50 million americans are smoking. 420,000 of our fellow citizens die each year because of tobacco and tobacco related■p illnesses. americans want to know why. americans also want to know why executives continue to denysibility that tt accountable for a thousand■( yen this country. and that was representative mike synar, a democrat of oklahoma. in 1994,highly publicized hearing on tobacco.

and that's our topic this week on our series. congress investigates. 9uwell, it was in april of 1994 that ceos from the major tobacco ies went before congress as part of an posed by their products. testimony in tt seven hour hearing was controversial. and it led to tobacco companies admitting their products were addictive. new regulations on the industry followed. joining us for a look at the history of the tobacco debate and the 1994 hearings isof the . office of the levin center for oversight and democracy. elise bean we h b■ debating the impact of tobacco pdu point. what was itbrought this all tog? well, i think the key was an drug administration. and commissioner davides that te

tobacco companies were levels of nicotine in cigarets to get people more addicted to them. and because of that, the fda was considering regulating tobacco henryma chaired this subcommittee, was very well known for being anti tobacco go. what was thewell, henry waxman n holdg in mentioned, about the hs healthhe held the very first heg in■4 congress in 1982 on how smoking was linked to cancer, heart disease and other problems. he held a hearing looking at smokeless tobacco products and showed how they caused throat cancer and other kindsf hearing about how even if you didn't smoke cigarets

youriólf you were exposed to smoke toba sdd smoking cigaretsu could get ill from that■w exposure. so he had had a long history of learning about the health impacts of cigarets anthhe was o many people didn't seem to care. 30 to 40% of the americant time. and he was still trying to get the facts dangers involved. now, the ranking member on that committee at the time was tom bliley, republican from virginia. congressman from philip morris, who did not waxman. is that correct? that's correct. and virginia and a bunch of other states ascongress that were fiee defenders of the industry. did the american tobacco industry, 30 years ago, in 1994

have strongly lobbying and economic very powerful industry atholding off the health findingsnd others had ben trying to promote for a long time. huge marketing campaign for them to see smoking as sophisticated or attractive. and they were a very powerful industry. elise bean and the seven ceos me to testify. would you call that down? well, it was en mean, that heae iconic in the united states congress for how it aack a very serious problem. there was a very famous photograph of the seven ceos holding up their hand, swearing to tell the truth. and then you had the hearing

televised to millions of americans. talking about were there these health hazards and hg deny thas were addictive. deny that theyaused health problems. deny that they wereduals every r in the united states? well,■w of that hearing now. this is an historic hearing. chief executive officers of our nation's tobacco companies are stifying together before the united states congress. this subcommittee has legislative jurisdiction over those issues that affect our health and know cigaret smoking.as it is sometimes truth. the truth is that■@ cigarets are the single most dangerous consumer product ever sold.

nearly a half million americans die every tobacco. this is anincomprehensible stat. 's outrage if two fully loaded jumbo jets all aboard.h day k■;ling yet that's the same number of americans that cigarets kill every 24 hours. it begins with our kids each day. 3000 children■9 will begin smokg in many cases, the quickly and a lifelong addiction that is break. for the past 30 years, a series of surgeons general have issued ive reports outlining the dangers these children will eventually face. long cancer, heartemphysema, bld

diseases tobacco causes. tmd w we know that kids will face a serious health threat even if they don't smoke environmental tobacco, smoke is a class-a carcinogen, and it sickens more than a million kids every fact, five former surgeons general of the united states have said before this subcommittee this year that the most important legislation in disease prevention that we could enacte restrictions on smoking in public places. act on that legislation, and it will consider oth measures as well. this hearing will aid our efforts■> by presenting an important perspective. but these hearings are■f importt for another reason as well. for decades, the tobacco companies have been exempt from the standards of responsibility an accountability that apply to

all other american corporations. companies that sell aspirin, cars andstrict standards when te harm. we don't allow those companies to sell goods that recklessly endanger consumers. we don't allow them to suppress evidence of dangers when harm on't allow them to ignore science and good■/ sense. and we demand that when problems occur, corporations and their senior executive must be accountable to congress and the public. this hearing marks the beginning congress and the tobacco the old rules are out. the standards that apply to everot in. we look forward to hearing the working with these companies to begin to reduce the extraordary public health

threat that product poses and old proverb says that a journey with a single step. must begin today is the first step. ma more are to come as we deal with the most se health problem facing our nation. before calling on our i want to recognize members of the subcommittee for opening statements and to call on mr. blileychairman, ladies and gent. i certainly would like to know who is there and a smoking group's pr agent. cae this person has done more for the name i.d. this ■áxall town virginia mayor. over the past few weeks thaall ■ the press secretaries come. all my press secretaries combined for theseriously, ladi, over the past several weeks, we have witnessed an unprecedented assault on tobacco that has unfortunately been driven not by

science, but by a press rseave h behavior from the zealots and anti-choice smoking community. but it seems that when it comes to tobacco that credibility. i must say that i was saddened by what took place in this room a couple of weeks ago. i witnessed the commissioner of the fda, who is both a trained scientist and aakes four arms of truth and weave them into whole cloth of rumor and innuendo. subcommittee were rude and hostile to any different explanation. i hope today is different. i welcome the leaders of the american tobacco manufacturers before our subcommittee to set the record straight. i pledge to you that i will do what i can to ensure that this proceeding is fair and that your voice is heard. i am proud to represent thousands of honest, hard

working men and women who earn their livelihood producing this i am proud of all that positive contributions to my if they aree sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. this congress must not turn its because of the bubble of though it may be only tobacco today. what lies next? n. elise bean those were some statements by henry waxman and tom bliley. what was henry waxman's goal in 1994? i think he was really trying to showcase the latest findings to the food and drug deliver only g nicotinen cigarets to increase addiction to them, that they were doing, that ty were doing it knowingly, that they knew tobacco had health hazards, that they were marketing to children, and they were just trying to

deny the that industry. well, lethese are the seven tobs and their interactions with the members of the committee. do you or those of you have asked your company to object to subcommittee under oath? if not, i'd like y rise. and those who will beo rise. if you raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony is the truth? the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do. but please consider yourself to be under oath. let me ask y fst. i'd like to just go down the row whether each of you believes th nicotine is not addictive. i heard virtually all of you just yes or no.

do you believe nicotine is not addictive? i li not addictive, yes. mr. johnston, congressman cigarets and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. there is no tax. we'll take that as a no. and again, time is short. if you can just i think each of you addictive. we just would like to have this for theec nicotine or our produs are addictive. i believe nicotine is not addictive. i believe that nicotine isi belt addicted. and i to believe that nicotine is notictive. all right. i appreciate this opportunity to discussof important issues concerning the tobacco industry. today to speak for t 45 million adults who choose to smoke and the growers, railers and the other

2.3 million americans who are part of the tobacco industry. i'm proud to represent÷! than 10,000 people. and reynolds tobacco, who are dedicated to making the best cigarets we can make. my company and i take very serious sleeleveled against us. and i would like the record to early show that reynolds tobacco does not spike its products with nicotine. int, our process results in the loss of we do not ad or otherwise otine to addict smokers. justification for the fda to regulate cigarets as a drug. ■ the real issue before the american people and this

subcommittee. the real cigaret be$■j make no mistake aboutct. the goal of the anti smoking industry is to bringkprohibitio. this morning i intend to show you how they hope to achieve that goal. but first, i want to address the chargeha tobacco manipulates the level of niti i products. the implication is that we're somehow doing something sinister to addict smokers or to keep them addicted. we dowe do products. we do monitor and measure tar and nicotine yields because we are required to publish those figures in our advertise. we do maintain the

consistent taste and quali of our brands which our customers expect. but we do not do anything to hook smokers or to keep them hooked. let me repeat, we do not manipulate nicotine to■x addict smokers. we no more manipulate nicotine in cigarets than coffee manufacturers, manipat products. there is nothingi think the subd so be aware that dr. kessler's definition of ation would classify most coffee cola and drinkers as addicts. caffeine addicts. many people experience a strong urge for a cup of coffee each

well-documented physical withdrawal consumption of coffee and caffeinated, soft drinks. nonetheless, i seriously doubt that the american public would say that these characterize six put caffeine in the same classes addictive drugs such as cocaine anddon't think anyone would seriously suggest that the fda consider regulating coffee, tea or% though soft drink manufacturers routinely add caffeine to their pructs. in the same vein. the manufacturers of alcolic beverages constantly monitor the alcohol content of tir2g products through the fermentation process topreciself alcohol. in addition, some wines are rtalcohol. nonetheless, reynolds tobacco is

not aware of any efforts to regulate wine, beer orpits as a drug. and we certainly don't believe that efforts of that necessary or desirable. much of the■:versy surrounding our products has focused on ourous techniques ths reduce ther■p tar and nicotine yields of our products. let me be clear. we ch%ld stop using those techniques. we could chop up the tobacco and roll it in paper. but the consequence of in woulde 1940s, when the average cigaret nicotine.0 milligrams of taro thatnicotine in ouri trust thist endorse such an effort as a

matter of public policy, regardless of your personal viewab smoking. hearing on this subject, som't simply eliminatee from our products. nicotine plays an■r■" essentiale in the overall smoking experience. it enhances the taste of the smoke and the way it feels on the smoker's palate and it contributes to overall smoking enjoyment. during the pastwide variety of attempt attempts to cvicigarn gone so f cigarets in the same cand heroin. you don't need to beint to see't true.

all you need to do is ask and honestly answer to simple questions.first, would you ratha just smoked a cigaret or one with a pilot who just had a couple of beers or snorted cocaine or shot heroin or popped some pills? second, if cigarets were addictive, could almost. 43 million americans have quit smokin almost all of own withoue help? think that mr. jim johns, in s, characterized the motive behind most of this is to baof tobaccot that that are being asserted. the gentman from on cnn last night said that he was not

interested in banning tobacco, but my perception is that the contrary is■y true. and and and i think we should virtually approach it that way. and that if we're going to abide by the chairstatement, then thee standards that we applto■á applied to other products and in a number of ways, including a de rge■ ■/ ofducts of alcohol, caffeine, content and product, sugar content products that content down on down that and i think it's important to be candid in what we're talking the past. i've used alcohol in the past. nicotine, i think, is se tobacc. alcohol is essential products.

i drink coffee. i don't like it if it doesn't have caffeine in it. i like candy. i don't think i'd like that. it didn't have chocolate or sugar and so the question is not whether, but the questional witt used to be harmful ion be harmfd physically they can be harmful. psychologically, they can modify behavior andom■ehow oother. and all of this so far we don't seem to be applying anyed standf this, and i don't know how we deal with itnally unless we do to do with the fact that wh the much blyhooed last so-called secret list that became public, why was nicotine not included on the list of 600 items that were disclosed?

anyone can answer. mr. congressman, it's becanicotl compen leave. list.ine sulfate was on the it's present because it is required to be there by batf. it's in minuscule quantities. this cup, if poured into a 3000 gallons swimmi pool, would would represent how much nicotine is pres in that nicotine sulfate. it can't even be measured and it's required to behe by the batf. we don't require a secret list ofus additive that go into a bottle of gin and excessive alcohol. do we? oh, and beyond alcohol. well, mr. congressman, i don'

the the ingredients release out by#i t manufacturers yesterday goes f bbeen provided by any manufacturer of a food product products they're not required to disclose pricing processing agents. we have supplied those data to the us gernment for over ten years. we have fully cooperated with the department of health and human services a prior chairman of this company testified before congressffered our ingredient list to year. we've not been trying to hide anything. we've been fully cooperative on this. we' bhighly responsible in having not only each of those zed, but analyzed in totality, analyzing the by independent toxicologist ana little bit distressed, as

i hear some of your answers with respt to your flippant attitude on the impact of nicotine and its addictiveness and the impact of cigaretingene. i called your attention to your left. that stack of books, medical evidence, overwhelming over the last 25 years of the addictiveness, as well as the hazard of the product that you produce. mr. campbell, two weeks acongrea study written by dr. asked unans consent and in the record at this time, exhibitive, a without objection, that will be the as you know, dr. de novo was a6■ research scientistt philip morris during the early eighties. you have in front of you the de novo study. nicotine of rats in 83. he found that rats will self-administer nicotine when hooked up to an intravenous nicotine work

to get nicotine. and as dr. kessler told us in the hearing that he testified in self administration of this type is hallmark to addiction. i'd ask unanimous consent enter in the record exhibit six. without objection, i will be released. campbell before you as a police youpress release that said the dr. de novo study showed exactly the opposite. i have a cop here which is a marked and it says that the e that nicotine is quote, in a class of non-audit active checa saccharir water. i don't mr. campbell a study that shows rats or any self-administer saccharin or water intravenously as a way they do.

nicotine. i ask unanimous consent to enter in the record exhibit seven. without objection, that will be the order. mr. campbell this is a letter from the director of the national institute of drug abuse regarding the novel, which is in question here. it letter it this letter directly contradicts your assertions. according to expert federal agency on drug abuse. and let me quote from it, quote these findings from the noble study indicate that nicotine has reinforcing properties. one of the hallmarks of addictive substances. and yet withwhelming evidence by medical laboratory experts, youy shows the opposite. would you have this subcommittee institute doesn't know how the study was conducted or understand it at all? i can't comment. i obviously just received the document for the first time.

mr. campbell was dr. de noble's work part of your company's effort to■y develop a nicotine analog, which are chemicals that would have addicting or ■'reinforcing features without y of some of the nicotine side effects? yes or no? yes. okay. i have here and i ask unanimous consent to enter the record exhibit eighwithout objection, e the order. dzit is a 1980 internalitten byr scientists, j.l. charles. this memorandum nicotine receptor research that your company was funding at the university of75. was this related to dr. noble's work? i studied this matter in general, but you've now entered into a i. can i ask dr. ellis el me know, campbell, was this part or part not turn around and ask them, was this part of mr. de noble's work for the.

yes. i ask unanimous consent to ente objection. that will be the order. campbell, even more than presentation and characterization of the noble work. it's theb+pparent attempt by your company to suppress the findings in the noble study and to keep the importance study secret because it might hurt industry. chronology with you, dr. de noso it was peer reviewed. it was accepted for publication. it was edited minute. dr. de novo withdrew the study in a letter written to philip morris on philip morris stationery, whi youavexplainings

withdrawing that control, unquote. dr. de novo resubmitted that study in 1985. mr. campbell it went through the sa pee process, so i'd ask exempt tend to be made part of the record without objection, that will the order. it then had to be withdrawn again. according to this tter written to the journal editor. the reason was that philip uote, issued an injunction against publication of this paper, unquote. the letter was from the editor. as you can see, mr. campbell. did you or did you not deny were you deny philip morris kept the noble study from being published. i will not deny that you did yes, we did not in any way employ legaldid not. we did not choose to publish that. isn't it true, mr. campbell,

that prior to the time that dr. noble submitted hi■s study to te journal in 1983, his study had been reviewed by philip morrisf. i believe that to be the case. yes. all right. release, mr. campbell, philip morris states atobjection against the publication. my question to you, did philip morris, its attorneys or any of injunction that would be sought against dr. de novo he or the as published? not to my knowledsir and i have investigated to some extent. do you have a written mo investr eye? i don't think so. if you leave that memo available to further record and submit it? you. the subcommittee was informed, mr. campbell, that abruptly closed down the research colleagues and the employees wered ind other jobs. is that true?

that's correct. t s took that action because of the adverse research findings that welaboratory? no. does philip morris have copies of any of dr. de noble's studies reports, notes or any other k he performed or any other documents pertaining to his animali would think that we do,. where you provide those documents to the subcommittee. and for the record. i see no problem. the subcommittee contacted dr. de novo mr. campbell to ask his version of the events, and dr. de nobled this subcommittee that he would be unable to talk to us becauset may be subject to a confidentiality agreement that he has with your company. morris therefore, would it novo. because of that agreement, mr. campbell, will you release dr. de novo from his confidentiali agreement so that he can appear voluntarily before this subcommittee to tell us what really happened?

i don't know of the confidentiality agreement, so i'investigation, but then i will answer. will you release dr. de novo from any arrangements that would allow him to voluntarily testify before this subcommittee? dr. two noble is quite on record in yes, sir. michael where you allow dr. two noble to come forward. i see. no problem in that our people will discuss. you discuss that with you. that's not the question, mr. campbell. will voluntarily appear if he can get through the agreement that he has with your company, will you release him from that agreement? can i work with my counsel at this time? i just want to know you're the chairman of the board. president. but mr. scheiner, let's give him a minute. all right. you will do it. su you. elise bean of the 11 center. that was tobacco hearings. what was thedia and the public n

this growing recognition that the denying ths for a long time. people just kind of ignored the facts that were brought out by waxman and others, although there had been incremental progress over the years. congress was able to force cigaret packs to carry warnings about how smoking could be hazardous to your health. they were able to ban smoking on flights. they were able to ban some advertising. some advertising for tobacco on tv and broadcast to over time. so there was increasing recognition of the hhhat were ld to smoking. but l, see the tobacco companies as deliberately trying to get people addicted. one of the things the fda showed is that r.j. reynolds had

applied for a patent to double the levels of nicotine in ciga a new fact that people had known before. another thing that fda commissioner david kessler brought out was that while up to 15% of people got addicted to alcohol en it came t cigarets, the addiction levels were 75 to 90% of smokers. those were new facts that wa to. but we had been discussing the effects of smoking since the 1950s, hadn't. surgeon general's report in the early sixties came out. that's true. the very first report that came out that linked cancer was in 1953. and there was a bigger report in 1954, in. the first big report in the united surgeon general's report linking a to cancer. so yeah, those warnings had been

out there, but n.dot a lot of people pay attention to them and one of the tngs at mr. tried to do was publicize those findings in the hearings that he held to get the word out to the public. and that's one of the important funcoversight to try to educatee puic complicated facts and try to bring those facts to their atteio you mentioned somee policy changes in the last 30 years or so. could you draw a straight line from tho99 to some those policy changes? etc.? well, you know, his first hearing of cigaret and tobacco you can draw a straight line between a number of his hearings and different pieces of legislation over the years. so, for when they i think actually i think it was in 1970. i'm■%i think it was in 1966.

that was the first time that congress required cigaret packs to carry that warning that smoking ulyour health. it was in 1970 that they started tv and radio in 1984, waxman passed was able to enact legislation to cigaret packs. and let me read to one of them a smoking disease, emphysema. it may complicate pregnancy. that was in 1984. in 1986, they added smoke kinds of warnings for smokeless tobacco products like snuff and chewing tobacco. in 1987, they first banned smoking on sht flights. by 1990, they banned smoking on all flwere directly related to hearings that were held both

the smoking bans were really the result of work done by senator durbin, who lost his father to lung cancer, and to senator frank loughton. but they worked very hard to restrict restrict smoking on airplane well, you mentioned the fda's head at the time, david kessler. he testified before this committee. here's a testimony. mr. chairman, let me turn to the industry's knowledge of the drug like effects of nicotine. i wistudies commissioned by the too, by tobacco companies. as i go through them, ask yourself, are these the kind std by an industry interested only in the flavor or taste of nicotine? on may 16th, 1994, brown and 6eased results of research conduct m ago.

the first report, known as pr discussed the effects of nicotine in the body, central system. report and project hippo, to which focused on the newly evolving field of tranquilizers. ll the aim of the whole research hippo was to understand some of the activities of nicotine. those activities that could explain why cigaret smokers are so fond of their habit and quote s on. quote, it was also our purpose to compare these effects with those of the new drugs called tranquilizers, which might supersede tobacco habits in the nearthe studies represent a sers company to a scientific examination of

nicotine's pharmacological properties. but compare precision of the drug like effects of nicotine and tranquilizers was not exactly a well-kept secret. even in the 1940s. mr. chairman, you could pick up a magazine and see an advertisement likec this. if upsety a five year old. why beat irritated life? an old goal. another report released with hippo callede body. presents the results of studies on nicotine metabolism igroup o. the report states, an numerous e measured by variousirst be physiological and experiments. such research is inconsistent

with the industry's representation that it is only interested in nicotine flavor and believe that the studies released by brown and williamson are relevant to the determination of whether nicotine contain cigarets are drugs. but the purposes of the federal food, act, and thanks to this subcommittee work, we now know that philip morris also the reinforcing effects of nicotine. we are alsoectro electro in several graphic measurements t f nicotine on brain and philip morris. some the recently reported statements in the m of officials from one company that reveal a recognition of nicotine drug like effects. well, nicotine is not only a

very fine drug, but the technique of administration by smoking has advantage as well. nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug. it both helps the body to resist externals and also can, as a result, a pronounced tranquilizing effect. these statements weres ellis, w, as science adviser to thecompann tobacco■; company. dr. dr. ellis made another statement in 1962, quote, smoking is a habit ofquote. but perhaps the most striking statement attributed to him is one from a meeting of companies scientists in 1967. quote, sir charles ellis states

that this company is in the tobacco industry,as david kessler, then head of the food and drug administration in 1994, elise ■(r for oversight and democracy. el bean. what was david kessler's role in promoting anti smoking efforts? he was v partner in the administration to publicize the dangers associated with smoking. hessa number of reports and he's the person that really brought to the public's attention for the first time that tobacco companies were deliberately manipulating the levels of nicotine in cigarets d it in order to get people more addicted because they found that ni addi. when he testified in front of the waxman subcommittee, he

talked about cigarets as technos and showed how the technology was built into the cigarets to expose smokers to nicotine and get them more addicted. hein r.j. reynolds patent to try to more than double nicotine levels in their to tobacco product■ñ4xs.■■ now, you mentioned earlier that 30 to 40% of the americanin 199. did those h trends? so, mr. waxman heldearings over 25 year period. describe the health hazard with. and they finally started to penetrat a the heads of the public. and smoking rat of smoking dropped as a result. atsmoking in the 1960s. by 2018, that had dropped to 41%

of u.s. adults. equally dramatic. back in the sixties, 36% of young adults were smoking. by 2018, that level had dropped to under 10%. and that's where it is today. well, it was in 2009 that more anti-smokingas signed into law. here's then president■h know, 'm signing today represents a change that's been decades in the making since at least the middle of the last century. 've about the harmful and often deadly effects of tobacco ■lmore than 400,000 americans nw die of tobacco related illnesses year, making it the leading cause of preventable death in states. more than 8 million americans suffer from at least one serious illness caused by smoking. ands all

more than $100 billion a year. what's even worse are the effects on our children. ■ú every five children in our country are now current smokers. h school. think about that statistic. one out of every five children ountry are now current smokers. by the time they leave high school. each young people under the age of 18 become new, regular daily smokers and almost 90% of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday. i know i was one of these teens, how difficult to convey to break this habit when it's been w tim. i also know that kids today don't just start smoking for no reason. they're aggressively targeted as customers by the tobacco industry. they're exposed to a constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn, and where they most insidiously, they are that mask the taste of tobaccogs

and make it even more tempting. decades. but despite the best efforts and good progress made by so many leaders and advocates, with us today, the tobacco industry andg have generally won the day up on the hill. when henry waxman first brought tobacco ceos before congress in 1994, they tobacco was deadly. nicotine was addicti to children. and they spent millions on lobbd advertising, going to fight back every attempt these denials as lies. 15 years latth campaign has finally failed. today, thanks to t worof democrats and republicans, health care and consumer long effort to protect our children from the harmful victorious. elise bean of the 11 center. what was that legislation that president obama.

in 2009 that was the most powerful anti-smokenacted into . what idi and drug administration and clear authority to regulate the manufacturing, advertisingndthet authority befor finally got it. so the use and regulation of tobacco products? it's still a problem. we still have pele ski it's a much smaller percentage than it used also see the rise of vaping, which is just a different kind of okand that ha. and people wryut regulating tob, advertising, t sale of tobacco products is still a problem

today. legacy of the waxman hearings is that he saved millions of americans nd disability, from smoking. and he adollars of taxpayer dolt otherwise would to pay for health care. so the waxman hearings and all the other people that worked on thisimpact in terms of lowering smokingates, saving people's livesnd reducing taxpayer costs spent on health care. but the problem is no's still a. is congress still anti smoking n arena? yes, they are. there have been a lot ofij hearings over the last five years on vaping, for example, which is another way of exposing young adults to nicotine and to

other■ tobacco products. so, yeah, congress is still working on it. ■rthey've been able to also giva to try to improve rates of lung cancer. ■ç and there's still work to do. and finally, elise bean tell us more about the levin center. thes levin center, the carl levn center for oversight and de■w focuses on the importance of conducting ov congress and the 50 state legislatures around the counthe supreme court has said t our elected leaders are meant to behe and voice of their constituents to try to find out what the government is doing and how to attack particular problems and improve the country. and that's what we're focused on. we think you can't, as senator levin used to say, you can't have good government without good and that's what we try to promote. fact based bipartisan oversight

well, tell us a little bit more about senator carl levin. levinr and namesake. he was thesenator from michigans in the u.s. senate. and he spent virtually all of that time conducting oversight heargs. ■he looked at what government did? he looked atde range of complicd problems. enron, the financial crisis, money laundering, tax evasion. we had a lot of fun investigatid standing up to very powerful interests that needed to change their ways. and elise bean worked for investigation committee at the time. she is now the dc head of the levin center for oversight and democracy. ate you being on our program. congress2w7-wç■4ñl@■kázvclinda e

university of wisconsin and nyu. originally a historian of russia