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 work? i studied this matter in general, but you've now entered into a depth of study that i. 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 it then had to be withdrawn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 to 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 thing i, 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. congress >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to create wi-fi enabled places so people with low income families can get

ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a television service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, our live forum to discuss the latest issues and government, politics and public policy from washington and across the country. coming up, dan kaufman for the new york times magazine talks about the impact of the north american free trade agreement on politics and presidential elections. and a look at the use of artificial intelligence in campaign 2024. c-span's washington journal, join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> on saturday, 2024 demratic

vice presidential nominee tim walz rally supporters in omaha, braska. omaha makes up most of nebraska second congressional district re democrats hope to flip a house seat and wind sile electoral vote. want to live stti at 6:15 p.m. on c-span, c-span now or c-span.org. >> a debate now between democratic senator jacky rosen and her publican challenger sam brown in nevada's 2024 u.s. nate race. they respondedo questions on the economy, housing shortage, and yucca mountainuclear waste dump. the race is rated as leans democrat. from newsnation, this is about one hour. ♪ >> and thank you.

welcome to debate night in las vegas. welcome to both of our candidates. we appreciate you being here and welcome to everyone watching at home tonight. we've got a lot of important issues to cover. we encourage everyone to share your thoughts on x using #nvsenatedebate, where you will see the sources we use in developing our questions tonight. john has our first question. >> candidates, let's start with the economy. it is consistently the number one issue for voters in nevada. the nation is battling high prices caused by inflation. the average nevada and is paying nearly $1200 a month more on groceries than three years ago. start with ms. rosen. can you give us one specific policy you would support moving forward to lower costs for nevada consumers? you have one minute. >> i want to first of all thank everyone for tuning in. i want to thank channel 8 for hosting this evening. i know families are being squeezed by higher costs and we

have to work on it. what i would work on first and what i have legislation to do is affordable housing. i have a bill called the home act. it is to make sure the corporate investors that come the nevada, they continue to buy our power homes and jacked up the prices. we need to make sure they are not able to do that. i have a bill that will hold them accountable, fine them, and put money back into affordable housing. the other things i've done is bring 500 million dollars to the home means nevada program to help thousands of families get into affordable housing. we've asked for lower interest rates because when it is lowered to build and buy, it is lower for everyone. my opponent actually calls for higher interest rates. he says it would not be pretty or easy, that it would be painful. instead of making sure nevada families have the pride of homeownership, he wants to inflict pain on them. >> ms. rosen, 15 seconds to clarify. the unaffordable housing, groceries -- beyond affordable housing, groceries.

>> we have been working with the federal trade commission because kroger and albertsons are their two main grocery chains in nevada. we know they want to merge. what happens when they merge? well, they limit competition. they make close to stores and some of our smaller communities that they lose jobs. we are working with the federal trade commission to hold them accountable on price gouging and on against competition. we are also doing the same thing for big oil. they are ripping you off of the gas pump. grocery stores, the grocery chains, big oil are making record profits quarter after quarter. >> mr. brown, can you give us one specific policy you would support moving forward to lower costs for nevada consumers? you have one minute. >> thank you. it's interesting to note that senator rosen struggled to answer the question about groceries. as a family that has been impacted by the higher grocery

prices, let me tell you about a couple. as we answer multiple questions tonight, i want to contemplate a question. depending on who wins this election, who benefits the most? is it us here in nevada or is it some special interest or may political party back in d.c.? let's get back to talk about the issues of groceries and higher prices. a lot of that could be impacted by our energy policy. this administration backed by senator rosen has chosen to prioritize energy policies that reward green energy projects. they've also led to an increase in taxes and regulations. all of those costs go into what we pay for at the grocery store. and, look, there's locally owned grocery stores that do not gouge people, as senator rounds and sen want you to believe. our prices are higher -- >> time is up.

i would like to ask 15 seconds to clarify. supporting a specific policy, what efforts would you take if you are elected to try to lower costs for nevada consumers? 15 seconds. >> everything moves through again, everything moves through energy. our fuel price. we need to prioritize cheaper, more efficient and reliable energy supplies. that's going to drive down the cost of everything. not raising taxes like what happened at the end of 2025. if senator rosen stays in power along with kamala harris. and also reducing regulations. this administration has raised regulations that add to the cost of everything. again, our grocery stores are not -- our locally owned grocery stores are not gouging us. >> can i have 15 seconds to respond? >> yes, 15 seconds to respond. >> well, what i'd like to tell you is that nevada is the leader in the sustainable energy future with wind, water, solar and geothermal. we have more solar jobs per ca t