would have no guarantees that thesernobligations would be met if a judge werernunable to enforee these obligations.rnThus, courts have been constitutionallyrnallowed by the Supreme Court to enterrn”structural injunctions,” i.e., an orderrnstructuring how repayment of the obligationsrnis to be made. This type of judicialrnorder would almost certainly be precludedrnunder an outright ban, and thus anrnoutright ban simply would not be in ourrnbest interest.rnMy legislation takes an alternative approach,rnrequiring that six criteria be metrnbefore a federal judge can issue an order,rnor agree to a settlement, that would haernthe effect of raising taxes. The six criteriarnthe court would be required to provernunder my legislation are: one, that therernare not other means available to remedyrnthe deprivation in question; two, such arntax would not contribute to or exacerbaternthe deprivation intended to bernremedied; three, the proposed tax willrnnot result in a loss of revenue for the affectedrnpolitical subdivision; four, thernproposed tax will not result in a loss orrndepreciation of property values; five, therntax will not undermine the taxing authorityrnset up by the political subdivision;rnand, six, the plans submitted by thernpolitical subdivision will not effectivelyrnredress the deprivations at issue. An additionalrnpoint is that because local taxesrnare “extended” or reworked each year, arnjudge will have to make these findingsrnannually.rnUltimately, if the school board, municipality,rnor state government feels thatrntaxes have to be raised to address problems,rnthen it should go to the people andrnask for an increase. Otherwise, a politicalrnsubdivision should work within itsrnmeans. There is no such thing as arn”school district tax dollar,” just as there isrnno such thing as a “federal tax dollar.”rnThe money belongs to the people. Judicialrntaxation is a back door method torntake people’s hard-earned money withoutrnrepresentation. However, since judicialrntaxation cannot be banned outright,rnour approach sets up the very strict criteriarnnecessary to restrict it.rnThe people of Roekford and otherrncommunities across our country continuernto be placed in situations where thernfederal courts adopt remedies whichrncommunities are forced to pay for with arnblank check. Every family and governmentalrnbody has to live within its ownrnbudgetary restraints, and the federalrncourts must be held to these same standards.rnThe Constitution is the documentrnthat grants the authority tornCongress, the Executive Branch, and thernJudiciary. Nowhere within that documentrndoes it say that anyone at thernfederal level of government outsidernCongress can institute a tax increase—rnperiod. That’s yvhat it says, and that’srnwhat it should mean.rnWe are currently debating reforms tornour federal tax code. We are studyingrntlie impact of federal tax policy on personalrnsavings and spending, the impactrnon state and local governments, as well asrntlie oerall effect on the economy. Curbingrnthe now unbridled power of activist,rnfederal judges to raise state and local taxesrnis a necessary part of this tax reformrninitiative. But, equally important, it willrnreturn to the people the sovereign powerrnto solve their community problems. Thernpower of the people is, after all, one ofrntfie self-evident principles on which thisrnnation yvas built.rnDon Manzullo is the U.S. Congressmanrnrepresenting the 16th District ofUhnois.rnPaying thernDane-Geld atrnTexacornbyMarkRachornI n 1994, two employees filed a lawsuitrnagainst the oil company Texaco,rnclaiming that they had been denied promotionrnbecause of their race. Such suitsrnare common now, and this one garneredrnlittle media attention until, in late 1996,rnthe New York Times broke the news of thernTexaco tapes. Richard Lundwall, a Texacornmanager, had recorded his conversationsrnwith officials in the finance departmentrnat Texaco. He made the tapernpublic shortly after he “retired early”rnfrom Texaco. Somewhere, among thernhiss and crackle and the wow and flutterrnof the tiny Dictaphone cassette could bernheard the unspeakable, unprintablernWord.rnCommotion from the press. Texacornmight as well have drowned the entirernEastern Seaboard in crude oil, consideringrnthe journalistic outrage that greetedrnLundwall’s tape. Jesse Jackson and otherrnminority leaders described the tape asrnanother Rodney King video—which perhapsrnit was, in the sense that a politicallyrnincorrect office conversation betweenrnseveral white men is now considered asrninjurious as a beating.rnLawyers for the two plaintiffs claimedrnthat the tape also contained discussionsrnabout the possibility of purging files relevantrnto the racial discrimination lawsuit.rnThis is a very serious crime, as we knowrnfrom the media’s indifference to the actualrnshredding of subpoenaed documentsrnat the White House. Maybe therncrime was in the conversation—withoutrnthe attractive garnish of “racial epitaphs”rn(as the friendly p.r. man at Texacorndescribed them), the media wouldrnhave found the story a good deal lessrnappetizing.rnTo deal with the important matter ofrnthe “racial epitaphs,” Texaco hired arnlawyer, who would examine minutely therndepravities recorded on the Dictaphone.rnThe lawyer engaged the services of an investigativernfirm. Decision Strategies International,rnInc., the investigative firmrnretained Mr. Paul Ginsburg, President ofrnProfessional Audio Laboratories, Inc.,rnand Mr. Ginsburg, in the presence of thernEBI, enhanced the tape digitally (“usingrnstate of the art techniques”) and discoveredrnthat the epithet “f—king niggers”rnwas, in fact, the phrase “poor St.rnNicholas.”rnHowever, the media, once aroused,rnare not to be thwarted, and the lawyers,rnalong with their parasites, must be fed.rnThey would feast on jelly beans. On therntape, one of the Texaco executives isrnheard saying, “You can’t have we andrnthem. You can’t have black jelly beansrnand other jelly beans.”rnAccording to the lawyer representingrnRobert Ulrich, the Texaco executive whornhad actually spoken the jelly bean slur,rnhis client’s taped comments had beenrnprompted by the appearance, at Texaco,rnof a traveling “diversity training” salesman.rnDoctor R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr.,rnfounder and former president of thern”American Institute for Managing Diversity.”rnThe doctor was peddling jellyrnbean analogies, analogies that had beenrnfound most efficacious in healing racialrnsores and sensitive tissues. He accompaniedrnhimself with illustrative slides,rnshowing jelly beans reposing in glass jars.rnAs Mr. Ulrich put it, “I’ve heard that diversityrnthing, we don’t have black jellyrnbeans or green.” Exactly. At Texacornthere would be simply “beans,” so wellrnintegrated that sticky fingers could notrnpry them apart. The chairman of Texa-rnFEBRUARY 1997/37rnrnrn