Agenda - Council - 02/22/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~_ · < :.'.,/~ ~. '12~ts local-Federal package ~r<'A~c.~ tho problems that all ~l b~- ~<:~:::: faro, as well ~ the pro~ic'.m~ of a bu~ who h~ In an ~cr cit~. r'or ~e workc~, ~ure are ~O ~x ~- ccntiv~, ~ad of pro.ding a b~ak the cmploy~'a s~ia] 6ecurlty taxes, ~ year's bffi pro~dcz ~ ref~dablo ~ crc~t of up ~ $1,500 a year for aH work- ers who are employed In ~o zone by a buzlness with at lc~t 40 percent C~A- cIl~lble employees, ~at t~ qul~ a hefty at{pplcmunt ~ their annual wages ~d an cnormo~ advantage W the cmploy~ who cho~ ~ work in one of thee bus- In closing, Mr. Pr~ldc~t, I wo~d ~kB ~ say that as a ~mnll businessman ~- self, I think this lc~lallon offers a uttractire package of inccntiv~ which will be ~ucccssful In stim~at~g bus~e~ developmcn6. It h~ always been my con- tributlim to thc formation of th~ bill l~k at It ~ a busin~sman and ~ decide what would entice me ~ a ~tr~ I think we have put together ~uch a pack.ge and I am picked ~ say that has gained widespread support of both [he Republican and ~m~rntic hers ~ Cengr~. ~ addition, at o~ prc~ conference today, Ve~on Jordan. president of the National Urban ~ague, wholeheartedly endorsed this lcg~latlon and urged that aH Members of Con- grcs~pite their party or ld~l~gical com~tmon~a]ly behind ~ pro- ~.~a] and ~eo that it ~ enacted in ~e 97th Mr. ~ldent, I have one ]~t ~int t~t ~ ~rt~ of mention. ~ w~t make clear that ou~ide of ~'s role ~ dcslgna~r of the ~nes, the ~volve- meat of the F~cra] Government ~ ~ l~lation ~ rather slight. We a~ not creat~g a v~t new program that gong ~ c~t ~e Feder~ b~o~ of doMgs. ~s ~ a pro.am of p~va~ ~v~ent, ~ ~ a program of come ln~ d~tress~ ar~ so t~t they ~ put people back ~ work, put them on pa~o~ ~d get them pay~g ~x~. ~ ~ not a new 1orm of a weH~e p~ gram. We ~e s~ply t~ ~ u~ ~e ~eat fr~ en~e ~ya~m ~ put p~ple back to work ~d ~ revi~e~- ncr city ~e~. 8enaCt ~d? ~. BO~~, I yield to ~e ~r from Nor~ ~ko~. ~. B~DI~. I wo~d Hke ~ ~% to my friend from M~o~a t~t he ma~g a ve~ ~x~t ~ch ~ay. I am ~trigued with h~ idea ~d I ~ ce~y renew It ve~ careful. One question I have la, ~o wo~d ad- Orer this prog~ ~. BOSCH~. Mr. President, a~wer ~ the ~na~Fz question there ~ no re~ a~nlstration. ~ter ~ mak~ the chol~ of an area ~ ~ ~rp~e Job ~ne, there real~ ~ no ~- ~stratlon ~yond that, I suppose H~ would haw rome oversight and whether or not that pa~lcular zone attracth~g b~. ~ a mater of f~t, ~ go~ from No~h Dakota ~ an ~ter~ting qu~tlon that I wo~d like to answer First of all, I know my friend ia from a very rural Bt~t~. It bordcr~ my State. Much of my Btato 1~ rural. We have mod th~ bill from lar't year's model. so to speak, to include rural area~, m that have 250,0J)0 population or mor~, so that a county in his 8tare or my State, virtually an~ county, would qualify, Then they go to HUD and a~k to be designated an enterprise zone. They are in competition with, p~umably, htm- dreds of other counties and area~ that also want to be designated an enterprise zone. The bill say* that not more thn~ 25 will be dcsif~nated in a given year. that community which come~ with the best package of tax benefits to be com- bined with the Federal tax benefits when that community is chosen as an enter° prJ~ zone is the community that will be chosen. Furthermore, if that community comes and says, "If we are designated an en- terprbe zone and give thin tax package, plus the tax package that you, the Fed° era] Government, will give, this employ- er, that employer, a series of employers have Indicated or have signed contracts that they will locate there," that will certainly give great credibility and hance the strength of that particular area to be designated an enterprise zone. 1V~r. BURDICK. Let me ask my friend, ha~ he estimated what the tax loss might. be to the Federal /2overnment and to the variou~ States? Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President, the Benator from North Dakota asks a good que~tion, as to what tho tax }oas would be. It is very hard to Judge that. Most of these areas are producing no taxe~ at the present time. Most of the employees, at least 40 percent of the employee~, would be ~nemployed and, as a result, would be removed from the welfare roils and become taxpayers instead. Because of that, we feel that the impact on rev- enues will not be 8rear. ! might say that the P, zagan adminis- tration has endorsed the concept and hopes that a bill of thl~ nature will be passed in this Cbngress. That, perhaps, l~ an indication that there will not be too great a revenue loss. L~_x. BURDICK. ! commend the s~tor from Minnesota for thin approach. ]~ is certainly worth delving into. Mr. BOSCHWITZ. ! thank the Sena- tor from North Dakota. Mr. President, ! a.~k unanimous con- sent that a fact sheet on the Urban Jobs Enterprise Zone Act, be printed in the There being no objection, the fact sheet wa~ ordered printed in the Rzc- o~o, a~ follows: S 5746 F~:'r S~rrr. Usn~N Jo~ F.~rL,-,~m~ Zor~x A~ I. ~ea'~ ~pulation must ~ at I~t If l~ within 8~d~d Me~ll~n ~tl~ ~a of at l~t ~,~; ~a ~ula- tWn must ~ 2~ for o~er ~e~. Indl~ ~'atlo~ ~e ~xempt fr~ the ~pulatlon ~. ~ea m~t ~ ~AO (lncludl~ 3. Area m~t m~t one of ~ lolling a. unemplo~cnt over l~t 1~ months w~ at le~t l ~ times th~ national average: b. w~ a low-in,me ~crtI a~a ~ de- ~rmin~ by m~t recent c. 70 ~rcent ~ ~sldenM haw Inc~z low ~ ~r~nt of ~ ~rea median income. d. ~ulatlon de~m~ of at le~t 10 ~r- ~nt ~tween 1970 and 1980 ~d either c~c ab~donment of buildings or ~ub- a~utlal tax 4. Must suh~t a pl~ ~ ~ 1~1 effo~ ~ ~u~ v~o~ burde~ ~r~ by employers and employes. I, 10 ~ 25 ~ncs ~r y~. 2, ~efe~n~ will be ~vcn ~ ~e~ 1~ ~e ~a~st distress, which have ~t ~m~lty sup~ and which sub* ~t the ~t pl~s (including e~nomic ~ntiv~ Wen by s~, ~ty ~d 1~ ~ver~en~l. c. ~EN~S AVA~AB~ ~ B~ A~ 1. 5 percent ref~dable t~ c~dlt for w~a paid ~ cE-i'A~ll~b~ (~fle H B or D, or ~tle IV A or B) employe~ who work ~. El~lnatlon of the capi~l gains t~ for ~1 the new busings and lnvestore ~e~ ~. A pack~e of ]~I ~x ~n~ ~ ai~ hy each ~ when they bid ~ get ~te~se Zone desig~tlon. ~. Ellmination of income ~x on half of ~ ~ ~m~ ~om ~tlons wl~ln ]~ ~ ~ ~lBon ~r y~. I. ~ emplo~ ~ the ~ne by s ~ a~ le~t ~ ~r~nt ~A-eMgtble ~. ploy~s, t ~ ~r~n~ ~tund~le ~