33 



In order for the extra $100 to be a true user fee, you would have 

 to be able to determine at the point of purchase which vehicles 

 were, in fact, going to be used offroad. Such an effort would be 

 highly impractical, create a costly administrative nightmare for 

 dealers, and I think serves to point out that as the American 

 Recreation Coalition has said, the proposed excise tax is flawed in 

 design and scope and really the wrong tool for the task. 



In fact, sport utility users would be penalized since the price of 

 utility vehicles compared to other types of vehicles would be in- 

 creased. I think that sort of a tax would be viewed as a penalty 

 tax similar to other specialized taxes like the gas-guzzler tax and 

 the tax on luxury vehicles, both of which were and are highly un- 

 popular with consumers. 



In addition to shifting Americans away from a class of vehicles 

 by increasing the price of sport utilities, the proposed excise tax 

 suggests that some kind of mitigation charge is being applied to 

 these vehicles for damage to the environment and, therefore, it is 

 likely to be viewed by consumers in a negative light. 



Moreover, the added $100 in initial purchase price, if financed 

 over five years at 12 percent, would cost the buyer around $60 in 

 finance charges, thus increasing the total tax to around $160. And 

 car and truck buyers, I can tell you, are already unhappy about the 

 price of a new vehicle. Today, the average cost of a vehicle is nearly 

 $20,000, which translates into about 25 weeks of pay for the aver- 

 age consumer. 



In sum, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice believes that the 

 "Teaming with Wildlife" proposal as it applies to sport utility vehi- 

 cles is an improper application of the user fee concept and unfair 

 to the buyers of sport utility vehicles. 



We think a better approach might be the one already in place in 

 many states where motorists have the opportunity to purchase spe- 

 cial license plates for which a portion of the license fee is dedicated 

 to support wildlife and conservation programs. 



A good example in our own area is in Maryland and Virginia 

 where about 50 to 60 percent of the additional costs of the special 

 "Save the Bay" plates goes to support Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

 conservation activities. It is my understanding that many states 

 have this type of license plate. As a matter of fact, I have a poster 

 here that demonstrates a number of those plates. About 22 states 

 have environmental or conservation plates, and nine of those, as I 

 understand it, are dedicated to wildlife preservation. 



We think such an approach is good because it allows all motor- 

 ists to participate, and contributions can be made annually. And we 

 think this type of approach is preferable to mandating a tax on mo- 

 torists who purchase one class of vehicle. Moreover, the license 

 plate alternative provides a tangible and visible recognition of sup- 

 port for wildlife conservation programs, whereas the excise tax con- 

 stitutes what we would term a hidden tax. Thank you, Mr. Chair- 

 man. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Ms. Steed. Mr. Lucier. 



