Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118568316
label
JGR/Enterprise Zone Bill (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118568316
contentType
document
title
JGR/Enterprise Zone Bill (2 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118568316
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1d55ba64bd1dfc5e
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Enterprise Zone Bill
(2 of 2)
Box: 22
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 8, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Proposed Article for Legislative
Policy Magazine
Richard Darman has asked for comments by noon tomorrow on
the above-referenced draft magazine article by Lee L.
Verstandig on enterprise zone legislation. The article will
appear in the first issue of Legislative Policy, a magazine
funded by a conservative organization. According to
Verstandig, the magazine goes to every state legislator and
member of Congress. The article reviews the President's
support for enterprise zone legislation, the theory of the
pending Administration bill and its major provisions, and
the status of the bill in Congress. Hearings on the bill
have been held by the House Ways and Means Committee but no
action has been taken, even though a majority of the House
cosponsored the proposal.
I have reviewed the article and have no objections to it.
There is no violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1913, or the pertinent anti-lobbying appropriation rider,
as those provisions have been interpreted by the Department
of Justice and this office. Dissemination of Administration
views to the media is clearly not prohibited by the anti-
lobbying provisions, and submission of a magazine article
for publication falls within this category. Circulation of
the article to individuals who might lobby Congress is not
being done by the Government at all, but by the magazine
publisher, so the concern underlying the anti-lobbying
provisions is not even implicated.
As stated in your memorandum of February 23, 1981 for the
White House staff, "it is not improper for an Executive
Branch employee to provide legitimate informational back-
ground and material to the public in support of an Adminis-
tration policy effort." That memorandum notes that staff
members may provide "letters on specific subjects written by
Executive Branch officials" to outside organizations for re-
production and distribution by the organization. Certain-
ly no more (and in fact considerably less) than that is
involved in this case. The memorandum contained the caveat
that "the materials must not suggest that the recipients
contact Members of Congress urging support of particular
positions; also the decision to publish or distribute any
such material must be left to the independent organization. "
The article does not urge a lobbying effort, and publication
and distribution of the article is the prerogative of the
magazine.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 8, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
Orig. signed by FFF.
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Article for Legislative
Policy Magazine
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
article by Lee Verstandig on enterprise zones, and finds no
objection to it from a legal perspective. The article does
not run afoul of the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. $ 1913, or
the pertinent anti-lobbying appropriation rider. These
provisions do not cover the submission of Administration
views to the media, so long as the publication and distri-
bution decisions remain those of the media organization. In
addition, the article does not urge readers to contact their
Congressional representatives.
On page 12, line 1, "Reagan" should be "Regan," and on line
5, "the" should be inserted between "report" and "bill."
FFF:JGR:aea 12/8/83
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 8, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Article for Legislative
Policy Magazine
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
article by Lee Verstandig on enterprise zones, and finds no
objection to it from a legal perspective. The article does
not run afoul of the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1913, or
the pertinent anti-lobbying appropriation rider. These
provisions do not cover the submission of Administration
views to the media, so long as the publication and distri-
bution decisions remain those of the media organization. In
addition, the article does not urge readers to contact their
Congressional representatives.
On page 12, line 1, "Reagan" should be "Regan," and on line
5, "the" should be inserted between "report" and "bill."
FFF:JGR:aea 12/8/83
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID # 168381
CU
-
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Richard G. DARMAN
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Proposed asticle for legislative Policy
Magazine
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency (Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CULTOCC
ORIGINATOR 83.12.06
/
Referral Note:
COAP18
D 83/12/06
5 83,12,08
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
1
Referral Note:
1-1
/ /
I
Referral Note:
/ /
/ /
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C. Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S - For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
168381SS
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
12/6/83
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY: 12/8 - 12:00 Noon
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ARTICLE FOR LEGISLATIVE POLICY MAGAZINE
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
HICKEY
MEESE
"
JENKINS
BAKER
McFARLANE
DEAVER
McMANUS
STOCKMAN
MURPHY
DARMAN
P
SS ROGERS
DUBERSTEIN
SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
SVAHN
FIELDING
VERSTANDIG
FULLER
WHITTLESEY
GERGEN
HERRINGTON
REMARKS:
May we have any comments by 12:00 Noon Thursday on the attached
article. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
1983 DEC 5xt PM 2702 6:
30
Receive ISS
1383 DEC -6 PM 5: 45
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 6, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD G. DARMAN
FROM:
LEE L. VERSTANDIG hee
SUBJECT:
DRAFT OF ENTERPRISE ZONE ARTICLE FOR
LEGISLATIVE POLICY MAGAZINE
At the suggestion of Dave Gergen, I am forwarding this to
you. I would appreciate it if you would staff out this
article which will appear in Legislative Policy magazine. I
need a final draft by close of business Thursday, December
8th.
This magazine goes to every state legislator and member of
Congress. It is funded by a conservative organization which
is very supportive of our Enterprise Zone efforts. Thus, I
would appreciate any comments you or your staff might have
so that I might be certain that we are properly represen-
ting the President's position on this important piece of
legislation.
The first issue of this newly formatted magazine will be
coming out in January and will be mailed to its audience.
Thus, the timing of this article is important as state
legislators go back into session and as the Congress
returns.
I certainly would appreciate any other suggestions for use
of this article.
There are a couple of corrections that I am asking my staff
to make and I would like to bring them to your attention:
1.
You will see on pages 10-11 several
examples of operating enterprise zones.
I have asked my staff to provide some
better examples and illustrations of
private sector participation such as
those in Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey,
Missouri and Mississippi.
2.
In addition to the quote from the President's
radio address of December 3 (p. 13), we might
include the reference from the President's
letter of November 29 to the National League
of Cities Annual Meeting in New Orleans.
3.
We are looking for a quote from Neil Pierce
on enterprise zones since he is highly
recognized by state and local officials.
Dick, I will be on the road in Lexington and Indianapolis
for the next two days. Could you please forward any
comments or suggestions by the December 8th deadline to my
assistant Kip Hawley who is located on the second floor of
the West Wing. Kip can be reached at X7007.
December 4, 1983
DRAFT: ARTICLE FOR LEGISLATIVE POLICY ON ENTERPRISE ZONES
EZ does it. Enterprise Zones, that is.
As Ronald Reagan campaigned for the Presidency in 1980, he
observed the human tragedy that has accompanied the economic
disintegration of distressed inner-cities and rural areas -
a disintegration hastened in some instances by the very
programs designed to cure it. Black and Hispanic Americans
in our cities bore the brunt of this tragedy, with few jobs
and even less hope. Destitute neighborhoods like the South
Bronx were strewn with the debris of broken promises and
failed federal panaceas. Clearly, heavy subsidies and
centralized planning would not be the answer to this crisis.
Candidate Reagan argued that the private sector, given room
to operate in designated "enterprise zones", offered the
best potential for creating jobs and rebuilding the local
economies of some of our most impoverished areas. Under his
proposal, residents and employers in these zones would
receive powerful tax incentives and find relief from
unnecessarily burdensome government regulations.
-2-
After his inauguration, President Reagan issued a resounding
call for enterprise zone legislation. In his first State of
the Union Address he said:
"This legislation will permit states and localities to
apply to the federal government for designation as
urban enterprise zones. A broad range of special
economic incentives in the zones will help attract new
business, new jobs, new opportunity to America's inner
cities and rural towns. Some will say our mission is
to save free enterprise. Well, I say we must free
enterprise SO that together we can save America."
Congressmen Jack Kemp (R - New York) and Robert Garcia (D -
New York) wrote the original bill and served as its
missionary fathers. Last January, after the 97th Congress
had failed to act, the Administration worked closely with
Kemp and Garcia to rework and reintroduce the proposal.
When the President transmitted The Enterprise Zone
Employment and Development Act of 1983 to Congress, he said:
"Enterprise zones are a fresh approach for promoting
economic growth in the inner cities. The old approach
relied on heavy government subsidies and central
planning. A prime example was the Model Cities Program
of the 1960's which concentrated government programs,
subsidies and regulations in specific, depressed urban
-3-
areas. The enterprise zone approach would remove
government barriers, freeing individuals to create,
produce and earn their own wages and profits."
The Senate passed the measure in June but the House, until
recently, had barely stirred. Despite cosponsorship of the
bill by a growing majority of House members, the Democratic
leadership of the Ways and Means Committee did not allow
hearings until November 17, 1983 - one day before
adjournment.
The President's economic program, in the meantime, has
generated a robust recovery. The index of 12 Leading
Economic Indicators increased 0.8% in October, the 14th
consecutive monthly advance. Since last December, the
recovery has spurred the creation of over 3.6 million jobs,
bringing the unemployment rate down from 10.8% to 8.4%.
Inflation has dropped to 2.9% over the 12 months ending in
October 1983, lower than it has been since the late 1960's.
While this is great news for the economy as a whole, many
distressed areas of our towns and cities still experience
economic stagnation. They need practical remedies -
designed at the local level, but enhanced by federal tax and
regulatory relief - so that they, too, can share the fruits
of this recovery.
The President's enterprise zone proposal would allow states
and localities to design their own stimuli for economic
-4-
development in their target areas. Local, state and federal
enterprise zone incentives will together encourage the
private sector to restore the economic vitality of our
impoverished urban and rural areas.
As HUD Secretary Samuel R. Pierce Jr., told the House Ways
and Means Committee:
"In my view, enterprise zones incorporate a unique,
innovative approach to the twin scourges of hard core
unemployment and blight. Enterprise zones seek to
reverse the outmigration of human and physical capital
from distressed areas. I'm confident that, in the long
run, enterprise zones can stimulate a gradual
restoration of local tax bases, so that once highly
depressed areas can again enjoy healthy,
self-sustaining economic growth. "
The bill is designed to restore a free market environment in
these areas by providing powerful tax incentives for job
creation and capital investment, by removing unnecessary
regulatory burdens, and by encouraging and rewarding the
participation of local governments and private neighborhood
organizations. But this time the federal government will
not simply pump out a "cookie cutter" scheme of restrictive
uniformity.
-5-
Too often, traditional federal urban programs have forced
local officials to shoehorn their ideas into a restrictive
grant application conceived, designed, and controlled in
Washington. The Enterprise Zone proposal, by contrast,
would allow these officials to do precisely what they are
most qualified to do: to analyze their local problems and to
design their own creative responses. The federal enterprise
zone incentives would then enhance these efforts with
powerful tax and regulatory relief. The President, in
essence, is proposing a state and local program with a
helpful boost from Washington.
Under the bill, high levels of poverty, unemployment, and
other indicators of distress determine minimum eligibility
for enterprise zone designation. This is not, however,
another entitlement program; not every applicant meeting the
minimum criteria would become an enterprise zone. Rather,
local and state governments would submit joint nominations
for designation by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development on a competitive basis. The bill authorizes the
Secretary to designate a maximum of 75 zones over the first
three years of the program. This limitation will encourage
creativity and innovation, and will foster a true commitment
by the nominating state and local governments.
The core of the nomination process is the state and local
"Course of Action" outlining the steps these governments
-6-
will take to improve the climate for job creation and
community development within their zones. The Course of
Action might include local tax abatement and regulatory
streamlining, improvements in police protection and
infrastructure, or commitments from private businesses or
community groups to support economic development in the
zone. The choice of weapons is left to the nominating
governments. Here are some possibilities:
O
In the area of tax relief, state and local governments
could provide reductions or abatements of state and
local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and
other taxes which vary among the jurisdictions.
State and local deregulation could be provided in such
areas as zoning, occupational licensure laws, price
controls, permit requirements, central planning
regulations and building codes.
State and local governments may also provide funding
for projects that contribute to economic development in
a zone, such as job-training or infrastructure
efforts. They might target Community Development Block
Grants (CDBGs), Urban Development Action Grants
(UDAGs), or Revenue Sharing funds for these efforts.
-7-
To encourage local community involvement, state and
local officials could encourage the creation of
"Neighborhood Enterprise Associations" by zone
residents to share in the economic success of the
zones, particularly through mechanisms for equity
participation in zone businesses by zone residents.
The states and localities could also support other
volunteer, self-help efforts in the zone areas.
Upon designation, federal tax incentives and other
advantages would accrue to residents and employers in the
zone. Here are the major features of the tax package for
employers:
The elimination of capital gains taxes on
investment within the zone.
A powerful 50% income tax credit for wages paid to
each disadvantaged employee hired. The credit
remains at 50% for the first three years and is
phased out over the next four. Because the credit
has no cap, the employer is encouraged to train
and promote disadvantaged employees to higher
paying jobs within the organization.
A investment tax credit for capital investment in
the zone. For personal property, such as
-8-
machinery or equipment, this credit would be 3 or
5 percent. For the construction or rehabilitation
of commercial, industry or rental structures
within a zone, the credit would be 10 percent.
A 10 percent income tax credit for any increase in
an employer's payroll, after zone designation,
paid to qualified zone employees.
An expanded operating loss carryover and unused
tax credit carryover for the life of the zone or
15 years, whichever is longer.
The designation of suitable enterprise zone areas
as foreign trade zones, providing relief from
tariffs and import duties.
Beyond offering these tax benefits to entrepreneurs who
create new jobs, the bill recognizes that millions of poor
Americans face a poverty trap that impedes their drive for
self-improvement. Welfare recipients suffer an enormous
marginal tax rate as they climb from the welfare rolls to
the tax rolls. To encourage the poor in their efforts to
hold taxpaying jobs, the bill offers a 5% employee tax
credit for the first $10,500 of wages earned in the zone.
-9-
This bill also insures that, despite any possible changes
elsewhere, small issue industrial development bonds (IDBs)
will continue to be available for zone projects, and that
accelerated cost recovery for IDB-financed property will be
permitted.
Aside from encouraging local regulatory relief in the
competitive Course of Action, the bill would facilitate
federal regulatory relief by giving federal bodies the
discretion to relax or eliminate their nonstatutory
regulatory requirements within enterprise zones. But they
would do so only upon the request of the state and local
governments involved. This process could lead, for example,
to modifications of federal paperwork requirements, banking
regulations, Securities and Exchange Commission procedures,
energy performance standards, or HUD minimum property
standards. In no event, however, would the minimum wage or
statutory health and safety standards (such as OSHA
requirements) be disturbed.
The Administration bill is flexible rather than
prescriptive. It will nurture the diversity of local
responses to local distress while unleashing the creative
energy of small entrepreneurs and the support of major
businesses. As the above examples show, local Courses of
Action and requests for regulatory relief can be as unique
and innovative as the fertile minds of the public officials,
-10-
planners, and neighborhood residents who conceive them at
the locus of the distress.
This respect for diversity will allow each locality to play
its strongest hand. The 20 states that have enacted their
own enterprise zone legislation are already showing how the
local application of zone incentives can tap the unique
assets of each locality. Here are four examples:
Topeka, Kansas has employed state enterprise zone
incentives to encourage a $60 million expansion of
a Goodyear truck tire plant, creating at least 350
new permanent jobs.
New Britain, Connecticut placed less emphasis on
heavy industry, choosing instead to use
Connecticut enterprise zone incentives to generate
some impressive new commercial development in its
central business district.
Officials in New Haven, Connecticut located their
zone adjacent to Yale University, in a
neighborhood battered by the flight of a major
factory from the city. With strong support from
local corporations and labor unions, they seized
upon the zone's proximity to Yale by establishing
a private sector "Science Park" for the incubation
-11-
of small new research and development firms on the
grounds of the abandoned factory. The zone has
also attracted an IBM computer education facility
which will train the unemployed factory workers in
the zone for the high technology jobs offered by
the new firms.
City planners in Tampa, Florida recognized the
potential for the development of tourism in Ybor
City, Tampa's historic Cuban cigar making
district. Private investors in Ybor City have
used Florida's enterprise zone incentives to open
several new restaurants and a winery. These
activities alone have created over 300 jobs, and
other investors are now preparing for the
rehabilitation of a theatre, an historic hotel,
and a grand ballroom.
When the Ways and Means Committee finally gave the bill a
hearing, the Administration made a strong showing of its
support for enterprise zones. An impressive panel of three
Cabinet officers - the Secretaries of Housing and Urban
Development, Treasury, and Commerce - opened the hearing
with forceful testimony on behalf of the bill.
Secretary Pierce patiently guided the Committee through the
significant incentives offered by the bill. Treasury
-12-
Secretary Donald Reagan commented that these incentives
"should create and expand economic opportunities within the
zones, leading to an expansion of economic activity and the
creation of jobs within these areas." Secretary Baldrige
urged the Committee to report bill without delay:
"One of the merits of the enterprise zone proposal
is that it will allow us to conduct new
experiments in economic development to see what
works. Given the enormity of the problems
confronting some of our towns and cities it is
time to get the experiment underway."
The Cabinet officers were followed by an outstanding array
of state and local officials, scholars, and private business
people - virtually all of whom called for immediate passage
of the Administration bill. These witnesses did not have to
speak in theoretical terms, for they had seen the actual
success of the new enterprise zone programs in the states.
For example, a businessman from Kentucky said that without
his state's enterprise zone incentives he would not have
been able to open his new lumber processing facility. He
told the Committee that 70% of his workers had formerly
received some form of federal relief - welfare, food stamps,
and the like - but now were proudly holding taxpaying jobs.
-13-
The state success stories are impressive, but it is clear
that federal legislation is needed to sustain the progress
made by the states. Dr. Stuart Butler, one of the
enterprise zone pioneers who introduced the British model,
with significant improvements, to the United States, has
praised the state programs but points out that they can
provide only limited incentives, since the largest tax and
regulatory burdens are imposed by Washington. He told the
Committee that "the experience of the states" shows that
enterprise zones "would work far better with federal
incentives."
Congress adjourned without action, but President Reagan and
a large number of state and local officials have kept the
heat on. On November 30, at its Annual Congress of Cities,
the National League of Cities unanimously adopted a
resolution endorsing the Administration's enterprise zone
bill. Speaking on behalf of the approximately 15,000 mayors
it represents, the League strongly urged the House
leadership and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
to act favorably upon the bill without further delay.
On December 3, President Reagan spoke directly to the
American people, devoting a portion of his Weekly Radio
Address to his enterprise zone proposal. The President
stressed his desire for immediate action:
-14-
"Our enterprise zones proposal would stimulate new
businesses, bringing jobs and hope to some of the most
destitute areas of the country. The Senate has adopted
this proposal. But after two years of delay, the House
Democratic leadership only recently agreed to hold its
first hearing on the legislation. This is a jobs bill
America needs. And come January, we expect action."
During the two years of congressional debate, the idea of
the enterprise zone has indeed come of age in the states.
Twenty states have now enacted their own enterprise zone
legislation. The Sabre Foundation, a Washington policy
analysis group, recently completed a systematic assessment
of 9 states with operating enterprise zone programs. The
study reports that these new programs have already created
or saved over 20,000 jobs and have generated private sector
investment of almost one half billion dollars in these
distressed areas.
Many of the 20 states that have adopted enterprise zone
legislation already enjoy the benefits of the program, not
only for the development of their impoverished urban and
rural areas, but also for the general economic well-being of
their state economies. A recent analysis by the Louisiana
Department of (Blank), for instance, found that the $ (Blank)
in tax relief allocated to the state enterprise zone program
-15-
was offset by $ (blank) in new payroll tax revenues alone.
This revenue recovery of $1.50 for every $1.00 of tax relief
does not even include the fiscal impact of new workers
leaving public assistance or unemployment compensation
rolls, the potential reduction of crime in the zones, and
the immeasurable alleviation of other social ills that
plague our most destitute areas.
These states - and other states that may join them in the
coming year - may well gain another advantage from their
wise adoption of state enterprise zone programs: upon the
enactment of federal legislation, they could be in the best
posture to prepare strong Courses of Action and thereby to
achieve early enterprise zone designation for their own
distressed areas.
A national, bipartisan consensus for the Administration's
bill has emerged among small businesses, labor
organizations, and public officials. 245 members of the
House - including 95 Democrats - have actually cosponsored
the measure. This is well over a majority of that chamber.
Now that a majority of the Ways and Means Committee has also
signed onto the bill, we can anticipate some positive
movement early this year.
-16-
Syndicated columnist Carl T. Rowan, often critical of this
Administration's domestic programs, has taken a favorable
stance toward our experimental proposal:
"Enterprise zones will not provide jobs for all those
who are desperate for work opportunities. But it will
make jobs available to many and thus give hope to
almost all. And hope may be the most precious item at
this time. "
Above all, the program is experimental; we do not contend
that enterprise zones will provide a quick fix for urban and
rural blight. As the President noted in a March 1982
luncheon with Black clergymen, "We want to make it
profitable for business to provide opportunity to some of
this country's most deprived citizens. If this experiment
works, it can provide a blueprint for future projects all
across America."
Enterprise zones are not designed to replace federal aid for
local economic development; the President's commitment to
Revenue Sharing, UDAGs, CDBGs, and other key urban and small
city programs remains firm. Enterprise zones will forge a
new partnership among federal, state, and local officials,
and the private businesses they seek to encourage. And we
in the White House Intergovernmental Affairs Office will
continue our tireless effort to make the the program both a
reality and a success and maybe make it look EZ.