Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/22/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB102 | |
| SB170 | |
| HB75 | |
| HJR5 | |
| HJR16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 102 | ||
| = | SB 170 | ||
CSHJR 5(RES)-NO MILK TAX
CHAIR WAGONER announced HJR 5 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, sponsor, explained that the milk tax or
Dairy Stabilization Act of 1983 was a mandatory dairy promotion
assessment established by Congress in 1983 to help increase the
sale of surplus milk in the Lower 48 states through generic mass
advertising such as the "Got Milk" campaign. This act was
maintained by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico were specifically exempted
from the milk tax, because they are all milk deficit states. The
tax would be a serious detriment to Alaska milk producers and
consumers and would benefit Lower 48 states that do have a
surplus.
The National Milk Federation pushed for this tax so the U.S.
Department of Agriculture could start taxing foreign milk
importers. Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules,
foreign imports can't be taxed unless all domestic sources are
also taxed. HJR 5 is supported by Senator Lisa Murkowski,
Senator Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young and a number of
other members of Congress.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said:
The bottom line is that Alaska does not need to add to
the already high price of milk. Milk in bush Alaska is
already outrageous - sometimes up to $8 or $10 a
gallon - almost to the point that children are
drinking soda pop rather than drinking milk because it
is less expensive.
He said that day care centers would also feel the pinch. Dairy
farmers can hardly make ends meet the way it is now without
having this additional burden.
4:12:55 PM
ILONA RICHEY, Director, Government Relations, Alaska Dairy
Coalition, supported HJR 5 and the comments of the sponsor. "We
do not need increased costs in Anchorage and other
transportation, especially not in the bush...."
She said this would mean an average cost of $2,700 annually to
dairy farmers and there would absolutely be no benefits to them.
There are also concerns about the increased costs to the Native
population that lives in rural Alaska.
4:18:04 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked how she got the $2,700 figure for the dairy
farmers.
MS. RICHEY replied that would be the average tax levied on the
milk they produce. It would be about five to twenty cents per
gallon. She didn't have exact figures.
4:18:46 PM
TERRY ROBERTSON, Robertson Enterprises, said she owns and
operates two non-profit daycare centers in Anchorage servicing
about 200 low-income subsidized children a day. Her centers use
about 3,000 gals of milk per year and a twenty-cent tax would
add $600 annually to her operating budget.
4:20:00 PM
JIM EICHSTADT, Dairy Trade Coalition, Madison WI, said he has
been involved in the dairy industry since the early 1980s when
the milk tax was originally implemented and added to Ms.
Richey's statement that Alaska has never been a part of the
federal dairy policy scheme - and for good reason - because
Alaska is a milk deficit state, it doesn't participate in
federal milk marketing orders or other regulatory affairs run by
the federal government in the Lower 48.
The milk tax is probably the worst way that Alaskan
can possibly participate in the federal dairy program,
because even in the Lower 48, the milk tax is a very
controversial program that a lot of farmers down here
want to get rid of, because it doesn't benefit them.
It's just an added cost that they could do without....
4:21:37 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to report CSHJR 5(RES) out of committee
with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it
was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|