Cutting FUEL Act

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to John Barrow from the great State of Georgia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.