that's all for today. time goes so fast. until next time. i hope you're learning to be more of a healthy you. >> another big power grab for the epa. >> the epa has become the green monster, a monster that trampled on our lives. that's our show tonight. >> the green monster. that doesn't sound fair. the epa, the environmental protection agency has created

rules that made the environment cleaner. when i was in college, the air and water were filthy. people forget how bad it was. so let me remind you, here is the star anchorman of my day reporting on the state of america. >> the filthy waters. >> hydrocarbons, metal fumes, organic matter, odors and mal odor each and every day. >> some of that was media hype. there is always media hype. in truth, much of america was still pristine. but it's also absolutely true that in many cityies near filthy. much clearen now. even here near the empire state building within a short distance of millions of people, flushing, i'm willing to do this. thanks, epa. you've required sewage treatment plants and catalytic converters

on cars. good work. in a rational world, the epa would now say stick a fork in it. it's done. but bureaucracies never say they're done. done means bureaucrats are out of work. can't have that. so even though the air and water are much cleaner now, the politicians keep adding new rules. then they applaud themselves for doing that. >> i am really proud of president obama for these new epa regulations and for the strong stance that he has taken on climate change at home. >> another person who is happy with the new epa rules, in fact, he wants more, is daniel wise of the league of conservation voters. not so happy is environmental law professor jonathan adler. why not? you don't want a clean environment? >> of course i want a clean environment. but we make the mistake sometimes of assuming that the way you clean the environment is just adding other regulations. >> daniel, isn't it enough

already? >> well, first, i don't hear anybody complaining that things are too clean. in fact, millions of americans still live in metropolitan areas whereñmajb the air can cause respiratory ailments and trigger asthma attacks. we've got a lot of water that needs to be cleaned up. third, we really need to deal with climate change, which is a global problem. but we have to start here at home by reducing the carbon pollution responsible for climate change. >> but you confused a lot of things there. you talk about pollution and climate change. i think they're different. there is confusion about what pollution and carbon pollution really mean. when i think of pollution and carbon, i think of this stuff, coal. soot in the air. this is real pollution. touch this, it's filthy on your fingers. but the new rules against carbon dioxide, that's something else. it's good there is plenty in the air, plants need it to grow.

is it correct to call it pollution? i don't think so. >> carbon pollution yuck. >> carbon pollution income. >> clean energy. that's the way. >> clean energy, that's the way. >> here we go. together. carbon pollution yuck. >> am i unfair in saying they're just confused? >> i think it's fair to say a lot of people assume that when we talk about climate change, we're talking about traditional pollution. i think it's also fair to say that nothing that the epa has put on the table for climate change will actually do anything to affect the global warming we're concerned about. epa's own cost benefit analyses don't show any benefit. >> they admit would have no effect. >> correct. if we're serious about dealing with climate change, we need to reduce per capita emission of carbon dioxide during before the civil war. >> how is that going to happen to make a difference? >> first of all, you can't address a problem instantly.

we have to start by having the united states, which has put the most carbon pollution into the atmosphere, reduce its carbon of the once we've done that, then we need to get other countries to do that. >> good luck with that. >> may i finish? in fact, one of the things that's happened is since the administration made its clean power plant proposal a month ago, other countries are now starting to indicate that they too are going to do more to reduce their pollution. >> i'll believe it when i see it. but daniel, here is a commercial that your group runs that criticizes people like jonathan who attack the new epa rules. >> their attacks are baseless fear mongering, false, bogus, and flunk the truth test. they pollute our air and they pollute the air waves with lies. blowing smoke to protect their profits. >> you're polluting the air waves with lies. >> certainly don't know why i could be accused of that. we all care about the environment. i certainly think climate change

is a problem. but the reality is the united states, china -- >> you think it's a problem? >> i think it's a problem burks not a problem that justifies regulating the entire economy. >> let's get back to the pollution -- >> may i finish? not a single clean-up has occurred of any major pollutant due to voluntary measures. innovation is driven by regulation. right now putting pollution in the air is free. so why, if you're a utility, would you ever develop perhaps a slightly more expensive way to address that when putting the pollution in the air is free? >> he's certainly right. the epa, the environment is one area where my beloved free market won't just solve things. we've had great success. we have this chart of how air pollution is down. you provided this chart, which shows how it was falling even before the epa.

>> exactly. >> what happened? >> there was technological change and improvement driven by the desire to be more efficient. >> there were also state and local rules that both weird in some case, regulated the emissions -- >> it was dropping fast before the epa regulated it. >> it was. but the reality is as everyone who has acknowledged, sulfur dioxide -- >> why? >> because local communities cared about their air quality, number one. because in some cases, companies could be liable for lawsuits if they were polluting our neighbors. in some cases, we realized that the more stuff that's going out your smoke stack, that's material that you're wasting. that means you're paying more -- >> out of selfish reasons they were cleaning up. >> in some case, and in some it was states and local governments telling them that they had to do better for their local communities. >> what jonathan said -- >> revisionist made up history, let me read you a quote.

>> don't read me a quote. >> i have a question for you. you have every chance to address this here. he says many people say that the stuff we're doing now to try to address climate change is going to make no difference and cost a fortune. what's the point? >> first of all, it doesn't cost a fortune. second of all, it will drive innovation. and jonathan was completely telling fairy tales when he described how state and local governments on their own with happy companies led to decline in pollution. it was only driven by the clean air act, the clean water act, and other laws that set the standards and let the states implement it. that's what drives innovation. not the good nature of people running those -- >> they won't get it done without the big feds? >> that's right. and remember, what epa is doing now is implementing a law passed

by the congress and interpreted by the john roberts supreme court that said that carbon pollution is a pollutant covered by the clean air act. so all the epa is doing is enforcing the law. if congress doesn't like the law, they can try and change it. but until then, it's not an e -- epa is not doing this on their own. they're following a decision by the supreme court and the laws of the united states. >> what if the law says i can't exhale? >> can i finish? jonathan just -- >> you talk so much, it's hard to let you finish. they're regulating carbon dioxide, we exhale that. >> right. if i put you in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide, you wouldn't live very long, would you? the reality is, john just made a spurious charge which is that efforts to reduce pollution actually end up hurting people. but you know what? in 1997, he said the same thing. in fact, since he said that inm 1997, our mortality rate in the

u.s. is down. >> jonathan, you get to reply. i assume it's for other reasons. >> natural academy of science, for example, repeatedly pointed out that our efforts to deal with ozone pollution by the epa in some cases increased local air pollution. epa has acknowledged that some of its recent regulations trying to encourage greater use of biofuels increased air pollution. >> it's a crony capitalism -- >> they've done great things. acid rain -- >> epa were more focused on those areas where the federal government has a unique ability to deal with problems such as interstate air pollution, there wouldn't be so many complaints about it. >> thank you both. we're out of time on this. you i assume want clean air. i'm sure i do. i'm open to the possibility of a climate change is something we may need to address. watching tv, you think even that would be easy.

we're told we can change the world for the better just by buying the right car. >> we built the onlyu'll ever need. it's electric and it might just change the world. this is chevrolet volt. >> sounds so good. but david says we're being tricked. what do you mean? >> well, the chevy volt can't change anything because we only sell a few thousand each year. secondly, if people actually paid what a chevy volt cost to make, it would probably be around $200,000. so without government essentially government cronyism and all kinds of subsidy, the volt won't exist a. and b, even if you used it, you're probably using electricity that's run on coal, so you're not helping the environment very much. >> they still lose $49,000 on every volt they built? >> that'sqh  one estimate. even higher on some. >> in any consumer reporting days we called a scam. >> yeah. it's happening with energy, all kinds of alternative energies

subsidized, hurting other industries and other companies that rely on government subsidies. so they are hurting companies that actually have innovation that might work better. >> the government decides this company is good. we'll give you a special break. >> especially if you lobby them a lot. the people who lobby and have the closest ties to government are typically the ones who benefit from the subsidyies the government gives. >> as much as solar city corporation got. >> it's hard to tell, but tens of millions. every administration does this. the closer you are, you are the people who control the purse strings. >> mostly democrats. loans went to people with ties to harry reid, al gore,!"(vw bil richardson, one former republican, angus king, now in the senate. it's a bad way to practice capitalism. it's crapialism. >> absolutely. it's unhealthy for government to

do that because it leads to corruption. other people don't have the ear of washington and they have to suffer. >> at least solar city is still in business. there are 19 companies that got government money, taxpayer money, and they're bankrupt if you look at this list. >> right. >> but the government would say, these are experiments. we got to subsidize these newcomers. >> isn't it funny that in almost every other industry, take televisions or anything, we don't have subsidies and we zoom ahead. in the industry where we're moving forward with progressive ideas like wind mills and solar panels, which have been around for many, many decades, we're not -- consumers are not winning. it's just more expensive. >> it's been like 20, 30 years now these subsidies have been going on. >> of course. a lot of this technology has been around -- wind mills have been around since the middle ages. >> thank you, david. keep this conversation going.

please use that #epa. let us know what you think. coming up, epa bosses spending two to six hours a day watching porn. and did he defacating in the ha. next, a little guy fighting back against the green monster ood gu. they're delicious and an excellent source of fiber to help support regularity. mmmm. these are good! the tasty side of fiber. from phillips let that phrase sit with you for a second. unlimited. as in, no limits on your hard-earned cash back. as in no more dealing with those rotating categories. the quicksilver card from capital one. unlimited 1.5% cash back on everything you purchase, every day. don't settle for anything less.

i'll keep asking. what's in your wallet? i'll keep asking. [meow mix jingle slowly anright on cue.cks] [cat meows] ♪meow, meow, meow, meow... it's more than just a meal, it's meow mix mealtime. with great taste and 100% complete nutrition, it's the only one cats ask for by name. who's more excited about back to school savthe ladies?ples? these guys? or these guys? when you get guaranteed low prices on everything you buy the most, everybody gets excited! staples. make more happen for less.

john: in wyoming, a farmer had the nerve to put a stream in his property so he could have a pond. the wildlife like it. it worked out. >> now you can see bald eagles here. we have moose come down. four and 5-pound round trout live there and it's been a tremendous benefit. john: maybe you want to do something like that, but you better not because even if you think your property is your property, in america today it is not. the fact that you own it doesn't matter. for us, the bureaucrats smashed through your wall. better hope that the monster doesn't take notice and take out

his wrath on you. another monster is focused on johnson. he is the wyoming man that owned a small farm and he built upon. why? >> we wanted to provide stock water for our horses and cows and improve our property and it provided an environmental benefit as well. john: it means that you are diverting water that might've gone to someone else amax. >> actually our pond is designed where if we have a spillway and it comes out to a certain level, it automatically comes over and we don't regulated at all. so were not actually blocking the water. john: you go to your state environmental official and you get permission? >> that's right, i went there and we sent off a permit through the state of wyoming to the

cheyenne office. when we got back, we began to start our project. john: we check in the engineer's office says the bed everything is in good standing and its exercise exactly as permitted. and then the feds come in suddenly and what you say? >> they say you may or may not be in violation, but you need to prove to us you're not. john: in violation of why? >> the clean water act. the funny part is that my water that leaves my property is actually 41 times cleaner than the alleged water that is affected. john: bep atb 30 days to do mantle upon. >> yes. i'm not sure how you do that. it's physically impossible. john: they said that there could be fines of thousands of dollars per day. >> it's extortion. i don't know any other way to say it.

john: most people cave and they say you can't fight the government, you can't afford the lawyers. >> we are going to fight them all the way, i have legal foundations that are backing me up. john: he says construction was done in violation of a well-known and well-established clean water act permitting process. >> the state never informed me of any other federal permit that i needed and i went through all of the hoops that the state required to build this. i asked all of the neighbors and the locals and it turns out that i am one of the few that have a state permit. john: we got a note from the governor. he said he constructed his pond appropriately and the actions of the eta have been heavy-handed. they want to expand their authority, he said. >> yes, they want to take over all jurisdiction on private

property throughout the united states and i think that they're using me as a test case. john: the epa says they may increase the amount of land over which they have jurisdiction. that has upset some farming people, including one that says that ditches have dried up, wetlands must be preserved, it made this protest video to this oscar-winning song let it go ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ john: so we should have some company outlast fighting them. >> absolutely. and this idea, they show the canoe in a dried ditch. they want to be in charge of every drop of water that hits

the earth, let it be off your roof or a rain barrel. who knows where the end is on that. john: you are not alone, i wish you the best as you fight this. coming up, myths, lies, and complete stupidity of about america's lies. >> today is only we are born makers. we make things that give you goose bumps. things that adapt and exhilarate... we made a car that reacts to the road before you ever have the chance to. the all-new chrysler 200. america's import. you know your dunlike natural teeth.

try new fixodent plus true feel. the smooth formula helps keep dentures in place. it's free of flavors and colorants. for a closer feeling to natural teeth. fixodent. and forget it.

♪ ♪ ♪ a. >> genetic mutation of our children. john: my goodness. the process of fracking.

but those who do the fracking want much more and they also want the epa to step in. one federal instead of these state regulations, steve eberly says putting the epa in charge would be a threat to all of our future. >> the boom that we are having is largely on state and private land. when the federal government is in control, we see delays. >> but this has been great. >> it's been great for workers and consumers, energy bills are going down, great for the environment by using more natural gas, co2 is at its lowest level, new york city has the cleanest air in years. but if you put the federal government in control, there's an extra hoop that producers have to jump through in order to produce an energy.

john: right now we have states like vermont, that are just as stupid as my state of new york. both have banned, for now fracking. new york has a moratorium that goes on forever. >> there is no fracking going on there. but two months after they get it, the governors did in front of the facility and touted how this was going to deliver affordable and clean energy to the resident. john: where you get the gas from? >> it will come in imported from canada or from other states. if you look at some of the other state, however, deep blue states like california and illinois, they rejected this activism that is out there because they know that there are huge economic benefit and they know that a lot of the accusations miss and actually fall into those

categories. john: there's a case in texas where the epa inserted itself and they said that fracking was to blame for bad water quality. it turned out that the official was colluding with an environmental group? >> what had happened is the epa stepped in and said that the house was at risk of exploding because of methane in the water. but the methane had nothing to do with this. the water did catch fire. but it turned out that the land owner had hooked it up to a gassman amax. >> yes, some of the neighbors had drilled water wells into a geologic formation that produced it and they had nothing to do the drilling activity. the gentleman in question who made that order later had to resign from epa. john: that we have a clip after this video came out, he was caught saying that he would regulate the gas industry the way to the romans once conquered

villains. [inaudible] john: he said crucify them. >> just completed. after it came out, he resigned and then now he works for it the sierra club which opposes tracking. with the what the obama administration said about this. the epa said that there's nothing dangerous that engineering principles can't fix. john: it won't convince the protesters, here is what say america should do instead of it. >> there is more energy in algae than anything else. john: there's more energy but you guys just don't want to let the algae people sell their fuel? >> if you don't want to take

this from the oil and gas industry, taken from the renewables and their association. the wind industry has said that natural gas is a complement to their growth. the point is that if the renewables really want renewables and they were not just interested in shutting down oil and gas, they would say, let's produce more gas because that is what we will allow for renewables to move forward and grow into the future. john: finally, here is the latest antifur fracking scare. >> a lot of people are demanding answers about a huge spike in the number of earthquakes. >> today is only monday. oklahoma has had a lot of earthquakes. john: they are saying earthquakes. that that it's causing that. john: it's easy to blame it on them because 70 out of 77 counties actually have oil and gas production. this is one area where the media is doing it just wrong. they keep saying it's one area.

john: we get it wrong all the time. [laughter] >> this has nothing to do with fracking. the national academy of sciences says that we do not have a risk at all. this is wastewater disposal. blaming this on them would be like blaming it on chevrolet. john: what it is is that much. only 400 were felt in any way, shape, or form, what the survey says is that we barely feel it. if you're walking, you won't feel it, if you're sitting, you might. john: >> it's always better to look at a simple context because someone put the word in her. john: the word earthquake also gets your attention. coming up next, the eta today is a monster that takes people's freedom. but a man who helped form the

agency said that he had no regrets and he is here to tell us why coming up next.

(vo) friday night has always been all fun and games, here at the harrison household. but one dark, stormy evening... she needed a good meal and a good family. so we gave her purina cat chow complete. it's great because it has the four cornerstones of nutrition. everything a cat needs for the first step to a healthy, happy life. purina cat chow complete. share your rescue story and join us in building better lives. one rescue at a time. when folks think about wthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country,

people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.

♪ ♪ john: do you ever see one of the incredible hulk movies? experiments with radiation, turning into someone that becomes a monster when angry. the epa is kind of like that. and here in our studio is one of the real creators of this monster. of the heartland institute. making no apologies. >> none at all between 1968 in 1971, at half a dozen heads of society helped with the water hygiene create the u.s. usda to write six very important laws that created a safety net for

the environment. john: things like the water pollution control act. okay, i'm with you on this. that stuff was good. >> it was definitely good. the government had no clue. people threw garbage into the water, no one was looking out for the way that we mind the chemicals. we needed rules and we passed them in the 70s from the 80s on. we actually hadn't done anything of value. >> let's go back to the 70s. even some people often forget how polluted these waterways were. here is a special that aired the first year that i was a reporter. >> birthday, a question of survival. >> the clear days are fewer now. instead of forever, the view of

often stops with hayes. the air is threatened. >> ♪ ♪ >> not just in the air come in the city's rivers offer a whole new dimension of pollution. >> it was bad. maybe not that bad. but the air was filthy. and sometimes people wouldn't open windows because so would pour in. we forget how bad it was. >> on june 21, 1968, the colorado river caught fire when a spark came off a railroad car onto the polluted waterway and it was terrible. >> nothing useful after 1980, they have done nothing? >> nothing whatsoever. the epa. >> just looking over the shoulder at the 50 that do all of their bidding, and this dates is where the action is, we

should phase out the epa over a five-year time frame and put all the responsibility in the hands of the 50 state agency, from washington dc to topeka, kansas, $6.2 billion and improve environmental protection. >> previous guest talked about how there's still air pollution in many places in this ditties, people getting lung cancer, having asthma. when you look at a magazine in this city, try not to breathe too much air today. >> that is absurd, but when i started an environmentalist dances in the 60s, we could only measure parts per million. and the concentrations that we measure are so small that it will soon measure a molecule and then we will know that it's a little bit of everything. >> the epa says that even these tiny amounts are killing people enact. >> they are not. that is fraudulent. that's of no importance, none of the amendments have improved

either our environment or human health and all they do is run the economy. john: today people equate the threat of climate change with pollution. here is senator barbara boxer from this number. >> we need to take action to protect families from the mounting impacts of climate change and 3700 cases of bronchitis in children, 150,000 asthma attacks, 300,000 heart attacks. john: may be climate change is real, but it has nothing to do with heart attacks. >> he said early on in the show that talking about carbon pollution, they should be talking about carbon dioxide and there's nothing in the atmosphere that allows them to be broken up into carbon and oxygen. they are trying to scare people. john: wouldn't it be good to reduce carbon dioxide in the

air? >> absolutely not, we are only on this planet because we have carbon dioxide, we breathe it. it's absurd to consider it a pollutant. but it has given the epa the opportunity to run our lives. john: thank you, from the heartland institute. a think tank in the midwest. coming up, my next guest is that we can clean america's lakes and rivers without the epa. a better way to manage ♪ ♪

tigers, both of you. tigers? don't be modest. i see how you've been investing. setting long term goals. diversifying. dip! you got our attention. we did? of course. you're type e* well, i have been researching retirement strategies. well that's what type e*s do. welcome home. taking control of your retirement? e*trade gives you the tools and resources to get it right. are you type e*?

john: i am critical of the green monster that the epa has become. but what else do we have courage without epa, wouldn't polluters pollute away? lakes and rivers would be filled the and there would everywhere, that is how most of us think and it's only because we really don't understand the power of private ownership. anderson is with a group in montana called the property and environmental research center. so what is this have to do with the environment? >> no one washes a rental car. when people own things, they take care of it. and they have private property rights, other people can't dumb

things onto the property and so long before the epa was a glint in anyone's eye, property rights were dealing with pollution issues. john: you have a new book called environmental market. but how does it work reign flip him home and someone pollutes my drinking water, what's going to happen? >> what you can do about it is knock on the door of the people who did it and say cease and desist or i will get the courts to enforce my property rights. in montana we had a company called the anaconda mining company and yet when it was discovered that it was causing pollution on the ranches that neighbor them, they were taken to court. they had to these and desist and they quickly took care of that problem. john: they not only paid, but they were stored some of the

land? >> absolutely. the burden is on them for the damage that they caused. john: i can see how you can sue an individual polluter like that. but i can't see how this works for most air pollution. if my air is polluted here in new york city, the pollution probably comes from the west from new jersey, but i don't know which power plant or factory. >> is property rights argument works well for more local issues on across the state boundaries it gets more difficult. the amendments to the clean air act in 1990 took on the problem of acid rain. it was all for being emitted from midwestern power plants creating acid rain in the northeast. that's a place where it made sense to put restrictions on it. even there the epa understood the power of the marketplace using a system where people could reduce the emissions of author and sell the credits for

that two other companies that couldn't reduce. we have much less sulfur emissions than standard epa regulations do it. john: but your market remedies are easier to do with water pollution and are pollution. >> absolutely, it is why we were cleaning up our water even before 1972 with the clean water act and now we have gone way overboard with the restrictions here in montana. they are forcing small towns to clean up arsenic. when you think of the novelist talking about this at the dinner table. but it is coming out of yellowstone park and it's in such small amounts of it doesn't have any health effects, but cities are having to put the plans in place to clean this up trade there are cities that would be much better off getting a new ambulance. john: how would this work for the oceans? people say it is the tragedy.

no individual person cares about the fish in their area. and you can't have private property making it better. >> the arguments have it backwards. what's happened in fishery after fishery, starting in places like new zealand and iceland and places it in central america, we have created individual fishing quotas which are treatable, bankable, which give people an incentive to invest in these work so very well where we have fisheries that are controlled by 200-mile limit, for example. the open oceans are like the air that we just talked about. john: in the areas where they have legalized ownership, we now have more fish? >> oh, absolutely. it is just the nominal. when the fisheries did what the epa did, when they said they were going to regulate the season and the number and the size of votes and the list went on and on, people figured out

ways around it because, as you said, it was a tragedy. john: it seems like a very dangerous cadge. >> it makes a very good tv show called the deadliest catch. now that we have created these individuals, we haven't done it everywhere. what has happened is that the fishing season has increased, numbers have decreased, efficiency has improved, price efficiency has gone down. instead of eating fish sticks we get it halla bet. if the situation goes well, we get fresh halibut fish. john: coming up next, how the green monster should be restrained. restrained. we should shrinking♪

defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. easily absorbed calcium plus d. beauty is bone deep. when your favorite food starts a fight fight back fast with tums. relief that neutralizes acid on contact... ...and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum tums! try great tasting tums chewy delights. yummy.

geicmoney for over 75 years.save they've really stood the test of time.

much like these majestic rocky mountains. which must be named after the... that would be rocky the flying squirrel, mr. gecko sir. obviously! ahh come on bullwinkle, they're named after... ...first president george rockington! that doesn't even make any sense...mr...uhh...winkle. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. john: the epa is a monster. but you could argue that it's less of a monster than other government bureaucracies because they have not constantly grown. they spend about a billion of your tax dollars every year, that actually less than they spent under president bush. will good. the epa is still a monster because the old rules never go away, but they keep passing new

rules. the epa officials point out that their budget is only $8 billion and that is washington talk. but even that is misleading because when they say clean that up, the cost is on you. last year they decreed that every fuel seller must use more biomass like diesel fuel. costing the epa little to comply. and consumers are paying the extra cost when they buy fuel. aside from cost is, why when the air and water are cleaner than they have been in years, and they keep getting cleaner because of improvements in technology every time someone buys a new car or chunks an old one, with why must they keep passing more rules? well, because that's what government regulators do. if you're bureaucratic, you think you're not doing your job and so it's always more as

thomas jefferson says. it's the natural progress for government to grow and liberty to yield. but it's worse for the epa because think about who is likely to become an epa bureaucrat. there is a revolving door between the epa and environmental crews. remember that regulator was caught bragging about how he treated the oil industry the way that the romans once crucified people. john: he resigned, but quickly found work at the sierra club. and now works at the epa. bureaucrats are not dispassionate regulators but environmental people. when they are in government, they have power over you. 16,000 people work for the epa. some are religious fanatics and their religion is command and

control of the earth is pure. others are just jerks. one individual sent a memo to employees saying don't defecate in the hallway. the u.s. inspector general found one spent two to six hours of his workday watching porn, he down loaded 7000 files. they paid him $125,000 per year and gave him bonuses and performance awards. your government at work. i'm thanks for the epa. our lives are better because they forced power plants to put scrubbers and smokestacks, making cars that prevent pollution. but now the epa work is largely done. stick a fork in it. the pollution control already exist. america needs a few inspectors to enforce the rules that we have, but we don't need more

rules or 16,000 environmental regulators constantly trying to control more of our lives. the epa should stand for enough protection already. protection already. hello. i'm arthel neville. welcome it a brand-new hour inside america's news headquarters. >> hello, i'm eric shaun. topping the news at this moment, take a look at the growing controversy over president obama's views and remarks on isis. that after the president announced he had, quote, no strategy to deal with the islamic terrorist group. we will have more on that coming up. plus, the european union threatening russia with tough new sanctions. will they listen? what if they don't? >> keeping their distance, a white house plan t