127 - 2008 ELECTORS - 11 STATES
Mood:  happy
127 - 2008 ELECTORS - 11 STATES

FLORIDA, OHIO, NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, INDIANA, COLORADO, IOWA, NEW MEXICO, NEVADA, NEBRASKA, PENNSYLVANIA   

1.] FLORIDA – 27 Electors

Read More...

FLORIDA (R) (CEO), on. Kurt Browning, Secretary of State -A , R.A. Gray Building, 500 S. Bronough, Suite 100 ,

Tallahassee, FL 32399, (850) 245-6500 , Fax: (850) 245-6125 , secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.] OHIO – 20 Electors & Alts.

Ordinance 2006-41

----- Original Message -----
From: ccpwow
Cc: gsuperman@gci.net ; rlms@ptialaska.net ; millimom@xyz.net ; akjfischer@hotmail.com ; debgermano@acsalaska.net ; merkes2@yahoo.com ; psprague@acsalaska.net ; mbgilman@gci.net ; pa12gary@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Ordinance 2006-41


Dear Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Members, 01/15/07

I am writing you regarding your agenda for the your January 16, 2007 assembly meeting.
My letter references your Ordinance 2006-41 which appears to attempt to implement
this discriminatory [per person/per day, "pp/pd"] form of taxation retroactively from Jan. 1, 2007.
I have been operating within our KPB recreational industry now for 25 years.
I currently conduct all of the following sales activities: retail sporting goods, charter boat fishing,
fly-out fishing and sightseeing. I also subcontract these activities to other local service providers.

I am having a very large problem understanding how this 2006-41 sale tax calculation is to function.
It sounds very simple to just stamp the pp/pd concept into the tax code but I can assure you
that pounding it into reality is not as simple as you may have been led to believe.
I have personally written two separate letters to our KPB Sale Tax Dept. since Oct. 2006.
My letters requested clarification regarding different pp/pd tax calculation scenarios.
As of today I have received zero responses from Sales Tax regarding my questions.
The pp/pd sales tax scenarios I presented the Sales Tax Dept. regarded various everyday
transaction events which I have been dealing with for many years.
The topics ranged from,
A.] What about parties reserving an entire boat without being able to define the total final
number of persons who will be in their party?
B.] What about sales items which could be used for either recreational or business purposes?
C.] What about persons who purchase business items and recreational items simultaneously
within the same package or at the same time?

A.] Reserving an entire boat?
I just had a party call today which requested to reserve all the seats on a boat but could
not tell me with any certainty as to how many persons would really be coming to fish in the end.
When asked why, they just responded that some of their friends say they will go now but back out later.
Normally I would just charge the $25 max. tax cap and that would be the end of it no matter who
showed up. Am I supposed to just "pp/pd" over tax this group and hope I am correct?
Do I only "pp/pd" tax the guy who called and then have the KPB come after me for not
taxing them enough? Or maybe the KPB is just expecting me to figure the tax now and then refigure
it again later?
Regardless as to what the KPB would prefer, I can assure you that the entire KPB will be
doing whatever they can dream up.

B.] Recreational or business purposes?
I just purchased a new digital camera for $149.31 from Fred Meyers.
Would this be considered a recreational sale or maybe just a regular business sale?
I guess you would have to determine what I planned to use the camera for...
Maybe the KPB could hire a recreational police force to come knocking on my
door in a year or so and ask to see my pictures. After confiscating my pictures they
could then submit them to a Recreational Enforcement Board to determine the
true "recreational / business" tax intent of my camera purchase?

C.] Recreational and nonrecreational goods simultaneously purchase?
There are many businesses within the KPB who sell recreational and nonrecreational goods.
Is the KPB expecting all retail businesses to reconfigure their cash registers or purchase
new registers which are capable of assigning a special tax code to only recreational goods?
This is the only way I can think of to allow customers to purchase both recreational and
nonrecreational goods at the same time. If the business does not have an electronic method
to track these combo sales, how are they to record taxing these sales?
If the business does not have electronic means to track these sales they would be force to
manually list each type of sale individually and then calculate the category totals at the end.
Have you addressed how much additional effort this will require and if it is even practical?

I may be able to imagine implementing this type of a tax change by 1/1/08 but not
retroactively to 1/1/07, that would be outrageous.
The KPB Sales Tax Dept. has not even begun to respond to the questions on this issue and
you are expecting the public to have already been collecting this new tax since 1/1/07?

I don't know if you are aware of it but our recreational industry has been selling 2007 services
since Oct. 2006 and has collected substantial deposits on 2007 services before 1/1/07.
The pricing on these services has been fixed in writing for months in many cases and you are expecting
these businesses to again contact their clients and inform them that there is a slight billing problem?
You are expecting these businesses to reprint all their 2007 brochures and paperwork?
You are expecting these businesses to go in and now upgrade their websites?
You are expecting these businesses to just rebill each of these clients or just absorb the
additional tax costs themselves?

I see very few good choices coming from this aggressive attempt to jam a square peg into a round.
I could understand the attempt if this were a simple subject which could be turned on or off like
a light switch. Your pp/pd recreational tax will project many wrinkles into a tax fabric which has
taken decades to straighten out. It is a lie to assume that these wrinkles were historically all figured
out on 01/01/07 and everyone is fully aware of that fact.
To assume that they were figured out by 10/01/06 is completely irrational.

I am requesting that the Assembly see the pp/pd tax issue from the public's perspective.
Right now the KPB is unable to fully explain this issue to the public.
How can the KPB realistically expect the public to understand what it does not understand?
I am requesting that you not support Ordinance 2006-41.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns about Ordinance 2006-41.

Don Johnson
ccpwow@gci.net
Soldotna, Alaska

Navigable Waters Letters
LETTER # 1
---------------------------------

Dear Senator Stevens,

I would like to speak to you with regard to Alaska Borough's attempting to collect illegal taxes
from Alaskan residents. The specific borough & tax references regard a Federal Navigable Waters
Sales Tax which the Kenai Peninsula Borough has been collecting illegally.
In 2003 The Maritime Security Transportation Act (MTSA), TITLE 33 NAVIGATION
AND NAVIGABLE WATERS, was passed into Federal law and specifically mandated
that U.S. States cannot legally tax Federal Navigable Waterways. The KPB has been
disregarding Title 33 and illegally taxing passage and operations on these navigable
waterway anyway.

We informed the KPB of its illegal taxation of navigable waters in May of 2006.
Instead of just removing the illegal tax, the KPB contacted many legislator's in an attempt to
make navigable waters taxation legal. The prohibition of this kind of taxation has
been in effect since 1884 and was reinforced in 2003 within the wording within TITLE 33
NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS.

In the summer of 2006, the KPB requested that Representative Don Young sponsor legislation
to allow navigable waters taxation. Representative Young sponsored ( H.R. 5681 Title: To authorize
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.]
H.R. 5681 has already passed the U.S. House and is now being considered by the U.S. Senate.
Section 302 of H.R. 5681, repeals most of the prohibitions on confiscatory taxes prohibited by
Section 445 of our current Maritime Security Transportation Act (MTSA) of 2002, and the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1884.
In 2002 the Conference Report addressed the importance of Section 445:
Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential for greater future problems, of local
jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or making innocent
passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the United States, which are adjacent
to the taxing community.
Furthermore, Section 302 appears to exempt vessels engaged in foreign commerce, which enter
U.S. waters and provide goods and services, while taxing those operating domestically.

I am hereby requesting that you do what you can to remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681 as I see it
being extremely counter to our public interests to have literally thousands of local jurisdictions
attempting to tax vessels trying to make passage through Federal navigable waters.
Please Remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Don Johnson
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
ccpwow@gci.net



LETTER # 2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Senator Stevens,

As a small business providing recreation services to the public my business is already
subject to access and permit fees along with cost recovery administration fees
and many others. I strongly object to Section 302 of H.R. 5681, which will enable
multiple government entities to tax my services especially when my trips enter
different Borough jurisdictions.
A prohibition on these taxes on domestic goods and service provided on navigable
waterways has existed since 1884 for good reason. The 2002 Conference Report
on the Maritime Safety Transportation Act stated:

Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential greater future problems,
of local jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or
making innocent passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the
United States that are adjacent to the taxing community . . .

More over this provision exempts foreign commerce, such as cruise ships, entering
navigable water in the U.S. while taxing my services. Operating a recreation and tourism
business is increasingly difficult in this country due to the onslaught of fees, regulations
and increasing operating costs. I agree with how this issue has been addressed in the
past by not allowing navigable waters taxation. I do not agree with the changes which
are being proposed within SEC. 302 of H.R. 5681

Please help remove SEC. 302 of H.R. 5681

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Don Johnson
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
ccpwow@gci.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WAY TITLE 33 READS NOW.

Below is the way Title 33 currently reads. Rep. Young wants to change the
current wording of Title 33, Chapter 1, Sec. 5a. so that borough can legally
collect taxes on navigable waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 1--NAVIGABLE WATERS GENERALLY
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 5. Abolition of tolls on Government canals, canalized
rivers, etc.; expense of operation, repairs to and
reconstruction of canals, etc.; Panama Canal excepted; levies by
non-Federal interest

(a) No tolls or operating charges whatever shall be levied upon or
collected from any vessel, dredge, or other water craft for passing
through any lock, canal, canalized river, or other work for the use and
benefit of navigation, now belonging to the United States or that may be
hereafter acquired or constructed; and for the purpose of preserving and
continuing the use and navigation of said canals and other public works
without interruption, the Secretary of the Army, upon the recommendation
of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, is authorized to draw his
warrant or requisition, from time to time, upon the Secretary of the
Treasury to pay the actual expenses of operating, maintaining, and
keeping said works in repair, which warrants or requisitions shall be
paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That whenever, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Army, the condition of any of the aforesaid works
is such that its entire reconstruction is absolutely essential to its
efficient and economical maintenance and operation as herein provided
for, the reconstruction thereof may include such modifications in plan
and location as may be necessary to provide adequate facilities for
existing navigation: Provided further, That the modifications are
necessary to make the reconstructed work conform to similar works
previously authorized by Congress and forming a part of the same
improvement, and that such modifications shall be considered and
approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and be
recommended by the Chief of Engineers before the work of reconstruction
is commenced: And provided further, That nothing contained in this
section shall be held to apply to the Panama Canal.
(b) No taxes, tolls, operating charges, fees, or any other
impositions whatever shall be levied upon or collected from any vessel
or other water craft, or from its passengers or crew, by any non-Federal
interest, if the vessel or water craft is operating on any navigable
waters subject to the authority of the United States, or under the right
to freedom of navigation on those waters, except for--
(1) fees charged under section 2236 of this title; or
(See Below --> § 2236. Port or harbor dues.) ********************************
(2) reasonable fees charged on a fair and equitable basis that--
(A) are used solely to pay the cost of a service to the
vessel or water craft;
(B) enhance the safety and efficiency of interstate and
foreign commerce; and
(C) do not impose more than a small burden on interstate or
foreign commerce.

(3) property taxes on vessels or watercraft, other than vessels
or watercraft that are primarily engaged in foreign commerce if
those taxes are permissible under the United States Constitution.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WAY TITLE 33 Will Read if H.R. 5681 Passes
With The Section 302 Changes.

SEC. 302. GOODS AND SERVICES.
Section 4(b) of the Act of July 5, 1884, commonly known as the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884 (33 U.S.C. 5(b)), is amended--
(1) by striking `or' at the end of paragraph (2)(C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting `; or'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(4) sales taxes on goods and services provided to or by vessels or
watercraft (other than vessels or watercraft primarily engaged in foreign commerce).'.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr614)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What H.R. 5681, Section 302 Is Attempting To Do

H.R. 5681, Section 302 attempts to change the ban on local navigable waters taxation and
instead allows local vessels to be taxed by local governments, while foreign vessels, like
"cruise ships," are exempted!
U.S. vessels like fishing charters, rafting trips and similar trips operating in navigable waters in
the U.S., will basically be the only folks subject to these navigable waters taxes!

The Coast Guard Reauthorization bill, H.R. 5681, which passed the U.S. House and is now
under consideration by the Senate, includes a provision that reinstates local taxes on goods
and services provided on navigable waterways. The prohibition on taxing navigable waterways
has been in effect since 1884 and was reinforced in 2002. Section 302 repeals most of the
prohibitions on confiscatory taxes prohibited by Section 445 of the Maritime Security Transportation
Act (MTSA) of 2002, and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1884.
In the 2002 the Conference Report addressed the importance of Section 445:
Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential for greater future problems,
of local jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or
making innocent passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the
United States that are adjacent to the taxing community.

I personally do not believe local jurisdictions should be able to tax navigable waters.
I also believe it is completely unfair to allow foreign vessels to operate without this
same navigable waters taxation.
Please help remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681

Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the current Congressional Actions on
H.R. 5681, SEC. 302. GOODS AND SERVICES.
Once this bill is passed by the U.S. Senate the Kenai Peninsula Borough
will be able to legally collect a sales tax on all Alaska navigable waters.

-------------------------------------------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05681:@@@X

H.R.5681
Title: To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Young, Don [AK] (introduced 6/26/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 11/13/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
House Reports: 109-614
---------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
6/26/2006:
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6/28/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
6/28/2006:
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged.
6/28/2006:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
7/28/2006 9:36pm:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 109-614.
7/28/2006 9:36pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 354.
9/28/2006 10:30pm:
Mr. LoBiondo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
9/28/2006 10:30pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7877-7886)
9/28/2006 10:51pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. (text: CR H7877-7884)
9/28/2006 10:51pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
9/29/2006:
Received in the Senate.
11/13/2006:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05681:@@@X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Don Young’s (R-AK) Committee authored this new H.R. 5681, SEC. 302. GOODS
AND SERVICES legislation to only tax small local business operator's on our navigable waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Congressman Don Young using the following information:
http://donyoung.house.gov/contact.htm
Contact Don Young - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Don Young's Website - http://donyoung.house.gov/
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2111 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5765 - Phone (202) 225-0425 - Fax
email - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

ANCHORAGE CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
Office of Congressman Don Young
Peterson Tower Building
510 L St, Suite 580
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1954
(907) 271-5978 - Phone
(907) 271-5950 - Fax
email - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
http://donyoung.house.gov/contact.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ted Stevens website- http://stevens.senate.gov/index.cfm

Senator Ted Stevens Email - http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm
The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-3004
(202) 224-2354 FAX

Please ask your Senator and Representative to remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681.


https://blog.angelfire.lycos.com/service/blog/control.blog

Navigable Waters Letters
LETTER # 1
---------------------------------

Dear Senator Stevens,

I would like to speak to you with regard to Alaska Borough's attempting to collect illegal taxes
from Alaskan residents. The specific borough & tax references regard a Federal Navigable Waters
Sales Tax which the Kenai Peninsula Borough has been collecting illegally.
In 2003 The Maritime Security Transportation Act (MTSA), TITLE 33 NAVIGATION
AND NAVIGABLE WATERS, was passed into Federal law and specifically mandated
that U.S. States cannot legally tax Federal Navigable Waterways. The KPB has been
disregarding Title 33 and illegally taxing passage and operations on these navigable
waterway anyway.

We informed the KPB of its illegal taxation of navigable waters in May of 2006.
Instead of just removing the illegal tax, the KPB contacted many legislator's in an attempt to
make navigable waters taxation legal. The prohibition of this kind of taxation has
been in effect since 1884 and was reinforced in 2003 within the wording within TITLE 33
NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS.

In the summer of 2006, the KPB requested that Representative Don Young sponsor legislation
to allow navigable waters taxation. Representative Young sponsored ( H.R. 5681 Title: To authorize
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.]
H.R. 5681 has already passed the U.S. House and is now being considered by the U.S. Senate.
Section 302 of H.R. 5681, repeals most of the prohibitions on confiscatory taxes prohibited by
Section 445 of our current Maritime Security Transportation Act (MTSA) of 2002, and the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1884.
In 2002 the Conference Report addressed the importance of Section 445:
Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential for greater future problems, of local
jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or making innocent
passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the United States, which are adjacent
to the taxing community.
Furthermore, Section 302 appears to exempt vessels engaged in foreign commerce, which enter
U.S. waters and provide goods and services, while taxing those operating domestically.

I am hereby requesting that you do what you can to remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681 as I see it
being extremely counter to our public interests to have literally thousands of local jurisdictions
attempting to tax vessels trying to make passage through Federal navigable waters.
Please Remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Don Johnson
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
ccpwow@gci.net



LETTER # 2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Senator Stevens,

As a small business providing recreation services to the public my business is already
subject to access and permit fees along with cost recovery administration fees
and many others. I strongly object to Section 302 of H.R. 5681, which will enable
multiple government entities to tax my services especially when my trips enter
different Borough jurisdictions.
A prohibition on these taxes on domestic goods and service provided on navigable
waterways has existed since 1884 for good reason. The 2002 Conference Report
on the Maritime Safety Transportation Act stated:

Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential greater future problems,
of local jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or
making innocent passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the
United States that are adjacent to the taxing community . . .

More over this provision exempts foreign commerce, such as cruise ships, entering
navigable water in the U.S. while taxing my services. Operating a recreation and tourism
business is increasingly difficult in this country due to the onslaught of fees, regulations
and increasing operating costs. I agree with how this issue has been addressed in the
past by not allowing navigable waters taxation. I do not agree with the changes which
are being proposed within SEC. 302 of H.R. 5681

Please help remove SEC. 302 of H.R. 5681

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Don Johnson
P.O. Box 876
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
ccpwow@gci.net

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WAY TITLE 33 READS NOW.

Below is the way Title 33 currently reads. Rep. Young wants to change the
current wording of Title 33, Chapter 1, Sec. 5a. so that borough can legally
collect taxes on navigable waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
CHAPTER 1--NAVIGABLE WATERS GENERALLY
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 5. Abolition of tolls on Government canals, canalized
rivers, etc.; expense of operation, repairs to and
reconstruction of canals, etc.; Panama Canal excepted; levies by
non-Federal interest

(a) No tolls or operating charges whatever shall be levied upon or
collected from any vessel, dredge, or other water craft for passing
through any lock, canal, canalized river, or other work for the use and
benefit of navigation, now belonging to the United States or that may be
hereafter acquired or constructed; and for the purpose of preserving and
continuing the use and navigation of said canals and other public works
without interruption, the Secretary of the Army, upon the recommendation
of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, is authorized to draw his
warrant or requisition, from time to time, upon the Secretary of the
Treasury to pay the actual expenses of operating, maintaining, and
keeping said works in repair, which warrants or requisitions shall be
paid by the Secretary of the Treasury out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That whenever, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Army, the condition of any of the aforesaid works
is such that its entire reconstruction is absolutely essential to its
efficient and economical maintenance and operation as herein provided
for, the reconstruction thereof may include such modifications in plan
and location as may be necessary to provide adequate facilities for
existing navigation: Provided further, That the modifications are
necessary to make the reconstructed work conform to similar works
previously authorized by Congress and forming a part of the same
improvement, and that such modifications shall be considered and
approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and be
recommended by the Chief of Engineers before the work of reconstruction
is commenced: And provided further, That nothing contained in this
section shall be held to apply to the Panama Canal.
(b) No taxes, tolls, operating charges, fees, or any other
impositions whatever shall be levied upon or collected from any vessel
or other water craft, or from its passengers or crew, by any non-Federal
interest, if the vessel or water craft is operating on any navigable
waters subject to the authority of the United States, or under the right
to freedom of navigation on those waters, except for--
(1) fees charged under section 2236 of this title; or
(See Below --> § 2236. Port or harbor dues.) ********************************
(2) reasonable fees charged on a fair and equitable basis that--
(A) are used solely to pay the cost of a service to the
vessel or water craft;
(B) enhance the safety and efficiency of interstate and
foreign commerce; and
(C) do not impose more than a small burden on interstate or
foreign commerce.

(3) property taxes on vessels or watercraft, other than vessels
or watercraft that are primarily engaged in foreign commerce if
those taxes are permissible under the United States Constitution.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE WAY TITLE 33 Will Read if H.R. 5681 Passes
With The Section 302 Changes.

SEC. 302. GOODS AND SERVICES.
Section 4(b) of the Act of July 5, 1884, commonly known as the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884 (33 U.S.C. 5(b)), is amended--
(1) by striking `or' at the end of paragraph (2)(C);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting `; or'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(4) sales taxes on goods and services provided to or by vessels or
watercraft (other than vessels or watercraft primarily engaged in foreign commerce).'.
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr614)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What H.R. 5681, Section 302 Is Attempting To Do

H.R. 5681, Section 302 attempts to change the ban on local navigable waters taxation and
instead allows local vessels to be taxed by local governments, while foreign vessels, like
"cruise ships," are exempted!
U.S. vessels like fishing charters, rafting trips and similar trips operating in navigable waters in
the U.S., will basically be the only folks subject to these navigable waters taxes!

The Coast Guard Reauthorization bill, H.R. 5681, which passed the U.S. House and is now
under consideration by the Senate, includes a provision that reinstates local taxes on goods
and services provided on navigable waterways. The prohibition on taxing navigable waterways
has been in effect since 1884 and was reinforced in 2002. Section 302 repeals most of the
prohibitions on confiscatory taxes prohibited by Section 445 of the Maritime Security Transportation
Act (MTSA) of 2002, and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1884.
In the 2002 the Conference Report addressed the importance of Section 445:
Section 445 addresses the current problem, and the potential for greater future problems,
of local jurisdictions seeking to impose taxes and fees on vessels merely transiting or
making innocent passage through navigable waters subject to the authority of the
United States that are adjacent to the taxing community.

I personally do not believe local jurisdictions should be able to tax navigable waters.
I also believe it is completely unfair to allow foreign vessels to operate without this
same navigable waters taxation.
Please help remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681

Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are the current Congressional Actions on
H.R. 5681, SEC. 302. GOODS AND SERVICES.
Once this bill is passed by the U.S. Senate the Kenai Peninsula Borough
will be able to legally collect a sales tax on all Alaska navigable waters.

-------------------------------------------
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05681:@@@X

H.R.5681
Title: To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Young, Don [AK] (introduced 6/26/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 11/13/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
House Reports: 109-614
---------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
6/26/2006:
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6/28/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
6/28/2006:
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Discharged.
6/28/2006:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
7/28/2006 9:36pm:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 109-614.
7/28/2006 9:36pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 354.
9/28/2006 10:30pm:
Mr. LoBiondo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
9/28/2006 10:30pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7877-7886)
9/28/2006 10:51pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. (text: CR H7877-7884)
9/28/2006 10:51pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
9/29/2006:
Received in the Senate.
11/13/2006:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05681:@@@X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Don Young’s (R-AK) Committee authored this new H.R. 5681, SEC. 302. GOODS
AND SERVICES legislation to only tax small local business operator's on our navigable waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Congressman Don Young using the following information:
http://donyoung.house.gov/contact.htm
Contact Don Young - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Don Young's Website - http://donyoung.house.gov/
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
2111 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5765 - Phone (202) 225-0425 - Fax
email - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

ANCHORAGE CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
Office of Congressman Don Young
Peterson Tower Building
510 L St, Suite 580
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1954
(907) 271-5978 - Phone
(907) 271-5950 - Fax
email - http://donyoung.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
http://donyoung.house.gov/contact.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ted Stevens website- http://stevens.senate.gov/index.cfm

Senator Ted Stevens Email - http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm
The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-3004
(202) 224-2354 FAX

Please ask your Senator and Representative to remove Section 302 from H.R. 5681.


https://blog.angelfire.lycos.com/service/blog/control.blog

Subsistence Pie, "Fish & Game Day Of Doom" approaches.
Dear Sportfish,

Below is a federal news release from our Federal Subsistence Board.
These regulator's continue to slice & dice their Subsistence Pie as their
official "Fish & Game Day Of Doom" approaches.
Alaska has enjoyed a bountiful harvest of salmon for many years, so who
could ever imagine a year when only selected Alaskan's would be
allowed to hunt or fish in your favorite spot?

Most folks don't give the subsistence issue the time of day since they already
have way to many things to think about. Federal subsistence regulators have
however set the stage for a future Kenai River "Fish & Game Day Of Doom".
Can the average Kenai Peninsula resident imagine how their lives would
change, especially if their income depended directly on our fish & game resources?
This theoretical "Day of Doom" would carry with it the fact that your
fishing season could be either reduced or totally cancelled (after you have
collected substantial preseason deposits), which you would have to refund.
Many Alaskan's do sluff off these subsistence "Fish & Game Day Of Doom" concerns.

Federal regulator's have designated up-river areas of the Kenai River for
a subsistence priority. This priority could have devastating economic
effects on all sportfishing businesses operating down-river from such a priority area.
The Kenai Peninsula is a popular tourist destination for our visitors.
Lodging sales alone more than doubled between 1990 and 1998.
Peninsula recreational sales increased from $9.2 million to $27.2 million
during this time and reflect a very large growth factor within the visitor industry.
A "Subsistence Day of Doom" could very well reach beyond the river and also close
commercial salmon fisheries within Cook Inlet. Do you think Inlet commercial
fishermen fully understand the possible ramifications of a "Subsistence Day of Doom"?

Everyone can always hope that the "Day of Doom" never arrives but
do any of us fully understand what federal regulators have constructed?
This Kenai River federal subsistence plan is in reality a plan to "allow"
economic disaster for at least the city of Soldotna, and is a trade-off for
a small up-river subsistence priority.
Do you think the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly fully understands
this economic possibility? Activating this subsistence priority could easily
damage the economy of the entire Kenai Peninsula. In reality the KPB should
be setting aside a (ten to twenty million dollar operational nest-egg) anticipating
a possible " Subsistence Day of Doom".
There is currently no KPB "day of doom operational nest egg", therefore when
our salmon runs cycle into a slight recession, the KPB may be found in a large
economic depression and begging for a federal bail it out.

The Kenai River is a primary destination for a huge percentage of
the total people visiting the Kenai Peninsula. Peninsula residents should be
fully aware that the activation of this small localized priority could easily
trigger a Kenai Peninsula wide economic depression. This economic
depression could last for years or for as long as federal regulators are
concerned about a few hundred residents being able to easily collect salmon
for their freezer.

60% of the Kenai River drainage is located within some kind of a federal lands area.
These Kenai River federal lands are located within the Kenai's head-waters.
Alaska's Federal Subsistence Board has taken great pains to make sure that residents
living on the Kenai River, just down-river from Skilak Lake, do not qualify for a rural
subsistence priority but Copper Landing and Moose Pass area residents do qualify.
If the federal government feels that these areas are not able to meet their
subsistence requirements, it will not hesitate to issue federal ultimatums to
the State of Alaska if it does not restrict or remove down-river users.
If Alaska fails to comply with these federal demands the federal government
will also take-over manage of all navigable waters on the Kenai River.
If closing the river fails to meet the up-river subsistence priority, it will then
also assume control of all navigable waters in Cook Inlet which are less than
three miles off shore. This could mean closing down most of the commercial
fishing fleet which operates off the mouth of the Kenai River.

This all moves into the wonderful world of a possible future reality for you
because of the 1994 U.S. District Court, Katie John's decision which ruled that
the federal government has absolute authority to manage all fish and wildlife
on all navigable waters in Alaska inside the three-mile limit.
The entire Kenai River is considered navigable waters.
Most of our Kenai River, Cook Inlet commercial fisheries are within
the three-mile limit.
The only thing necessary to trigger a "Subsistence Day of Doom", is for our
bountiful salmon runs to diminish for a year or two. The next thing you
would be reading is the words "Fisheries Shut Down Required", as the
federal government begins to tighten the "absolute authority screws" on Alaska.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1994: Court Endorses Federal Authority on All Navigable Waters. U.S. District Court Judge Holland
rules for Katie John, concluding that the federal government, not the State of Alaska, is entitled to manage
fish and wildlife on public lands in Alaska for purposes of Title VIII of ANILCA. He also rules that
"public lands" include all navigable waters in Alaska inside the three-mile limit. He issues a 60-day
stay order on implementing his decision, and indicates it will be extended if his decision is appealed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state and federal governments file appeals.
http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/history.htm

Federal Subsistence Management Program
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/index.cfm

Kenai Peninsula Federal Public Lands,
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge - Chugach National Forest
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/fishregs06/cookin.pdf

Map of Alaska Federal Public Lands
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/maps.cfm?mapb=4

Map of Kenai Nonrural Areas
http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/pdf/maps/kenai06prop.pdf

Larry Buklis
Federal Subsistence Policy Coordinator
larry_buklis@fws.gov

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck_Miller@fws.gov
To: fws-FSB-Subsistence@lists.fws.gov
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: [fws-fsb-subsistence] Federal Subsistence Board News Release



News Release



For Immediate Release
December 14, 2006
For additional information contact: Maureen Clark
(800) 478-1456, (907) 786-3953
Maureen_Clark@fws.gov




Federal Subsistence Board Adopts Final Rule
on Rural/Nonrural Status Changes



The Federal Subsistence Board adopted a final rule on changes to the rural or nonrural status of several Alaska communities and areas at a public meeting in Anchorage on Dec. 13.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires that rural Alaskans be given a priority for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and waters. Only residents of rural communities and areas are eligible for this subsistence priority. The Board initially determined which Alaska communities were rural when the Federal Subsistence Management Program began in 1990. Federal subsistence regulations require that rural/nonrural status be reviewed every 10 years, beginning with the availability of the 2000 census data. At the completion of this review, the status of most Alaska communities remains unchanged. However, under the final rule:

Adak changes in status from nonrural to rural.

Prudhoe Bay changes from rural to nonrural.

Point MacKenzie is grouped with the nonrural Wasilla/Palmer Area, and thereby changes in status from rural to nonrural.

Fritz Creek East (not including Voznesenka) and the North Fork Road area are grouped with the nonrural Homer Area, and thereby change in status from rural to nonrural.

The boundaries of nonrural Sterling, within the Kenai Area, are expanded to align with the U.S. Census Bureau's recently expanded boundaries for Sterling.

The Ketchikan nonrural area is expanded to include all areas on the road system connected to the City of Ketchikan, including Saxman, and Pennock Island and an expanded portion of Gravina Island. If the road system connected to the City of Ketchikan expands, the newly connected areas would be included in the nonrural Ketchikan Area.

This final rule differs from the proposed rule published in the Federal Register Aug. 14, 2006 in that Kodiak will retain its rural status and Saxman will become nonrural for purposes of Federal subsistence management. The final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register within the next 60 days. The change in Adak's rural status will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. All other changes will take effect five years after publication.

For additional information, please contact Maureen Clark or Larry Buklis with the Federal Office of Subsistence Management at (800) 478-1456 or (907) 786-3888.


-FSB-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sport Fish Alert is a free sport fish information service.
If you hear sport fish news or wish to be add to the Sport Fish Alert mail
list just drop us a letter at ccpwow@gci.net

Don Johnson
ccpwow@gci.net