[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6097-H6099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CUTTING FEDERAL UNNECESSARY AND EXPENSIVE LEASING ACT OF 2012
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6324) to reduce the number of nonessential vehicles
purchased and leased by the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6324
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cutting Federal Unnecessary
and Expensive Leasing Act of 2012'' or the ``Cutting FUEL
Act''.
SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF NONESSENTIAL VEHICLES
PURCHASED AND LEASED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) Review of Nonessential Vehicle Purchase.--The Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with
the head of the relevant Executive agency, shall complete
each of the following:
(1) Determine the total dollar amount obligated by each
Executive agency to purchase civilian vehicles in fiscal year
2010.
(2) Determine the total dollar amount obligated by each
Executive agency to lease civilian vehicles in fiscal year
2010.
(3) Determine the total number of civilian vehicles
purchased by each Executive agency in fiscal year 2010.
(4) Determine the total number of civilian vehicles leased
by each Executive agency in fiscal year 2010.
(5) Determine the total dollar amount that would be 20
percent less than the dollar amount determined under
paragraphs (1) and (2) for each Executive agency.
(b) Reduction of Nonessential Vehicle Purchase.--For each
of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, each Executive agency may
not obligate more than the dollar amount identified pursuant
to subsection (a)(5) to purchase and lease civilian vehicles.
(c) Sharing.--The Administrator of General Services shall
ensure that an Executive agency may share excess or unused
vehicles with another Executive agency that may need
temporary or long-term use of additional vehicles through the
Federal Fleet Management System.
(d) National Security Exception.--The limits on the
purchase and procurement of vehicles provided in this section
shall not apply to the purchase or procurement of any vehicle
that has been determined by the President to be essential for
reasons of national security.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Civilian vehicle.--The term ``civilian vehicle'' means
a vehicle that is not used for purposes of military combat,
the training or deployment of uniformed military personnel,
or such other uses as determined by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given that term under section 105 of title 5,
United States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 6324, the Cutting Federal Unnecessary and Expensive Leasing Act,
or Cutting FUEL Act, of 2012 is a bipartisan piece of legislation
introduced by Mr. Hanna of New York and Mr. Barrow of Georgia.
With a $16 trillion debt, Congress and the Federal Government need to
spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently and help reduce costs. Federal
agencies currently own or lease roughly 660,000 cars, vans, sport
utility vehicles, trucks, buses, and ambulances; and I'm sure there are
a host of other items as well. During fiscal year 2011, the Federal
Government spent roughly $4.4 billion to maintain and operate these
vehicles, including $1.3 billion in fuel costs alone. During the last 5
years, Federal agencies purchased an average of approximately 68,000
new vehicles annually at a cost of roughly $1.5 billion per year.
The Bowles-Simpson National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform recommended reducing the number of nonessential vehicles owned
or leased by Federal agencies, other than the Department of Defense or
the postal service, by 20 percent. According to some estimates, this
proposal could save up to $500 million over the next 10 years.
The Cutting FUEL Act would reduce the government's spending on
civilian vehicle purchases and leases by 20 percent and would maintain
that reduced level of spending for 5 years. This reduction would not
apply to military or postal vehicles, and there is an exception
provided for national security vehicles as well.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good, commonsense piece of
legislation, and we want to encourage Members to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 6324, the Cutting FUEL Act. This bill is
being rushed to the floor without any hearings or considerations by the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The result is a poorly
drafted bill that may have harmful, unintended consequences. This bill
would require all Federal agencies to reduce their purchases and leases
of vehicles by 20 percent, below 2010 expenditure levels. This
reduction would not apply to military vehicles, and an exception is
provided for vehicles necessary for national security purposes.
While my colleagues' goal is to cut government spending and force
agencies to spend their money more efficiently, this bill is not the
way to achieve those objectives. This bill does not take into account
agencies that have already decreased their fleet sizes by improving
fleet management procedures. According to a recent GAO report, agencies
such as the Air Force have implemented various fleet downsizing
policies and have made efforts to eliminate vehicles that are not
mission critical. Instead of examining the needs of each individual
agency, this bill simply makes a sweeping 20 percent cut applicable to
all agencies regardless of whether they have already made significant
improvements.
{time} 1610
The GAO also noted that some agencies, like the Department of
Veterans Affairs, have increased their fleet sizes due to expanded
programs essential to assisting our disabled veterans. This bill would
prevent agencies, such as the VA, from effectively serving our veterans
when they return home from war.
Mr. Speaker, we come to the House floor only to bring up legislation
that was recently introduced in August. There have been no hearings in
committee, no amendments, no markups, no substantive debate, all of
which could have made significant improvements to the bill.
The American people are asking their elected officials to be
bipartisan and pass legislation to add more jobs to our economy. We
should focus on extending the tax cuts for the middle class, or passing
legislation to resolve the looming crisis in the postal service. But,
no, the Republican majority and their leadership would rather focus on
passing messaging bills before the election. They prefer to leave
Washington and campaign, rather than take up the real issues that
confront our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I
ask that we get back to doing the work of the people.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hanna).
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6324, the Cutting
Federal Unnecessary and Expensive Leasing Act. I sponsored this
legislation with my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
[[Page H6098]]
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill which takes up a recommendation of
the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission to help our Federal Government
operate more efficiently. The Federal Government now owns and operates
over 500,000 civilian vehicles, according to the Government
Accountability Office. Simpson-Bowles found that the government's
annual vehicle budget is over $4 billion, and the Federal fleet has
increased by 30,000 vehicles in recent years. These are staggering
numbers at any time, but particularly when our national debt has
surpassed $16 trillion.
Rapid advances in technologies like video conferencing and
telecommuting are making travel much less necessary, not more. The
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended
that the Federal Government's fleet be cut and trimmed by 20 percent.
The Cutting FUEL Act does just that. It requires civilian Federal
agencies over the next 5 years to spend 20 percent less than their
fiscal year 2010 levels on vehicles purchased and leased. The bill
exempts our Armed Forces, postal service, and other vehicles which have
a national security purpose as determined by the Office of Management
and Budget and General Services Administration.
The bill encourages agencies to share vehicles with another agency
that may need temporary or long-term use of additional vehicles. For
example, if the VA required additional vehicles to meet certain program
needs, the administration could task other agencies to help and assist
the VA. The benefits of this bill are clear. We will be saving hundreds
of millions of dollars over 10 years that are better used for deficit
reduction or core agency missions. We will be reducing congestion on
our roads. And because these fleets burn more than 1 million gallons of
fuel each day, we will be saving fuel costs and reducing emissions. The
simple reality is that we have to cut spending, and the Federal
Government needs to live within its means. Buying and leasing new cars
that the government does not need and cannot afford is a waste of hard-
earned taxpayer dollars.
I would also note that the Congress has capped its own spending on
vehicle leases for the past 2 years, an amendment which I authored.
This bill today is just another commonsense bipartisan solution to save
where it makes obvious sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to John Barrow from the
great State of Georgia.
Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentlelady for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to reach across the aisle in support of the
Cutting FUEL Act, a commonsense bill to cut wasteful government
spending by reducing the number of nonessential vehicles purchased by
the Federal Government.
Any family or business knows that you can't spend beyond your means.
The government should work the same way. Buying brand new cars the
Federal Government doesn't need is a waste of hard-earned taxpayer
dollars, and this bill puts an end to that.
The government spends $4 billion a year to maintain and operate over
650,000 vehicles. Since 2006, the Federal Government has added over
20,000 vehicles to this fleet, and the cost of operating these vehicles
has gone up 5.4 percent.
I recently introduced H.R. 6144, which also cuts the Federal vehicle
fleet by 20 percent. Like the Cutting FUEL Act, it makes an exception
for vehicles that are essential to national security while reducing the
size of the nonessential Federal Government fleet by 20 percent. This
is just one of the many recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-
Bowles commission, and over the next 10 years it will save literally
hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
I'm pleased to join my colleague, Representative Hanna, in support of
his version of this legislation, because acting in a bipartisan fashion
isn't just the right way to do things around here, it's the only way to
actually get things done around here. However much we tend to forget
that in this body, it's the only way to deal with the other body, and
it's the only way to truly represent the Nation as a whole.
The folks we represent deserve a government that is responsible with
their hard-earned dollars. I thank Congressman Hanna for introducing
the Cutting FUEL Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense bipartisan bill.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I will
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY. I have no additional speakers and yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I do want to stress that we should not be adjourning. We should
continue to work and try to do things to preserve Medicare. This
Congress has voted to end Medicare as we know it, to turn it into a
voucher system.
And we need to extend the middle class tax breaks, and jobs--the
President's jobs bill. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, Republican and Democratic, have come forward with jobs bills
that we could consider on passing and working.
I must say they are very urgent priorities, and the American people
are calling my office, and I'm sure all of my colleagues, concerning
the farm bill. We need to pass a farm bill.
The Violence Against Women Act, this used to be bipartisan
legislation. It was introduced as bipartisan legislation. Yet, in this
Congress, people have voted to repeal some of the protections, and we
have not been able to have a consensus on what has historically been a
consensus issue.
On the war on women, I am issuing a report today that shows that the
Republican majority is not only out of step with the Main Street of
America and the Democratic majority, but they are out of step with the
historic Republican Party. The historic Republican Party--in fact, I'll
give one example: title X. George H.W. Bush was the author of title X
when it passed, and it was signed by a Republican President. This
Congress voted to defund title X--family planning, birth control. This
is unprecedented.
So there are many things that we need to address. I would say
specifically the farm bill and the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act. This should be an area where we could all agree and
come together. I urge my colleagues not only to vote against this
particular bill, but also to speak to their leadership on the other
side of the aisle that these pressing issues should be taken up and
should be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
{time} 1620
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would be very bipartisan, at least here
in the House of Representatives, in criticizing the United States
Senate for not acting on what has passed in this House of
Representatives.
It is crystal clear from the record that it has been more than 1,200
days since the United States Senate has addressed and passed a budget.
We have passed more than 30 bills that are directly related to jobs and
the economy out of the House of Representatives, sit directly in the
United States Senate and continue to not be addressed.
I would hope that my colleague would join me in this bipartisan
chorus to say this is ridiculous. We can't do the work of the people if
the United States Senate doesn't actually do their job. I think I would
agree in concept that, yes, there is work to do. Unfortunately, I don't
see much of that happening over in the United States Senate.
This bill, H.R. 6324, happens to be a good, bipartisan piece of
legislation that reduces spending, something called for in Simpson-
Bowles. It is a responsible thing to do. It sets the goal in the
framework the agencies would need to comply with. It would save
hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet we hear that, well, it's not a
time to do this because we need to think about it more.
We're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on our national
debt. If you spent a million dollars a day every day, it would take you
almost 3,000 years to get to 1 trillion. Since this President took
office when we had $10 trillion in debt, we're now at $16 trillion in
debt, and all they're concerned about is, well, you know, we've got to
talk.
[[Page H6099]]
We don't have time. We've got to act now. We've got to pass bills
like this. It's irresponsible not to. We need to continue to call upon
the Senate to actually do their job and engage in the people's work.
The country will be better off.
I encourage my colleagues to join in support of Representative
Hanna's bill. It's a good, commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation
with broad support. It's H.R. 6324, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``yea.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 6324.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________