I have to tell the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that we had constitutional experts come in and say there is no way that look-back provision is constitutional. They are also saying that, of course, they tried to cure the advertising restrictions by adopting the FDA regulation. But we have top-flight, from the left to the right, constitutional experts saying that is unconstitutional. Then, last but not least, we have a section 14 on here that basically talks about the other advertising restrictions that almost everybody agrees are essential if we want to do something about teen smoking, and, by gosh, those other advertising provisions have got to have a voluntary protocol, have to have the tobacco companies on board in order to be effective, or they are unconstitutional. What are we going to do? Vote for an unconstitutional bill, or work on it, and work, as the Senate should, on a bill that could amount to as much as close to $900 billion?
Orrin Hatch: “I have to tell the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that we had constitutional experts come in and say there is no…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing constitutional concerns regarding advertising restrictions in tobacco legislation.
Share
More from Orrin Hatch
Those backlogs at the Social Security Administration are unacceptable to many, if not most, of us here in the Senate.
the Finance Committee has worked with the Treasury Department to ensure proper responsiveness to committee inquiries. We are continuing to review these matters to determine what further oversight is required.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the PBGC's multiemployer insurance system will exceed resources available to pay claims by $45 billion.
I know of no further debate on the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Hearing none, the bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass? The bill (H.R. 1551), as amended, was passed.





