies, 36 states and 383 public comments, johnny pearson's job is over. what began as a simple observation of one man through the viewfinder of a camera will shortly become a set of regulations affecting millions. although existing plants will not be able -- required to change, future agencies must prove they will not foul the air

before they build. most importantly, it will establish clean the area in our parks as a national goal. today pocket's, a moment to reflect after a year of conflict and compromise. >> it is impossible -- we are nine days are short of a year. >> impossible. >> yeah. well, it should not be but it is. >> oh well. >> thanks a lot. >> in a quiet moment, reflecting on the effort to get there, a final step in creating the regulation arrives. >> this one regulation is not by any means going to do the whole job. it is meant to make a mark and say, you do not have to be able to buy a high quality environment in order to be able

to enjoy one in the united states. >> three years after it passes congress, section 169-a of the clean air act will now take effect. dave hawkins's job is done. >> around the world, this country is known for the vistas in the western united states. if you look at the travel posters, you will always see the grand canyon. it is a treasure of the world and we cannot afford not to protect it. >> the law will bear the imprint of all concerned. by eliminating existing power plants from the full effect of the regulation, henry has served his clients well. >> had we not participated in the process, there could have been a set of rules that would

of had immediate and disastrous impact on industry. that did not occur. but environmental requirements can be made much simpler than the are right now because it is costing the public a great deal of money and the public is not getting that many benefits. you are going to have to balance what your interests are with the national park with your interest in the economy and energy development. >> barbara brown's success and controlling future polluters is a significant getting. she has helped to shape the law with concern and dedication. barbara: you have to great warhorses. the protection of a national parks the future of our national energy and development at stake. industry and protecting the national parks can coexist.

i have seen it one industry has come in and we have been able to lay out what we want to accomplish. it does take a certain amount of trust and to sometimes that is hard to develop because we're so used to wearing our white hats and our black hats that we forget to talk to one another but the first step has been taken and that gives me a great deal of satisfaction. >> barbara brown would be the first to admit that in washington, rarely has there been such a clear victory and almost never is there such a lasting one. the political drama the political drama that shapes our laws and lives is a constant struggle. for now, the regulation as written will be an force but this role and the clean air act itself will be challenged again as well all of our laws. we have seen a former park ranger that one person can have an effect on national legislation and so to make you and i make a difference if we let our voices be heard.

i am e.g. marshal. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> recently, american history tv was at the american historical association's annual meeting