in this forum hosted by the white house historical solution. watch tonight, beginning at 8 pm eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. use your mobile devices and go to c-span.org. the environmental protection agency was found 50 years ago, up next, a 1982 pbs documentary about air pollution work regulations in the national parks. the film de mystifies the complicated three-year process of turning general language into a 1977 amendment to specific regulations, revealing behind the scenes negotiations and debates between epa

regulators and environmental and industry interest. it was produced by wpa public media by princeton pennsylvania. >> funding for this for graham was -- and the u.s. department of education, office of environmental 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 each marshall. thomas jefferson had little notion of just how far the process of american law making would advance in a century and a half of what followed, or how complex it would become. within these walls, congress still passes our laws but today this is only the beginning. determining how those laws are

made workable is not the job of congress. this task falls to a powerful but little known group of bureaucrats donors regulators. to sum their more powerful than some of the law bakers themselves. but they do and it affects every part of our daily lives. as become one of the most hotly debated aspects of government today. our story begins in 1980. the last year of the carver administration. in a residential section of the nation's capital, david hawkins begins his daily commute. hopkins 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 capital 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 sole task or 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 generate thousands of unnecessary rules, producing a stranglehold on our economy, our lives, even the very air we breathe.

a political appointee of the carter white house, hawkins was chosen to regulator air pollution laws. he will be a key figure in a cleared air battle that will unfold in the months ahead. a lifelong environmentalist, he has strong opinions on our governments obligations. >> regulation has tended to be developed in response to abuse. the food, drug and cosmetic act was a response to securities laws and response to people to losing their shirts in the stock market. it's easy to say that you're in favor of less regulation, but if you asked somebody if they're in favor of dirty air, they will usually see no. these programs are finally beginning to work. they are actually causing people to spend money cleaning up what they have been putting into the air for free all these years.

>> as his day begins at the environmental protection agency, so does that have a natural adversary across town. henry nickel is a lawyer for an industry that feels the weight of david hawkins regulation of clean air. he is watching representative for a large group of product producers in the west. to him, regulation creates as many problems as it solves. >> because the utility industry is building an operating large facilities which produce a great deal of energy and require the use of a great deal fuels, they are number one on the list, oftentimes for all the regulations. >> the principal problem is that 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 plan they believe have likely been changed. >> in the next two decades, electrical power demands will double. as the population grows, so does the real threat of a future energy crisis. >> we need energy to run our economy, 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 are impossible solutions to energy problems for the next 200 years. coal, for electricity and synthetic fuels. shell, to release the u.s. from its crippling dependence on foreign oil. but there is a problem. facilities to convert these riches will seriously threaten another resource, one serving the human spirit.

the national parks are held is something sacred. i don't remember home, but someone refers to them as islands of hope. >> in washington, barbara brown, chief of air quality for our parks is concerned. the government will soon be inundated with some new 90 new permits to put power plants and strip mines in the shadow of the parks. the clean air battle that threatens may be the biggest of her career. >> what really brought me to this job was that i took a backpacking trip for the first time in life, and i went out to canyon lands and i saw the grand canyon, i was totally stunned by its beauty. >> the grand canyon is there

because it's a natural scenic wonder, i saw it when it was crystal clear and all the colors were shimmering, and i have seen it when it's 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 out there, if something isn't done about it there may not be national parks as we know them today. >> one of the first to see the problem is a former park ranger, now photographer, gordon anderson. in a remote corner of brace cannon, utah, his is a lone voice from the wilderness. >> throughout the year i make several trips to the national park to photograph. but my favorite time to do this is in the winter. the blanket of snow adds new

dimension to the colors here 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 coal burning power plants operating just outside of 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 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 national 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 this lobbying effort, find a key legislator who would help. congressman paul rogers, author of the monumental clean air act was now revising that law. although great deal had been accomplished in cleaning up the nations air, the anderson slides were alarming evidence that the parks were still unprotected. >> this is the navajo power plant in 1974, we flew over the plants to photograph the plume and the smoke was blowing into that grand canyon. when this happened, the vistas are reducedvdt to half.

when pollution finds its way into this huge basin, the view becomes something more like this. this is candlestick a peak when it is being impacted by air pollution from power plants it looks more like this. >> in december of 1976, rogers and his staff went west to see for themselves. here they experience 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 nitrate said had nearly obliterated part of the navajo reservation. to the lawmakers, the nation's energy needs were clearly conflicting with the preservation of our parks as we know them. we >> i am not sure that the monitoring that you did is

necessarily all-natural. in other words, it could be man-made as well, could it not? >> in the process of mending over 100 different sections, one section would read that congress hereby declares as the national goal, the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility within our national park areas. this part of the clean air law is section one six nine a. its final passage is swift. but the process does not end here. congress has neither the technical knowledge or staff to turn its desires into reality. ó7#t1eñ>> this is where the res take over, or those scores of agencies formed by congress in the century to implement and

force the will of the legislators. in 1970, epa was given a mandate to mountain attack on sources of pollution on the nations air and water. 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 pollution in national parks. but since the land theory the parks are rich in resources needed for an energy hunger america, regulation here sets the stage for a classic struggle between government and free enterprise. ultimate decisions to shape the regulations from this point will be made by david hawkins. as chief of air pollution programs for epa, his task just implement the intent of congress. but the clean air law is swamped his office with. work while nearly 100 new sections must be regulated, clean air in the parks is left untouched for over two years.

to get things moving again, gordon anderson and friends of the earth take the matter to federal court, the judge order cpa to draft a proposed regulation within six months and to complete the job in one here. ordinarily, the task should take twice as long. with his environmentalist sympathies, he will want a stronger termination of the law, one that will achieve affective results. with a vaguely worded statute like this one, too 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 answers. the approach that i took was that we are implementing a clean air act when in doubt we should be protecting the

environment. his power at this moment is real concern to henry nickel. he knows that one breeding of the law could cost his clients 90 million dollars for pollution controls. a stricter in purge plantation could cost up to three billion. >> win congress rights law, they are not models of clarity. most lawyers would strenuously deny this, but there is a spectrum of interpretations. you want to look at the facts and pick one that makes the most sense. >> the sad part about it is is that it is easier to identify the needs of our program then implement them. >> in their stand against hawkins, the upcoming months will bring intense activity for nickel and stuff. 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 kill a rule, he must constantly sift through all the evidence. to the utilities, more regulations could be delays in constructing new facilities, huge additional costs and a climate of uncertainty caused by changing rules. >> the regulations in question would and in fact the licensing of every new industry, if industry doesn't participate they will find themselves facing rules that cannot be met. >> a national park service headquarters, there is worry that future development will bring more air pollution in the parks. >> if the courts are going to overturn, that's fine, that is our opportunity to look for toward alternative ways for protection. i'm very interested to hear -- >> barbara brown must map a

strategy for the months ahead. her immediate problem is that the national parks service is not a regulatory agency. she and her staff will have to fight just to be heard. >> i knew that it would be a feat of hercules if a good regulation was written in a year. but i also 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 force service, and others in the government's first attempt to write the regulation. >> we are going to 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, it soon becomes evident that each member brings separate

marching orders from his agency. >> what is worth spending money on? that means there has to be a significant improvement. >> no, it provides criteria. [inaudible] >> epa engineer is chairman of the working group, a ten-year your cat with the epa, this is his first chance to head up the writing of regulation. >> it's not whether the vista is protected, it's how much protection is the issue. >> the working group will be aided by public input. workshops will be held in three western states on initial reaction to eliminating visible pollution within the parks. in denver, the energy industry

puts its opinion. >> i don't care. >> congress never envisioned these kinds of impacts. >> it is impractical for peru serves to operate. >> it points out the need for substantially -- >> utilities and other remind epa that the clean air act was to them one of the most burdensome and costly public laws in history. they agree that americas air is now cleaner but to them this regulation would only duplicate existing rules and create more paperwork and red tape. >> it will simply result in wheel spinning and more and more control by inexperienced and ineligible bureaucrats who love to spend money on the impossible. >> we have a power plant up for permitting, it is 12 times cleaner and presented to congress. they are telling us that we have to do a little bit more. >> the person that showed this

lines to congress -- >> as usual, the industry shows up and force. one or two who speaks for them environment is gordon anderson. >> i sat here all day listening to people condemn the agency. we should be complemented these individuals on their efforts to protect the environment. the reasons they have been criticized fight industry is because the intent of industry is to weaken and destroy the provisions of this act. what is good -- would good is a national park because of smog? this is one of the most important resources not only in america but in the world. it's no way to treat it. >> what we are saying here is do the best job we can right now. so we cut back to what we think we can accomplish, recognizing all of the limitations. that maybe the control of free power plants and when supplant -- cement plant or something, and the consideration of these long

term strategies which will begin to look it. but what are my other problems? >> as time pressures mount, johnny pierson asks the working group to limit its efforts to industries already polluting the parts. he suggests that the group ignore for now future pollution sources. but before rules can be written, definitions must be reached. >> what is that national goal? any perceptible change. from that which would have existed in natural conditions. >> what's natural conditions are? >> i think -- i don't think we have to define natural conditions. >> well, then that's meaningless. >> then we have to look at cases where it's obviously not natural conditions. >> if you don't put that in there, you could go to the l.a. basin and put up a plume and someone could say you can't see it because the l.a. smog is in your eyes. why can't i build my source? we're saying you cannot do

that. >> when you ask that source to calculate his impact on the existing natural conditions, what are you going to tell the natural conditions are? >> conditions that occur naturally. >> you can't define natural conditions 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're looking towards the mountains. we have a hypothetical plan ... >> 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 magnificent views adjacent to the parks. limiting development of these lands would certainly upset industry. with all of these problems, there is still the pressure of the first court deadline in which proposed regulation must be ready for review by may 15th. johnny pierson 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 a very aggravating process at times when you said something over and over and they said, we get to, and then

it was not what you were saying at all. >> when you care about what you are doing, you identify very personally with the product that you see on paper. it isn't just a regulation, it means when people see the grand canyon 100 years from now. .... ! there are sentences that aren't even sentences. i began feeling like a manic depressive on a rollercoaster. >> across town, and environmental group beauty pages lead to them from the park service. >> quite frankly, it is pitiful. it does not mention anything about new sources at all. >> we've got to raise the issue. that is our responsibility. >> you could not intelligently evaluate proposing because the agency

had not given us all of the information we needed to make a judgment. >> and information is the lifeblood to henry nickel and]"y presenting a strong legal 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 air. >> have at it. >> the principal source of impairment is the plant. >> you are doing all of this with an eye ultimately on 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 that question. of course, the history of the last several years is that the ultimate decision upsets everybody. from durham, johnny pierson and

assistant julie horn come to washington to present the proposed regulation to top management within epa. the draft must now pass the scrutiny of the agencies staring committee. the acid test of 16 working group meetings and five months of effort. >> the next major issues ... >> the rule will subsequently be tested. >> will farmer is charged with keeping the regulation on schedule, with but five weeks before the six month court-ordered line, the reaction of the steering committee is critical. >> there were a number of concerns about the quality of the guidelines that we have and their linkage to the regulations themselves. >> the regions, the states, the industry, the environmental groups are looking to this set of regulations and to the guidance as being able to provide a tool to assess a new source for visibility. right now, the package does not do that. >> we are not going to go out with scientific data that isn't published and has not been

accepted, particularly on modeling and monitoring where i have directors beating on me and mercifully and constantly that i cannot use the tools they are developing in any way. we need to know which words we need changed to what. >> it is easy to do that when there are minor modifications that are necessary. it is not so easy to do that when there is a major overhaul that is necessary. >> we entered this exercise, talked to doug, got everyone to confirm to schedule with the court environmentalist, with the upfront understanding we were going to do a sleepless job the first time through. that is all you can do in this timeframe. we're making the transition from sleepless to a minus, i want to do that over the next couple of years. >> we're talking about d-or below. >> i answer every one of my phone calls every day and i don't understand why we are so

efficient that we have d-in quality. everyone in this room knows the administration has a court order to sign something. >> we've been raising these major arguments for the last two or three months. i've got copies of four memos that have commented on the inadequacy of this whole package going back over the last two months. >> we've got a working group. i need the language. >> i think that possibly involves that your folks working with these people. >> there are more people critiquing this roll them to work on it, by a long shot. what i need is the working group to do some work. >> holy cow. >> the steering committee sees the first draft as unacceptable. it does not pass its first critical test from epa.

>> five weeks from the first deadline, johnny pierson is back at square one. upset over the drafts admissions, barbara brown seizes the moment. she demands and gets a meeting with hawkins and staffed. >> the first draft of the regulation was missing the critical piece in the puzzle, and that was all of the future development that can have an impact on visibility. the first draft of the regulations totally ducked the issue. >> this package is one of several tools. >> brown alerts hawkins of the dangers of not regulating future polluters of the parks. to her, this issue should never have been compromised in the first place. >> it was like alice in wonderland. we would be working to clean up the other sources, but not catching up because of all of the new pollution from the new sources. unless it was addressed, we would be on a treadmill.

>> the demands of the park service team does not make them the most popular figures with epa staff. but the subject of controlling future sources of pollution is reinstated within the regulation by a sympathetic hawkins. a major victory for barbara brown. >> we have time and energy to put words down on a piece of paper. going back to the corporate delay is not a card. >> in a return to the drawing board at durham, barbara works with park representatives in an intensive redraft-ing effort. with less than three weeks before the first proposal deadline, each point is reviewed again. each objection discussed a new. >> the basic instruments are there. no one thinks there's going to be any revolutionary new inventions coming. >> right now we are scheduled

to submit by monday. >> two weeks before the first deadline, the regulation approach is another internal checkpoint. red border review. as a measure of its growing complexity, the package now contains 420 pages of regulation to explain five pages of law. the >> what i'm going to do is put it in today and make suggested changes at the same time. >> okay, it is signed. >> the red border process is basically the last chance for the assistant administrators to object to the regulation before a go to the administrator. >> i'm calling about one of our red border packages. >> of course, we say object, but they say none concur. it's either concur or none concur rather than agree or

object. >> 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 he proposed regulation would be approved with these figures attached. >> they are missing the first part of three point oh. it goes to 3.3. >> i think the principal concern is in the appendices. those costs are too high. >> it's a mess. no you're getting comment on a set of numbers. hawkins feels the supplementary figures can be corrected and published within a few weeks. by eliminating the faulty numbers for the moment, epa

will meet the forced court deadline. the front of 20 pages stay, the back 400 go. >> with epa administrator signature, the new point deadline is reached. the regulation reflects strong environmentalist sympathies. future and existing sources of pollution are to be regulated, as are integral vistas lying outside the park. but the proposal must next run the all important content of public comment. with signature in hand, phase two begins. in the summer of 1980, the tourist season begins and new in the western parts. as they head down for so many years, some 3 million would return to that great wondrous chasm called the grand canyon. return to marvel at the power and envy of their land.

>> i don't believe it. it's just breathtaking. you wish you could take it home, right? >> the people would return to the magnificent win carved monuments and arches national park. unaware of the debate nearby which could decide the future of these lands. >> the report suggests that ... >> insult city, a public comment period of 75 days would begin. here, the arguments of cost, delay and uncertainty would again be emphasized by industry. >> the proposed regulations appear to have been generated only to comply with the court mandate to have regulations in place by november 15th, 1980. >> we believe the congress did not contend for important considerations ... >> we cannot afford the luxury of expensive regulatory programs based upon the hope that they will be worth it. >> we therefore urged the

environmental protection agency to moderate its schedule for promulgated the final regulations until 1985 at the earliest. >> delay, delay, delay. this is a tactic. we it is simply using it against the epa to the indefinitely. the skies over the great southwest is not an open sewer. >> as a lifetime resident and now governor of utah, i'm fully cognizant that ... >> regulators also received the views -- proposed regulations we are addressing today sometimes cross the fine line between federal guidance and federal interference. we are directed to protect air quality and visibility, endangered species, reclaim all lands disturbed by mining, preserve the wilderness, invert utility boilers to coal, and at the same time provide over 2 million barrels a synthetic oil in the early nineties.

trying to balance all of those goals within the limited statutory guidelines and limited resources we have in this country, i say in my testimony, a difficult -- difficult task, it is almost an impossible task. >> in washington, henry nickel and his allies within the industry accelerate their campaign. on capitol hill, they urge members of congress to pressure epa for modifications. eventually, even the white house itself is drawn into the debates. >> wide ranging testaments, >> they were trying to grapple with the issues of trying to mold these regulations in a way that would minimize the impact on industry and the economy. what that very often comes down to is how are we going to do -- dilute the regulations? >> the issues here are probably

... >> a white house concerned with inflation recommend that they will be significantly weakened. a victory for the electrical utilities. >> there are some &ba.÷fundamenl questions that we should be looking at. thew fftt with any change. >> encouraged, henry nickel next plans an attack on the legality of integral vistas. he will argue that epa's move to include non park land within the regulation is not only unfair, but illegal since it was never mentioned by congress. dave hawkins, he feels, is overstepping his authority. >> the job of the regulators is to implement the laws that congress adopts and not to create laws. i think the agency created a laws in this instance. >> what we're seeing here seems to me to be fairly straightforward.

>> three months before the final deadline, the public comment period officially ends. in addition to the massive legal brief of nickel and williams 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 days and, a stack of paper seven feet high will be under lock and key. >> with the end of the public comment period, the people have now spoken. their reactions reflect the problems that epa faced under pressure of a court ordered deadline, a vaguely worded law and imperfect scientific information. >> the utilities industry,

fearful that regulation will hamper energy development and increased costs, takes advantage of these weak points. henry nickel has mounted an effective battle and his efforts bear fruit. working through a coalition of legislators, sympathetic federal agencies and even a cost conscious white house, pressure is brought to relax the requirements. the epa will exempt existing power plants from adding cost people oceans controls. the exemption is worth an estimated three billion dollars to industry. at the same time, barbara brown is victorious in her battle to have the regulation applied to future industrial development which might pollute the parks. the rule is now a total turnaround from the one johnny person originally proposed. with the integral vista issue comes perhaps the naughtiest problem of all, does the protection of scenic vistas just outside the park constitute responsible rulemaking? or, is the epa team creating a

law that congress never intended? >> as the one year court deadline draws near, a concerned johnny pierson heads toward washington and final decision. >> we are required to ... >> looking over 336 comments. virtually every comment that we received mentioned integral vistas in one way or another. in reading over all of the comments, i have some reservations about our ability to support in court the integral this issue as proposed. we did make an argument. when we talked about the argument, we thought we could make that argument in court with a straight face so to speak. we have now seen the comments that have come in. there are some very persuasive arguments being made that would again be made in court. if david hawkins wants to go

forward with the integral vista concept, then that is a policy decision that needs to be made. >> we have quite divided comments on the issue of integral this does. the council has looked at the comments and they believe that there is some risk as far as a court action. >> despite the fears of his staff, hawkins feels that integral vistas are in inseparable part of the park experience. even if it would give him grounds of creating a law, he decides to stand fast. >> if you eliminated altogether, you take away the discipline of the process. >> you have to proceed from the act that congress passed, but we want to make sure that we can defend it when we get to the ultimate a lawsuit on this, which we we all expect there will be a lawsuit. >> hawkins decision on integral

vistas gives henry nickel the opening he needs. he petitions the court to review the entire regulation. but there is an added motive. court delay now could even 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 potential for protecting or endangering the parks. >> an integral vista is the view of the scenic landmark. that is to limiting. a feature or view ... >> on november 10th, the court verdict is due on henry nichols motion for delay. he makes contact with his legal counterpart epa. >> how are you? >> what have you heard? >> we have not heard anything.

we raised the question as to whether or not the agency shouldn't be rethinking the entire package. to do that, the agency would have had to get an extension on the courts deadline. >> it will give epa until november 24 in order to respond to your motion and to week from today ... >> this is not henry nichols round. the regulation will go forward. but both men know that when the rule is publish, nickel will again return to the courts in another round of washington legal maneuver. >> bye-bye. >> the regulation is the result of many efforts. barbara brown has fought to protect the parks from future polluters. henry nickel has gained exemptions for the 21 existing power plants.

one issue of personal importance to hawkins would not remain unaltered. >> government involves compromise, and the area we compromise in the integral vistas is in allowing the states to in effect have the final say for the impact on an integral vista. >> it requires an open decision making process. if people care deeply about the impact that is at an issue, they will have an impact -- an opportunity to impact the decision. >> november 21st, 1980, a final trip from durham to washington. johnny pierson has arrived to deliberately completed documents personally. inside the box are 2000 pages telling a nation how to implement the congressional resolve to clear 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 commence, johnny pierson's job is over. what began as a simple observation of one man through the viewfinder of the camera will shortly become a set of regulations affecting millions. although existing plants will not be required to change, future industries must prove they will not follow the call -- foul the air before they build. perhaps most importantly, the regulation will establish clean air in all parks as a national goal. to david hawkins, a moment to reflect after a year of conflict and compromise. >> impossible.

>> it shouldn't be but it is. thanks a lot. i'll see you. >> in a quiet moment, hardly reflecting the effort to get there, the final step in creating the regulation arrives. >> this one regulation is not by any means going to do the whole job. it's a place to make a mark and say you don't have to be able to afford to buy a high quality environment to enjoy one in the united states. at 3:00 on november 21st, three years after it passes congress, section 169 of the clean air act will not take effect. dave hawkins 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 -- posters that are displayed in foreign capitals, it is always the grand canyon. it is a treasure of the world, and we can afford to protect it. >> the law will bear the imprint of all concerned. by eliminating existing power plants from the full impact of regulation, henry nickel has served his clients well. >> had we not participated in the process, that could have been a set of rules that would have had 'each week, american history immediate and disastrous impact on the industry. that did not occur. but environmental requirements can be made much simpler than they are right now because it's costing the public a great deal of money and the public is not getting that many benefits out of it. you're going to have to balance what's your interests are with

a national park versus your interests in the economy and energy development. >> barbara brown's success in controlling future polluters is a significant beginning. she has helped to shape the law with the concern and dedication. >> you've got two great war horses. you've got the protection of the national parks and you have the future of our major energy and industrial development at stake. industry and protection of the national parks can coexist. i've seen when industry has come in and we've been able to lay out on the table what we want to accomplish, but it does take a certain amount of trust and that is sometimes hard to develop because we are so used to wearing our white hats and blankets that we forget to talk to one another. but the first step has been taken, and that in itself is left me with a great deal of satisfaction. >> barbara brown will be the

first to admit that in washington, rarely is there such a thing as a clear victory, and almost never is there a lasting one. the political drama that shapes our laws and our lives is a constant struggle. for now, the regulation as written will be in force. but this rule and the clean air act itself wille$i again, as will all of our laws. we have seen through a former park ranger that one person can have a definitive effect on our national legislation. so to me you and i make a difference if we let our voices be heard. i am e. g. marshal. (music)

kzcñokñyou're watching american history tv every weekend on c-span 3, explore our nations past, american history tv and c-span 3, created by americas cable television companies.

susan ford males, the daughter of gerald ford and betty ford reflects on the ford family's time in the white house with former abc news corresponded compton, we focus on first lady betty ford and her impact on american society. the white house historical so cnn hosted this event and provided the video. >> we will have a office time is right now, the greatest risks and challenges. that isn't really true, when i was first assigned to county washington by abc news in 1974, the nation was deeply divided in protest over the vietnam war, the economy was wrecked with inflation and for the only time in american history a u.s. president resigned in disgrace. it was at that moment that abc news gave me the great honor of assigning need to the