19 



So what happened to bird seed sales during the same period? Industry pubhca- 

 tions reported that the growth of wild bird seed sales during that same period rose 

 approximately 8 percent. American Agco sales grew nearly 40 percent. 



The user fee proposed by Teaming With Wildlife will be applied equally to all bird 

 seed manufacturers and passed along without additional markups by distributors or 

 retailers. Since the fee would affect consumer price far less than volatile grain mar- 

 kets have in the past, the overall effect on sales should be negligible. 



In conclusion, American Agco would like to restate its position in support of the 

 initiative Teaming With Wildlife. We would also like to take this opportunity to re- 

 quest that other bird seed manufacturers reconsider their position and join us in 

 helping to draft sensible and effective legislation that will make this program a 

 model for industry and government cooperation. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much for very fine testimony which 

 each of you have expressed in a very articulate way. I am going to 

 wait till last to ask my questions. So, Mr. Torkildsen, the gen- 

 tleman from Massachusetts. 



Mr. Torkildsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 

 holding the hearing. I would also like to thank Mr. Mailman for ex- 

 plaining the mural behind us. We have been wondering about that 

 for many years, and so we do appreciate that explanation. 



I do want to thank all of you for your testimony, and I say that 

 while I support your intent of seeing that we preserve and protect 

 and restore our resources, I do have questions about the mechanics 

 of this legislation. And I guess the reason for it is that, you know, 

 there is one law that no one can ignore and no Congress can re- 

 peal, and that is the law of unintended consequences. 



When the Congress in the past passed a so-called luxury tax on 

 expensive vehicles and some boats, the effect was not to raise a lot 

 of revenue, but it did achieve a great reduction in the sale of those 

 vehicles. And the jobs of the people who built those cars were hurt. 

 The jobs of the people who sold those cars were hurt. 



Likewise, when we had a very logical safety rule that said you 

 couldn't make children's pajamas out of cotton, the result was that 

 manufacturers would make garments that looked a lot like paja- 

 mas, only they called them something else, and they made them 

 out of cotton, and parents would end up buying those products as 

 well. 



How can you prevent what would almost certainly happen in 

 that if you tax a mountain bike, somebody calls it by a different 

 name? And also the larger question, why should somebody who is 

 buying a mountain bike or hiking boots or whatever and using 

 them for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting our envi- 

 ronment, why would they even consider paying the tax at all? 



For example, in my district, I mean, literally thousands of moun- 

 tain bikes are sold and used in my district every year. I have no 

 mountains in my district. I mean, it is just a fact of life. People buy 

 hiking boots all the time. Some buy them for fashion reasons. They 

 may not use them. I personally enjoy hiking. I enjoy using the out- 

 doors in my district and elsewhere, but not every person does. Why 

 are those people being targeted for this tax? 



And also, how could you prevent the tax-avoidance policy, which 

 is a very human behavior, of both people buying other products 

 outside of this list that is being proposed and also manufacturers 

 either making a minimal change or just a name change to avoid 

 the tax? And, you know, when that happens, wouldn't that just un- 



