September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6097 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 4158. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

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. 

b 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). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6098 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

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. 

b 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

BUFFETT RULE ACT OF 2012 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 6410) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for taxpayers making donations with their returns of income tax to the Federal 

Government to pay down the public 

debt. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6410 

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 ‘‘Buffett Rule 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL 

DEBT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 

61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended by adding at the end the following 

new part: 

‘‘PART IX—DONATIONS TO PAY DOWN 

NATIONAL DEBT 

‘‘Sec. 6097. Donation to pay down national 

debt. 

‘‘SEC. 6097. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL 

DEBT. 

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—Every taxpayer who 

makes a return of the tax imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year may donate an 

amount (not less than $1), in addition to any 

payment of tax for such taxable year, which 

shall be deposited in the general fund of the 

Treasury. 

‘‘(b) MANNER AND TIME OF DESIGNATION.— 

Any donation under subsection (a) for any 

taxable year— 

‘‘(1) shall be made at the time of filing the 

return of the tax imposed by subtitle A for 

such taxable year and in such manner as the 

Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except that— 

‘‘(A) the designation for such donation 

shall be either on the first page of the return 

or on the page bearing the taxpayer’s signature, and 

‘‘(B) the designation shall be by a box 

added to the return, and the text beside the 

box shall provide: 

‘‘By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax liability (if any), I would like 

to donate the included payment to be used 

exclusively for the purpose of paying down 

the national debt.’’, and 

‘‘(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of 

the amount so designated. 

‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS DONATED.— 

For purposes of this title, the amount donated by any taxpayer under subsection (a) 

shall be treated as a contribution made by 

such taxpayer to the United States on the 

last date prescribed for filing the return of 

tax imposed by subtitle A (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the 

date the return is filed. 

‘‘(d) TRANSFERS TO ACCOUNT TO REDUCE

PUBLIC DEBT.—The Secretary shall, from 

time to time, transfer to the special account 

established by section 3113(d) of title 31, 

United States Code, amounts equal to the 

amounts donated under this section.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

parts for subchapter A of such chapter is 

amended by adding at the end the following 

new item: 

‘‘PART IX. DONATIONS TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL

DEBT.’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to returns 

for taxable years ending after December 31, 

2011. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Michigan (Mr. CAMP) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) each 

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days in which to revise and 

extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the 

bill under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 6410, a bill to provide a simple 

way for individuals to voluntarily donate funds to pay down the national 

debt. Under current law, you can contribute to debt reduction, but like all 

things with the IRS, it isn’t easy. If 

you dig deep into the 189 pages of instructions that accompany the 1040, 

you’ll find, on page 88, the following: 

Do not add your gift to reduce debt held by 

the public to any tax you may owe. 

To contribute to deficit reduction, 

one must send a separate check or 

money order to the Bureau of Public 

Debt, or they can go online at the Web 

site and use a credit card. Warren 

Buffett, who says he wants to pay more 

in taxes to pay down our debt, can’t actually do so when filing his taxes. 

H.R. 6410, however, gives Mr. Buffett 

and generous Americans like him a 

simple, easy way to help pay down our 

debt. This legislation adds to appropriate tax forms a box with the captions, and I am quoting: 

By checking here, I signify that in addition 

to my tax liability (if any), I would like to 

donate the included payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down the 

national debt. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 6410 reduces the public debt by $135 million over 10 years. It 

makes it easy for those who want to 

donate money to the Treasury for debt 

reduction to voluntarily do so without 

raising taxes on entrepreneurs and job 

creators. If Warren Buffett wants to 

give, then H.R. 6410 allows him to give 

to his heart’s content, and the payments will go directly to an account at 

the Treasury dedicated exclusively to 

debt reduction. 

Mr. Speaker, it’s not enough to speak 

in political platitudes about what we 

can do to reduce our debt. Now you can 

put your money where your mouth is. I 

urge my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to join me in passing this legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Well, there’s nothing wrong with this 

bill except the label. If there were a 

fine, I would say, for House legislative 

mislabeling, House Republicans would 

have a very large fine to pay. This bill 

has nothing—zero—to do with the 

Buffett rule. It has everything to do 

with the absolute refusal of Americans 

to face the basic issue. The present tax 

laws give an inordinate tax break to 

the very wealthy. The Buffett rule is 

provided and proposed by President 

Obama and congressional Democrats. 

In addition to reducing the deficit by 

$46 billion, it would address a significant inequity in the Code that allows a 

quarter of taxpayers earning more than 

a million a year to pay a lower tax rate 

than millions of middle class families. 

One of those taxpayers is the Republican Presidential nominee, Governor 

Mitt Romney, who paid an effective tax 

rate lower than 15 percent in 2010 and 

refuses to let the American public see 

his tax returns for any earlier years. 

Indeed, the so-called tax reform legislation from Republicans would do 

just the opposite: provide massive tax 

cuts for the very wealthy, doubling 

down on the Bush tax cuts that have 

added billions to the deficit and contributed to growing income inequality. 

What’s more, their idea of tax reform 

is to heap new taxes on the backs of 

middle- and lower-income families to 

pay for all of this. A recent report 

found that the so-called tax reform 

outlined in the Ryan budget would give 

those making over a million dollars a 

year an additional average tax cut of 

$331,000, while those making less than 

$200,000 would see a tax increase of 

$4,500. 

Taxpayers can do exactly what is 

provided in this bill if they want to donate some of their taxes on the income 

they have to deficit reduction. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE