[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             JUDICIAL MANDATE AND REMEDY CLARIFICATION ACT

                                 ______


                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 14, 1996

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
I believe is long overdue. This bill, the Judicial Mandate and Remedy 
Clarification Act of 1996, seeks to limit the authority of Federal 
courts to fashion remedies that require State and local jurisdictions 
to assess, levy, or collect taxes in any way, shape, or form.
  We are currently entering into a debate on reforming the Federal Tax 
Code. We will be studying the impact of Federal tax policy on personal 
savings and spending, on State and local governments, as well as the 
over all effect on the economy.
  It is time for Congress to address the effect judicial mandates and 
taxes have on State and local governments. Actions by Federal judges 
that directly or indirectly force a State or local government to raise 
taxes have serious ramifications on our Nation's economy. In many 
cases, remedial decisions have forced State and local governments to 
increase taxes, further squeezing take-home pay or affecting property 
values.
  For example, in the congressional district I serve, people living in 
Rockford Illinois Public School District 205 are alarmed over the sharp 
increase in their property taxes as part of a remedy decision to pay 
for the implementation of a desegregation lawsuit against the school 
district. The complaints I have received include the fact that 
taxpayers are funding millions of dollars for a master, attorney's 
fees, consultants, and so forth, while seeing little money going to 
educate their children. They also complain that huge hikes in real 
estate taxes are making homes in Rockford very difficult to sell. 
Seniors have advised me that they can barely pay the taxes on their 
homes. This situation with the Rockford schools is dividing, if not 
slowly eroding the ties that bind the community.
  Rockford, IL, is not the only community affected by 
judicial taxation. Hundreds of school districts across the country have 
the same problems. A Federal judge in Kansas City ordered tax increases 
to fund a remedy costing over $1 billion. Yet, there has been little 
improvement in the school system. Lawyers, masters, and consultants 
have been the beneficiaries of such court orders while the childrens' 
education has seen little improvement.

  Judicial taxation is not, however, limited to school districts. 
Federal judges have ordered tax increases to build public housing and 
expand jails. Any State or local government is subject to such rulings 
from the Federal courts.
  The U.S. Congress is given the authority under article III of the 
U.S. Constitution to define the scope of judicial powers.
  My bill will place very strict limitations on the power of a Federal 
court to increase taxes for purposes of carrying out a judicial order. 
It is not a statement about desegregation, prison overcrowding, or any 
other decision where a Federal law has been broken. It is about 
taxpayers obligated to pay for Federal court remedies through higher 
taxes without recourse--i.e., taxation without representation. Judicial 
remedies should be, must be, tempered by the community's ability to pay 
for it, without raising taxes.
  If a school board, municipality, or State government feels that taxes 
must be raised, then the people should be asked. Otherwise, the 
governing board must operate within its means. There is no such thing 
as a school district dollar just as there is no such thing as a Federal 
tax dollar. The money belongs to the people. Judicial taxation is a 
back door method to take people's hard-earned money without 
representation.
  A judge works under the parameters of the laws available to him or 
her. The purpose of my legislation is to make it very difficult for 
Federal judges, who are unelected officials, to raise taxes, and 
therefore press them to work within the budgetary constraints of the 
State or local government.
  Any lasting result that could come out of a judge's remedial 
decision must come from the community and must have the people behind 
it. There has been no success in cases where judicial mandates alone 
act as the remedy. As I mentioned before, there are many people who are 
willing to make a positive contribution to solving these problems. By 
relieving the State and local governments of the burden of judicial 
taxation, the people of a State, city, or school district will be able 
to step forward and be part of a solution that is best for the 
community.

  Let me be explicitly clear that I am not talking about whatever 
remedies are made by the court. I am talking about how to pay for 
whatever remedy or settlement results from any decision. That is where 
Congress can have input into this area. I take no position on what 
remedial actions may be enacted--that is a matter of the elected 
officials on the State and local level, but I am compelled to take a 
position on how those Federal court remedies are funded.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that congressional hearings be held soon on the 
effects of these court orders and this important legislation. Congress 
must bring to light the effects of such remedies. In the past, there 
have been attempts to limit the power of the Federal courts to act in 
certain areas, but there has been little focus on placing restrictions 
on the courts issuing orders that are essentially unfunded judicial 
mandates. To date, none of these bills has passed. That is why I 
crafted carefully focused language to address this very difficult 
issue.

                          ____________________