50 million americans are addicted to smoking. 420,000 of our fellow citizens die each year because of tobacco

and tobacco related illnesses. americans want to know why. americans also want to know why american ceos and executives continue to deny basic responsibility that they are not accountable for a thousand deaths every day of the year in this country. and that was representative mike synar, a democrat of oklahoma. in 1994, at a highly publicized hearing on tobacco. and that's our topic this week on our series. congress investigates. well, it was in april of 1994 that ceos from the major tobacco companies went before congress as part of an investigation into health hazards posed by their products. testimony in that 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 is elise payne, director of the d.c. office of the levin center for oversight and democracy. elise bean we had been debating the impact of tobacco products for decades. by that point. what was it about 1994 that brought this all together? well, i think the key was an announcement by the food and drug administration. and commissioner david kessler that they had evidence that the tobacco companies were deliberate, manipulating the levels of nicotine in cigarets to get people more addicted to them. and because of that, the fda was considering regulating tobacco products. henry waxman, democrat california, who chaired this subcommittee, was very well known for being anti tobacco go. what was the tenor of the

hearings? well, henry waxman had been holding hearings for decades, as you mentioned, about the has health hazards of smoking cigarets. he held the very first hearing in 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 kinds of problems. he had a hearing about how even if you didn't smoke cigarets yourself, if you were exposed to smoke tobacco, smoke from others who are smoking cigarets you could get ill from that exposure. so he had had a long history of learning about the health impacts of cigarets and i think he was also frustrated that so many people didn't seem to care. 30 to 40% of the american public were smoking cigarets at that time. and he was still trying to get

the facts out to the public about the health dangers involved. now, the ranking member on that committee at the time was tom bliley, republican from virginia. he was known jokingly as the congressman from philip morris, who did not agree with henry waxman. is that correct? that's correct. tobacco was a big product and virginia and a bunch of other states as well. and there were members of congress that were fierce defenders of the industry. did the american tobacco industry, 30 years ago, in 1994 have strongly lobbying and economic power? oh, they did. they were very powerful industry that had been holding off the health findings that henry waxman and others had been trying to promote for a long time. and they had a huge marketing campaign for children and for adults to get them to see smoking as sophisticated or attractive. and they were a very powerful

industry. elise bean and the seven ceos who came to testify. would you call that hearing a dressing down? well, it was even more than that. i mean, that hearing became iconic in the united states congress for how it attack 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 itself that was televised to millions of americans. talking about were there these health hazards and having the ceos simply deny that cigarets were addictive. deny that they caused health problems. deny that they were killing 300 to 400000 individuals every year in the united states? well, let's look at a little bit of that hearing now. this is an historic hearing.

for the first time ever, the chief executive officers of our nation's tobacco companies are testifying together before the united states congress. they are here because this subcommittee has legislative jurisdiction over those issues that affect our health and know health issue is as important as cigaret smoking. it is sometimes easier to invent fiction than to face the truth. the truth is that cigarets are the single most dangerous consumer product ever sold. nearly a half million americans die every year as a result of tobacco. this is an astounding, almost incomprehensible statistic. imagine our nation's outrage if two fully loaded jumbo jets crashed each day killing. all aboard. yet that's the same number of americans that cigarets kill every 24 hours.

sadly, this deadly habit begins with our kids each day. 3000 children will begin smoking in many cases, they become hooked quickly and develop a lifelong addiction that is nearly impossible to break. for the past 30 years, a series of surgeons general have issued comprehensive reports outlining the dangers these children will eventually face. long cancer, heart disease, emphysema, bladder cancer and stroke are only some of the diseases tobacco causes. and now 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 year. in 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 enact would be restrictions on smoking in public places. this subcommittee will soon act on that legislation, and it will consider other measures as well. this hearing will aid our efforts by presenting an important perspective. but these hearings are important for another reason as well. for decades, the tobacco companies have been exempt from the standards of responsibility and accountability that apply to all other american corporations. companies that sell aspirin, cars and soda are all held to strict standards when they cause 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 occurs. we don'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 of a new relationship between congress and the tobacco companies. the old rules are out. the standards that apply to every other company is in. we look forward to hearing the testimony this morning and to working with these companies to begin to reduce the extraordinary public health threat that product poses and old proverb says that a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. today is the first step. many more are to come as we deal with the most serious health problem facing our nation. before calling on our witnesses, i want to recognize members of the subcommittee for opening statements and to call on mr. bliley first.

chairman, ladies and gentlemen. i certainly would like to know who is there and a smoking group's pr agent. because this person has done more for the name i.d. this small town virginia mayor. over the past few weeks than all the press secretaries come. all my press secretaries combined for the past 14 years. seriously, ladies and gentlemen, 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 release. now, i have come to expect such behavior from the zealots and anti-choice smoking community. but it seems that when it comes to tobacco that these tactics have acquired mainstream credibility. it is clear that tobacco is not politically correct. 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 a lawyer, takes

four arms of truth and weave them into whole cloth of rumor and innuendo. the members of this subcommittee were rude and hostile to any witness who dared to attempt to offer a 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 legal product. i am proud of all that positive contributions to my community, and i'll be -- if they are to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. this congress must not turn its back on science and reason just because of the bubble of popularity. though it may be only tobacco today. what lies next? thank you, mr. chairman. 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 administration and that tobacco industries would deliver only manipulating nicotine in cigarets to increase addiction to them, that they were doing, that they 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 facts about what was going on in that industry. well, let's go back to the hearing. these are the seven tobacco ceos and their interactions with the members of the committee. do you or those of you have asked your company to object to appearing before this subcommittee under oath? if not, i'd like you to rise. and those who will be testifying as well with you to rise.

if you raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth? the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do. but please consider yourself to be under oath. let me ask you first. i'd like to just go down the row whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. i heard virtually all of you touch on it and just yes or no. do you believe nicotine is not addictive? i believe nicotine is 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 believe nicotine is not addictive. we just would like to have this for the record, i don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive. i believe nicotine is not

addictive. i believe that nicotine is not. i believe that nicotine is not addicted. and i to believe that nicotine is not addictive. all right. i appreciate this opportunity to discuss a number of important issues concerning the tobacco industry. i am proud to be here today to speak for the 45 million adults who choose to smoke and the growers, retailers and the other 2.3 million americans who are part of the tobacco industry. i'm proud to represent the more 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 sleep. the allegations that have been leveled against us. and i would like the record to clearly show that reynolds tobacco does not spike its

products with nicotine. in fact, our process results in the loss of nicotine. we do not ad or otherwise manipulate nicotine to addict smokers. finally, there is no justification for the fda to regulate cigarets as a drug. i also want to talk to you about the real issue before the american people and this subcommittee. the real issue is should cigaret be outlawed. let's make no mistake about it. the goal of the anti smoking industry is to bring back prohibition. this morning i intend to show you how they hope to achieve that goal. but first, i want to address the charge that reynolds tobacco manipulates the level of nicotine in its products.

the implication is that we're somehow doing something sinister to addict smokers or to keep them addicted. we do not. we do reduce the amount of nicotine in our products. we do monitor and measure tar and nicotine yields because we are required to publish those figures in our advertise. and we do maintain the consistent taste and quality 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 addict smokers. we no more manipulate nicotine in cigarets than coffee manufacturers, manipulate caffeine in their products.

there is nothing sinister about it. i think the subcommittee should also be aware that dr. kessler's definition of addiction would classify most coffee cola and tea drinkers as addicts. caffeine addicts. many people experience a strong urge for a cup of coffee each morning, and there is a well-documented physical withdrawal syndrome associated with the 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 and heroin. and i don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the fda consider regulating coffee, tea or soda as drugs, even though

soft drink manufacturers routinely add caffeine to their products. in the same vein. the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages constantly monitor the alcohol content of their problems. products through the fermentation process to precisely control the level of alcohol. in addition, some wines are fortified, fried with added alcohol. nonetheless, reynolds tobacco is not aware of any efforts to regulate wine, beer or spirits as a drug. and we certainly don't believe that efforts of that type are necessary or desirable. much of the recent controversy surrounding our products has focused on our on our use of various techniques that help us reduce the tar and nicotine yields of our products. let me be clear. we could stop using those techniques.

we could chop up the tobacco and roll it in paper. but the consequence of doing that would be a return to the 1940s, when the average cigaret yielded 40 milligrams of tar to point eight milligrams of nicotine. that would increase the tar and nicotine in our cigarets by 3 to 400%. i trust this committee would not endorse such an effort as a matter of public policy, regardless of your personal views about smoking. at the last hearing on this subject, some people ask why we don't simply eliminate nicotine from our products. nicotine plays an essential role 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 past several years, there have been a wide variety of attempt attempts to convince the american public that cigarets are addictive and that some public officials have even gone so far as to put cigarets in the same class as cocaine and heroin. you don't need to be a trained scientist to see this isn't true. all you need to do is ask and honestly answer to simple questions. first, would you rather board a plane with a pilot who 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

smoking, almost all of them on their own without any outside help? i think that mr. jim johnson, in his opening statement, characterized the nature of what we about the real motive behind most of this is to ban the use of tobacco and not a whole host of other things that that are being asserted. the gentleman from oregon on cnn last night said that he was not interested in banning tobacco, but my perception is that the contrary is true. and and and i think we should virtually approach it that way. and that if we're going to abide by the chairman's opening statement, then the same standards that we apply to tobacco should be applied to other products and i think that's been suggested here today in a number of ways, including a

wide range of products of alcohol, caffeine, content and product, sugar content products that content products. and we could go on down on down that list. and i think it's important to be candid in what we're talking about. i have smoke in the past. i've used alcohol in the past. nicotine, i think, is essential to the use of tobacco. alcohol is essential to the use of alcoholic 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 question is how do we deal with the fact that used to access or misuse certain products may be harmful in one way or another? they can be harmful and physically they can be harmful.

psychologically, they can modify behavior and somehow or another. and all of this so far we don't seem to be applying any commonly accepted standards to any of this, and i don't know how we deal with it rationally unless we do my first question really would have to do with the fact that with the much ballyhooed 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 because nicotine is the natural component of tobacco leave. nicotine sulfate was on the list. it's present because it is required to be there by the batf. it's in minuscule quantities. this cup, if poured into a 3000

gallons swimming pool, would would represent how much nicotine is present in that nicotine sulfate. it can't even be measured and it's required to be there by the batf. we don't require a secret list of the 30 to 40 plus additive that go into a bottle of gin and excessive alcohol. do we? oh, and beyond alcohol. well, mr. congressman, i don't even know what they are. the the ingredients release out by these manufacturers yesterday goes far beyond what is ever been 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 government for over ten years. we have fully cooperated with the department of health and human services a prior chairman

of this company testified before congress in 1964 and offered our ingredient list to congress 30 years ago this year. we've not been trying to hide anything. we've been fully cooperative on this. we've been highly responsible in having not only each of those ingredient analyzed, but analyzed in totality, analyzing the by independent toxicologist and a little bit distressed, as i hear some of your answers with respect to your flippant attitude on the impact of nicotine and its addictiveness and the impact of cigarets in general. 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 ago, congressman waxman released a study written by dr. victor e de

novo, and i asked unanimous consent and in the record at this time, exhibit five, a without objection, that will be the order. it was a as you know, dr. de novo was a research scientist at philip morris during the early eighties. you have in front of you the de novo study. dr. de novo was studying the nicotine of rats in 83. he found that rats will self-administer nicotine when hooked up to an intravenous nicotine solution. in other words, they will 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 to enter in the record exhibit six. without objection, i will be released. mr. campbell before you as a

police your press release that said the dr. de novo study showed exactly the opposite. i have a copy here which is a marked and it says that the noble study showed that nicotine is quote, in a class of non-audit active chemical compounds such as saccharin or water. i don't think any of us are ever going to find mr. campbell a study that shows rats or any other animals will 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 study, 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 with this overwhelming evidence by medical laboratory experts, you continue to contend that your study shows the opposite. would you have this subcommittee believed that the national 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 develop a nicotine analog, which are chemicals that would have addicting or reinforcing features without any 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 eight. without objection, that will be the order.

it is a 1980 internal memorandum written by one of your scientists, j.l. charles. this memorandum describes nicotine receptor research that your company was funding at the university of rochester. was this related to dr. noble's. can i ask dr. ellis to help 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 enter the record exhibit nine. without objection. that will be the order. there's something that bothers me, mr. campbell, even more than your complete misread presentation and characterization of the noble work. it's the apparent attempt by your company to suppress the findings in the noble study and to keep the importance study secret because it might hurt industry. now, let me go through the chronology with you, dr. de novo

submitted his study to a leading scientific journal, psycho pharmacology, in 1983. it was peer reviewed. it was accepted for publication. it was edited then at the last minute. dr. de novo withdrew the study in a letter written to philip morris on philip morris stationery, which you have before you dr. de noble, explaining that he was withdrawing that study, quote, for reasons beyond my control, unquote. dr. de novo resubmitted that study in 1985. mr. campbell it went through the same peer process, so i'd ask exempt tend to be made part of the record without objection, that will be the order. it then had to be withdrawn again. according to this letter written to the journal editor. the reason was that philip morris had quote, 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 keep it from being published. yes, we did not in any way employ legal technique such as injunctions, but we did not. we did not choose to publish that. isn't it true, mr. campbell, that prior to the time that dr. noble submitted his study to the journal in 1983, his study had been reviewed by philip morris for publication. i believe that to be the case. yes. all right. in its press release, mr. campbell, philip morris states that it did not obtain an objection against the publication. my question to you, did philip morris, its attorneys or any of its employees threaten a court injunction that would be sought against dr. de novo if the journal or the article was published? not to my knowledge, sir and i have investigated to some extent. do you have a written memo on

that investigation from your eye? i don't think so. if you do, would you leave that memo available to further record and submit it? thank you. the subcommittee was informed, mr. campbell, that in early 1984, philip morris abruptly closed down the research laboratory of dr. de novo and his colleagues and the employees were told to find other jobs. is that true? that's correct. is it true that philip morris took that action because of the adverse research findings that were being found in the laboratory? no. does philip morris have copies of any of dr. de noble's studies reports, notes or any other documents pertaining to the work he performed or any other documents pertaining to his animal research? i would think that we do, sir. 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 noble informed this subcommittee that he would be unable to talk to us because it may be subject to a

confidentiality agreement that he has with your company. philip morris therefore, would it would bar the testimony of dr. de novo. because of that agreement, mr. campbell, will you release dr. de novo from his confidentiality 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'd have to have an investigation, but then i will answer. will you release dr. de novo from any contractual 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. dr. de noble 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. no, i'm not. but i'm just the president. but mr. scheiner, let's give him a minute. all right. you will do it. sure. thank you. elise bean of the 11 center. that was from 1994. the tobacco hearings. what was the reaction from the media and the public followed in this hearing? i think there was a growing recognition that the tobacco industry was denying the facts 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 health hazards caused that were linked to smoking. but still, people didn't 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 cigarets. that was 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 when it came to cigarets, the addiction levels were 75 to 90% of smokers. those were new facts that waxman was trying to get out to public. but we had been discussing the effects of smoking since the 1950s, hadn't. and, of course, the famous surgeon general's report in the

early sixties came out. that's true. the very first report that came out that linked smoking to cancer was in 1953. and there was a bigger report in 1954, in. the first big report in the united states, 1964. that u.s. surgeon general's report linking a to cancer. so yeah, those warnings had been out there, but not a lot of people pay attention to them and one of the things that mr. waxman 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 functions of congressional oversight to try to educate the public about complicated facts and try to bring those facts to their attention. now, you mentioned some of the policy changes in the last 30 years or so. could you draw a straight line from those 1994 hearings to some those policy changes? smoking on airplanes, etc.?

well, you know, his first hearing of the first waxman hearing on cigaret and tobacco was in 1982. and you can draw a straight line between a number of his hearings and different pieces of legislation over the years. so, for example, in the 1980s, when they i think actually i think it was in 1970. i'm sorry. i think it was in 1966. that was the first time that congress required cigaret packs to carry that warning that smoking could be hazardous to your health. it was in 1970 that they started to restrict advertising on tv and radio in 1984, waxman passed was able to enact legislation to strengthen the warnings on cigaret packs. now there were four different hearings. and let me read to one of them a smoking causes lung cancer, heart 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 short flights. by 1990, they banned smoking on all flights. and those were directly related to hearings that were held both in the house and in the senate. 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 little bit of his testimony. mr. chairman, let me turn to the industry's knowledge of the drug like effects of nicotine. i will first describe several studies commissioned by the tobacco, by tobacco companies.

as i go through them, ask yourself, are these the kind of studies that would be conducted by an industry interested only in the flavor or taste of nicotine? on may 16th, 1994, brown and williamson released results of research conducted more than 30 years ago. the first report, known as project hippo one, discussed the effects of nicotine in the body, including its effect on the central system. let me quote from the final report and project hippo, to which focused on the newly evolving field of tranquilizers. well, 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

the document goes 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 near future, unquote. the studies represent a serious commitment by a tobacco 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 like this. if upset by a five year old. why beat irritated life? an old goal. another report released with hippo called the fate of

nicotine in the body. presents the results of studies on nicotine metabolism in a group of smokers. the report states, and i quote the numerous effects of nicotine in the body may at first be conveniently measured by various physiological and pharmacological experiments. such research is inconsistent with the industry's representation that it is only interested in nicotine flavor and taste. mr. chairman, we 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, drug and cosmetic act, and thanks to this subcommittee work, we now know that philip morris also the pharmacological reinforcing effects of nicotine. we are also aware research utilizing electro electro in several graphic measurements to

monitor the biological effect of nicotine on brain function at both r.j. reynolds and philip morris. let me also quote some the recently reported statements in the media 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 considerable psychological advantage as well. nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug. it both helps the body to resist external stress and also can, as a result, a pronounced tranquilizing effect. these statements were apparently made by sir charles ellis, who, as science adviser to the board of brown and williamson sister company, british american tobacco company.

dr. dr. ellis made another statement in 1962, quote, smoking is a habit of addiction, unquote. 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 nicotine rather than the tobacco industry, unquote. and that was david kessler, then head of the food and drug administration in 1994, elise bean is with the levin center for oversight and democracy. elise bean. what was david kessler's role in promoting anti smoking efforts? he was a very important partner in the administration to publicize the dangers associated with smoking.

he issued a 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 and they were doing it in order to get people more addicted because they found that nicotine was an addictive substance. when he testified in front of the waxman subcommittee, he talked about cigarets as being a high technology delivery systems and showed how the technology was built into the cigarets to expose smokers to nicotine and get them more addicted. he also disclosed in r.j. reynolds patent try to more than double nicotine levels in their to tobacco products. now, you mentioned earlier that 30 to 40% of the american public in 1994 was smoking. did those hearings impact smoking trends? so, mr. waxman held hearings

over 25 year period. describe the health hazards associated with smoking. and they finally started to penetrate it and get into the heads of the public. and smoking rates of smoking dropped as a result. at first, 42% of adults were smoking 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-smoking legislation was signed into law. here's then president obama. you know, the legislation i'm signing today represents a change that's been decades in the making since at least the middle of the last century.

we've about the harmful and often deadly effects of tobacco products. more than 400,000 americans now die of tobacco related illnesses each year, making it the leading cause of preventable death in the united states. more than 8 million americans suffer from at least one serious illness caused by smoking. and these problems cost us all more than $100 billion a year. what's even worse are the effects on our children. one out of every five children in our country are now current smokers. by the time they leave high school. think about that statistic. one out of every five children in our country are now current smokers. by the time they leave high school. each day, 1000 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 teenagers, so i know how difficult to convey to break this habit when it's been with

you for a long time. 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 play. most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting. we've known about this for decades. but despite the best efforts and good progress made by so many leaders and advocates, with us today, the tobacco industry and its special interest lobbying have generally won the day up on the hill. when henry waxman first brought tobacco ceos before congress in 1994, they famously denied that tobacco was deadly. nicotine was addictive or that their companies marketed to children. and they spent millions upon millions in lobbying and advertising, going to fight back every attempt to expose these

denials as lies. 15 years later, their campaign has finally failed. today, thanks to the work of democrats and republicans, health care and consumer advocates, the decades long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of tobacco has emerged victorious. elise bean of the 11 center. what was that legislation that president obama. in 2009 that was the most powerful anti-smoking legislation that had been enacted into law. what it did is it gave the food and drug administration and clear authority to regulate the manufacturing, advertising and sale of tobacco products. they had never had that authority before. in 2009, they finally got it. so where are we today when it comes to the use and regulation of tobacco products? it's still a problem. we still have people smoking.

it's a much smaller percentage than it used to be. but you can all see also see the rise of vaping, which is just a different kind of smoking. and that has really taken off among young adults. even among children. and people worry about it. so regulating tobacco, advertising, the sale of tobacco products is still a problem today. one thini, i think is a legacy of the waxman hearings is that he saved millions of americans from death and disability, from smoking. and he also saved billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars that otherwise would have gone to pay for health care. so the waxman hearings and all the other people that worked on this issue have had a real impact in terms of lowering smoking rates, saving people's lives and reducing taxpayer costs spent on health care.

but the problem is not solved. there's still a way to go. is congress still acting live in the anti smoking investigation arena? yes, they are. there have been a lot of 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. they've been able to also give a lot of money to cancer research to try to improve rates of lung cancer. but lung cancer is still a problem and there's still work to do. and finally, elise bean tell us more about the levin center. the levin center, the carl levin center for oversight and democracy focuses on the importance of conducting oversight by congress and the 50 state legislatures around the country.

the supreme court has said that our elected leaders are meant to be the 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 oversight. and that's what we try to promote. fact based bipartisan oversight by our elected leaders. well, tell us a little bit more about senator carl levin. well, carl levin was our founder and namesake. he was the longest serving senator from michigan, 36 years in the u.s. senate. and he spent virtually all of that time conducting oversight hearings. he looked at what government did? he looked at who. a wide range of complicated problems. we had hearings looking at enron, the financial crisis, money laundering, tax evasion. we had a lot of fun doing very complex investigations and

standing up to very powerful interests that needed to change their ways. and elise bean worked for senator levin on that investigation committee at the time. she is now the dc head of the levin center for oversight and democracy. we appreciate you being on our program. congressall right?

welcome back, students. today we're going to be discussing the battle of atlantic. got a couple of key questions will be attempting to analyze.