Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I want to urge my fellow Republicans, those of us who have been supporting tort reform, to vote down this amendment. I do not think a lot of Members realize what you are lumping in. The reference in the text of the amendment to pain and suffering is only by way of example and inclusion. It is not the complete definition of noneconomic damages. It does not pretend to be. Do not tell me that there is no difference between having a lifetime where you may have perpetual pain. I had a young man that I hired in my office as a staff member that was a paraplegic in a wheelchair. Do not tell me that because he was still able to work, which he did, tremendous young man, tremendous worker, but do not tell me because of that, the accident that cost him his feelings from below the waist, is not worth anything more than someone that says, I hurt or I have emotional distress. Do not treat those as the same. Do not treat someone that who just says, I have pain or I have emotional distress. This amendment does that. I urge my colleagues, even those who support tort reform, vote down this amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. This means that if you can still make a living with your amputated foot, then you are restricted in what you can recover, even if you can no longer play football with your kids or soccer or baseball. If you lose your sight, you cannot even go to a movie or watch a TV program. You cannot see your children. You cannot see a family picture. You cannot check out and watch a video. Whatever it may be, that is what we are restricting if this amendment is adopted.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. And further inquiry, Mr. Speaker, different official reports show a $4.5 billion discrepancy between the assets and liabilities reported of the exchange stabilizing fund as of the question is, do you concur that resolving any discrepancy as of the end of the calendar year 1994, as stated in paragraph 27, will necessarily require that the Treasury Department also provide us with documents that we hope will explain and resolve the $4.5 billion discrepancy as of September 30, 1994?

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding so that I may engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would like to confirm the intent of some disclosure requirements under this legislation. Currently, monthly reports by the Treasury Department do not detail ``all transactions,'' as stated in Federal law, but limit the reporting to balance sheet information. My question is: Does the gentleman concur that paragraph 20 of this legislation is intended to secure for all Members of this House the details of all Exchange Stabilization Fund transactions during the past 24 months?

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with this as with so many other things is that the Federal Trade Commission appears to be using a blunderbuss or even a cannon in cases where what they actually need is a fly swatter. The legislation which originally prompted the FTC to come with regulations was supported by the Direct Marketing Association which represents over a million, in fact about 1.6 million telemarketers in this country. The FTC, rather than going after the bad apples among them has said that they want to put regulations that restrict the entire industry. For example, one of the things in there they say is, well, if you have anything that you have not fulfilled under a prior agreement, then you cannot make any new contact with your client. Mr. Chairman, for example, I know of a company that employs a great number of people in Oklahoma, that has been operating for decades, that uses could not call to say do you want to renew your subscription until after it has already expired under what the FTC is trying to do. I see no reason to exempt the FTC from the application of the moratorium that is necessary to get a handle on regulations in this country, because they have shown they have the mindset that is all too typical, the mindset that it is going to take some time to get straightened out, to get squared away, so they focus on the people who are involved in fraud instead of saying our answer is to make everybody change their behavior instead of punishing the people who are out to defraud, to deceive, to commit a scam. That is the difficulty. That is why I rise in opposition to the amendment that is proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, as we move to balance the budget, pressure to raise taxes will intensify. Even with taxes as high as they are, we currently raise only about $3 in taxes for every $4 we spend. Faced with equalizing taxes and spending, big spending groups will lobby us with more fervor than ever before, trying to scare folks into believing that taxes must go up rather than have spending come down. Mr. Chairman, Congress is not known for resisting such pressure. We need a safeguard to make it tougher to raise taxes than to cut spending. We need a two-thirds supermajority of 60 percent on proposals to raise taxes. Mr. Chairman, in Oklahoma, continuous tax increases prompted the people to pass a restriction. Oklahoma now requires that to raise taxes there must be a 75-percent supermargin in the legislature or a statewide vote approving it. It worked. Taxes in Oklahoma have stopped going up. Mr. Chairman, we need similar protection for the American people. The 60 percent requirement is tame. It is reasonable. We need it. We need the Barton amendment.