[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14336-14338]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 14337]]

  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).
  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

[[Page 14338]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________