[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 62 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2262-H2265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE STUDENT LOAN RATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palazzo). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it's always an honor to be able to speak 
here in the House of Representatives.
  It has been a good day because here in the House, despite what some 
may think, we voted overwhelmingly to

[[Page H2263]]

leave student loan rates at the same rate they are right now, 3.4 
percent. If the government had had to subsidize a rate, if interest 
rates were higher, that would be more difficult to justify because of 
how much overspending this administration has had as dictated during 
the time when Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid had full control over all 
of the spending.
  But while the President was very busy running around the country 
condemning Republicans for not caring about student loan rates and the 
plight of students, we were busy here at work making sure that student 
loan rates did not increase. While the President was out there telling 
students that Republicans don't care about you, that they're going to 
double the interest rates of your student loans, he didn't bother to 
come check and find out what was happening in Washington. If he had, he 
would have found out we felt the same way about the student loans.
  Let's see which Democrats were as concerned as we were today about 
the student loan rates going up. This was bill H.R. 4628, and it's 
basically two pages, not 25 pages or 2,800 pages. It is two pages, and 
it keeps the rates at the same rate so they won't go up.
  One of our clerks just brought the printout of the Democrats that 
voted with the Republicans to extend the current interest rates, and 
there were 13 Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the interest 
rates where they are. All that's on the printout are the last names: 
Barrow, Bishop of New York, Boren from Oklahoma, Donnelly, Higgins, 
Hochul, Kissell, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Owens, Peterson, and 
Walz.

                              {time}  1440

  Those are the Democrats that voted today with the Republicans to keep 
the student loan interest rates the same.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it's my great hope that while the President is 
running around the country condemning Republicans for not caring about 
the plight of students who have to pay student loans and about the fact 
that he says Republicans are going to double the student interest rate, 
I hope that somebody who's not out campaigning--like the President, as 
he flies around at government expense--I hope somebody down 
Pennsylvania Avenue, right down the street that way, will get something 
into the President's teleprompter that advises him, Hey, you may want 
to back off of that.
  The Republicans, with only 13 Democrats voting with them, actually 
voted to extend the same interest rates. Now, I feel like the Democrats 
would agree with the fact that we believe that in order to keep from 
having expenses continue to go out of sight, as they did during the 2 
years that Congress was completely controlled by Democrats and they had 
the White House, they did whatever they want, they passed a rule, pay-
as-you-go.
  Actually, I broke ranks and voted with them. Others told me they 
don't really mean this pay-as-you-go thing. Yes, they're going to pass 
it, but they don't mean it. I go, But I do believe in pay-as-you-go. I 
do believe things should be paid for.
  I found out from those who had been here longer than I had that they 
were right in their cynicism, because over and over big bills that our 
friends across the aisle brought when they were in control of things, 
they would make an exception. So this bill and that bill and this bill 
and that bill weren't paid for, so the pay-as-you-go didn't mean much.
  But some of us believe that when we create a law we ought to either 
abide by the law or change it. This needed to be covered. In looking 
for ways to come up with funds to cover these current interest rates, 
some of us were reminded of the fact that ObamaCare, that most of the 
country didn't want--most of the country begged Congress, under Speaker 
Pelosi and Harry Reid, not to pass--and that Americans, even in 
Massachusetts and other places normally controlled by Democrats, 
expressed their will by electing Democrats, this time elected 
Republicans so they could stop ObamaCare. It took a procedural twist 
that was quite unseemly in order to get it passed, but the American 
people didn't want it.
  I realize that since President Obama sees ObamaCare as his defining 
issue, his biggest issue, that he would not ever sign a bill that 
repealed ObamaCare in its entirety. I can get that. I understand that. 
I respect that. But it seemed to some of us that surely, as the 
President in every speech talks about being financially responsible, 
surely he would see that we shouldn't spend the $105 billion 
implementing ObamaCare until we find out if it's constitutional; 
because to use $105 billion to implement a bill, actually a takeover of 
people's rights, to implement that only to have it struck down would 
mean we had wasted tens of billions of dollars. My thought was, 
surely--surely--President Obama would be willing to meet us at that 
point. Sure, he won't agree to a complete repeal, but let's just 
suspend the spending until we find out whether the Supreme Court says 
it's constitutional or not. How could you be against that?
  Well, he was, because as the bill was shoved down the throats of 
Americans, it became very evident that they didn't care what Americans 
thought, don't really care what the Supreme Court thinks. Apparently, 
many don't even know what the Supreme Court thinks or says because the 
President, himself, said it would just be such a fundamental change 
from what the Supreme Court had ever done before.
  Obviously, he was not aware of recent cases like Marbury v. Madison. 
I think that was around 1803. Not all schools have copies of those 
newer cases like that.
  Anyway, it's not fundamentally different from what the Supreme Court 
has done in the past. What's fundamentally different is to have a 
Congress push through a bill like ObamaCare that's about one thing, the 
``GRE,'' the government running everything, with a majority, a big 
majority of Americans saying, Please, don't do this. So it was done.
  In looking for ways to pay for this bill today, it seemed to many of 
us that a good and appropriate course would be to say let's take some 
of that money, a tiny, tiny bit of that money from ObamaCare that many 
of us think will be struck down, that shouldn't be spent till we find 
out if it's going to be struck down, and let's use that to pay for the 
$6 billion for this program. It made sense to some of us.
  But as I have already read, there were 13 Democrats that stood up and 
said, Okay, we can go along with that. Let's wait and see if ObamaCare 
is struck down or not before we spend any more of that money on 
ObamaCare. In the meantime, we will use it to pay for the student loan 
rates that we're out there blasting Republicans for not caring about.
  This was a way to be bipartisan, and 13 Democrats were bipartisan, 
and we appreciate them reaching across the aisle to pass this bill with 
us with a big majority. The President, on the other hand, apparently 
did get word that despite all his rhetoric that we don't care about the 
student loan rates on our side of the aisle, we don't care about 
students, as he runs around the country condemning us, somebody at the 
White House got word, because there was the issue of a veto threat if 
we passed this bill that keeps student interest rates where they are.
  Now, when I first heard that we were going to potentially pass a 
student loan bill that would affect interest rates, I considered that I 
may have to vote ``present'' because my wife and I have student loans 
for our children that we are paying back. Well, it turns out this bill 
will not help me one bit. My interest rates are still way above this.
  My wife and I took out student loans for our children. They're way 
above this. This doesn't affect our loans that we have, and, therefore, 
I was able to vote for this bill to help those students that 
are getting loans in the present.

  The reason I feel compelled, my wife and I felt compelled to start 
taking out student loans and to take responsibility for paying those 
loans, was because, before I ever ran for office as a judge, my wife 
and I had set aside money in accounts that would pay for our kids' 
college when they got there, would increase in value, increase in 
value. By the time they got ready for college, the money would be there 
to pay for it.
  But when we took, we believed it was, a calling for me to run for 
judge--they badly needed a new judge--we knew it would be a big hit 
financially. Just as when I ran for Congress, we had to really feel 
compelled that this was the course for our lives.

[[Page H2264]]

                              {time}  1450

  Once we felt that, we cashed out every asset except our home, our 
retirement accounts, everything. Now, a little scarier to some than 
others, I knew I could make a lot more money because I did before. I 
made a number of times more in the private sector a couple years before 
I started running. The practice was going good. I didn't want my 
children to have to be encumbered with massive college debt for one 
reason, because I felt called to be a public servant. So we've taken on 
those student loans.
  So it doesn't go over too well with a person like me who has 
sacrificed all our assets except our home to come be a part of Congress 
and to try to get things on track. It doesn't make me feel too pleasant 
when people say that I don't care about students, student loans and 
their rates. We get it. We understand. We want students to do well. But 
more than that, we want them to have a vibrant economy and a job 
waiting for them when they get out of college.
  And it should be an exciting time of renaissance and economic boon in 
America, except for this President. If he would simply get out of the 
way. We have found that we can be energy independent, and we don't have 
to send billions and billions of dollars, 42 cents out of every dollar 
of which we're borrowing, we don't have to send all that money to the 
Solyndras and all the cronies of this administration, if he could just 
get out of the way and allow the market to work and collect the revenue 
that comes pouring in from the income tax, from the businesses, 
including the oil companies and the independent oil and gas companies 
as they start producing more of our own energy.
  It should be a new day in America. It should be a time of renaissance 
here. Instead, people are struggling to figure out how much food can I 
afford for my family when I'm paying $70 and $80 to fill up my gas tank 
when it shouldn't be more than $40, because this administration has 
given every indication by its actions--not its words but by its 
actions--that it will do nothing to help us become energy independent.
  We talk about, gee, natural gas, from this administration, natural 
gas can really help out. I'm for all of the above. Well, apparently 
that means the President is for all of the above up in the sky 
somewhere because he's doing everything he can to keep us from drilling 
and producing the energy we've got.
  We should be thanking God every day for blessing this country with 
more energy than any country in the world. And people like the Chinese 
are wondering: What is going on with these people? They've got more 
energy than anybody in the world. We're having to run to South America, 
Africa, and other places to buy their energy because we just don't have 
enough. They've got all they'll need, but they're putting it off-limits 
and won't produce it.
  It's kind of strange to thinking people that we're not utilizing the 
blessings that are found in this country. Well, it's time we started, 
and if we do that, then the students will have jobs, and they can pay 
them back more quickly. We do care, and this bill today shows that.
  Now, I want to take up another topic right quickly here, something 
called the United States Post Office. Now, there are some who think we 
ought to just get the government out of the post office business 
altogether, and normally I'm a guy that believes, if a private entity 
can do a better job than the government, then let's let the private 
entity do it. But there's a problem here, and it's called the U.S. 
Constitution, article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have power to--
and you go through the listed empowerments--establish post offices and 
post roads.
  If you go through our history, you will find out that actually they 
were quite concerned about the King being able to prevent them from 
sending newspapers, news and messages around that could inform people 
of what was really going on. They thought it was so important that 
there be a government post office, and I do think. But we can't be 
stupid about the way it's running, and we have people in management 
positions in the United States Post Office who have been worse than 
stupid. Incompetent doesn't begin to touch what some in management of 
the U.S. Post Office have been doing. It's as if they want to kill it 
off.
  Now, there are a lot of issues, but I think the biggest issue is in 
the middle and upper management of the post office. Because I've seen, 
on more than one occasion, an announcement by the United States Post 
Office that we are going to close this post office, we're going to 
close this facility, and that was followed with a statement that, and 
therefore we are going to pay for an independent study to show that we 
should close these facilities.
  Well, duh. If you go pay somebody to do a study to justify the 
decision you've already made, you've got no business being in a 
management position because you're not using the facts and information 
at hand to make your decisions. You make your decisions willy-nilly 
regardless of what the facts dictate should occur.
  We got a good indication of that recently in east Texas. We got a map 
sent out by these brilliant managers of the U.S. Post Office explaining 
a decision they had made.
  I'm going to get this up here because it's important that the 
management that sent this out understands how silly and how 
ridiculously incompetent they are.
  Now, they were making a decision with regard to a postal processing 
facility near Tyler, Texas. Tyler, Texas is located in Smith County. 
Now, in Texas, though, we do have a Tyler County, and in Tyler County 
you find towns like Woodville, Chester, and Warren, places like that; 
but you don't find Tyler, Texas, or the Tyler, Texas, processing 
facility in Tyler County. It's in Smith County. Yet we had a 
determination by the management of the U.S. Post Office that it would 
be more effective to shut down the Tyler processing facility, and they 
sent out this map to show this.
  This is an exact enlargement of the map the U.S. postal management 
sent out to justify their closing a processing facility near Tyler, 
Texas. In the center of this circle is Tyler County. It's not near 
Tyler, Texas. It's not near the processing facility.
  Now, you might say, well, surely they went out and talked to the 
people at the processing facility, looked to see if there were 
decisions that could made to make it more efficient and more 
economically viable, those kinds of things, and the answer would 
clearly be: How can they go out and talk to them when they don't even 
know where Tyler, Texas is? They think it's in Tyler County.
  We've got some morons. Maybe they're just incompetent. Who knows?
  But when we look to see, okay, how is the post office adjusting, we 
figure, well, as any business would know, you don't want to hurt the 
retail business and you don't want to make it more difficult for people 
to use the retail end of your business. That would be the local post 
offices. So what have these mental giants done? They've said, We're 
going to close lots of post offices and make it much more difficult for 
you to use our services.

                              {time}  1500

  Not only that, we're going to close processing facilities that make 
the mail move many times more quickly, more efficiently, and save 
tremendous amounts of gasoline because we do the processing close to 
where it occurs. They're talking about closing a processing facility in 
Lufkin, Texas--I'm sure they don't know where that one is either. But 
when you look at what they've done, it makes no sense.
  Now, this is the map they sent out with Tyler County as the center. 
This tells you, down here is Tyler County; up here is Tyler, Texas. 
They're not even close. They don't cover the same areas. And yet they 
were using information down here about Tyler County to justify closing 
a facility up here. Surely, they found their error, but they don't care 
because they're in middle management. What difference does it make? 
They're not accountable. They don't have to show a profit. They don't 
have to show efficiency.
  So what do they do? Here's part of what's going on with the post 
office. Well, times are tough, so let's create more senior management 
staff. How about that. Percent management change from 1997 to 2012, up 
41.25 percent. Wow, that's some smart folks. Gee, we need more retail, 
we need people using our services more; let's close

[[Page H2265]]

retail facilities, make it more difficult to use them. Let's get more 
senior management in there, and gee, that will make a lot of 
difference. We've gone up 1,006 percent on inspector generals, and 
local management losses have been rather dramatic. That's not the way 
to become more efficient.
  Not only that, they could take a clue from what America is doing. It 
used to be that you pulled into a service station and you got service. 
Now you pull into a service station, the only service is what you get 
out of the car and do yourself. I prefer to do that anyway. I've worked 
in service stations, and I actually enjoyed it. So I don't want anybody 
else pumping my gas. When I finish and the thing clicks off, I raise 
the hose up and I get every bit of the gas that I've got in that hose.
  Well, let's look at the routes. Right now, if you mail a letter in 
Tyler, Texas, to go to Lufkin, Texas, it will travel 84 miles. You mail 
one from Tyler to Palestine--and it is Palestine in East Texas--total 
is 47 miles. You mail a letter from Tyler to Longview, it's 38 miles.
  Under the new plan--that's certainly not going to save any gasoline--
our brilliant postal management will have you mail a letter from Tyler 
that's going to Longview, the 38 miles, now it will go to the Dallas 
area, then over to Shreveport, then back to Longview. We're not going 
to process it here. We're going to go from 38 miles to 389 miles to 
deliver a letter.
  If you're going to send a letter down here, let's see, I can't tell 
where that is. It looks like down 35, so maybe that's to Waco or 
Austin. So you want to send it there--oh, I see. If you want to mail a 
letter from Tyler to Palestine, instead of 50-something miles, it will 
go Tyler to Dallas, down here to Austin, then back to Palestine. If you 
want to mail a letter the short distance to Lufkin, well, we're going 
to make it go 10 times further. We're going to go to Dallas, and then 
clear down--I guess that's to Houston, and then back up to Lufkin. 
We're going to go about 10 times as far to deliver a letter as we did 
before. This is nuts.
  What we've seen in America is, as times got tough, service stations 
said, you know what, we're going to let you do your own pumping. That 
will help us save and be more efficient. As time has gone on, they said 
you know what, let's put other services in this gas station, so you see 
banks, you see other things. In some post offices, they were beginning 
to do that. They have agreements with the State. Let's let the State 
lease or pay us to do some of the State services here. Let's allow them 
to come in and get passports here. There were some people that were 
thinking--and thinking right--you combine other services, this post 
office will be the center of the community. It will be efficient, it 
will be local, it will bring people to our retail outlet, and they will 
have more people using our services at the post office.
  Not the way these mental giants figure it; oh, no. We're going to 
close post offices. We're going to close processing facilities and make 
it cost a tremendous amount more. We're going to make these decisions, 
and then we're going to go out, and we're going to hire people to do a 
study to come to a conclusion--we tell them, all in the name of making 
the post office more efficient. That is nuts.
  It's time to clean out the management of the United States Post 
Office. I've dealt with postal employees all my adult life. Those are 
hardworking folks. People that deliver the mail, people that stand 
there behind the counter, take abuse all day, lines getting longer 
because we're not replacing the people when they leave, they're good 
people. They're hardworking people. There are some issues with 
pensions, we can deal with those. But for heaven's sake, it's time to 
get rid of top-heavy management making ridiculous decisions, and we can 
improve our lot here.
  One other thing. Last night, I was on a telephone town hall with 
Rusty Humphries and a lot of Tea Party folks. A question was asked--
they slipped in a ringer in there, a Democrat, who said: Gee, you say 
you're a Christian. How could you vote to take money away from helping 
seniors with their health care? And how could you help the major oil 
companies by giving money to them? Quickly let me just say, a subsidy 
is a gift or grant of money. Look it up. No oil company is getting a 
gift or grant of money. They're getting deductions.
  If you forget what the President said, he said he's going after major 
oil, declaring war on them. Ridiculous. We have, in the President's 
jobs bill, exactly what he's doing. He's eliminating the deductions 
that will bankrupt the independent oil and gas companies in America. It 
won't affect the major oil companies. He says he's declaring war on the 
major oil and big evil oil, but the truth is he's going to bankrupt the 
independent oil and gas producers that produce and drill and maintain 
95 percent of the wells in America.
  So what will be the effect of this President's so-called ``war'' on 
major oil? It will put the independents out of business, 95 percent of 
the wells will not be drilled and maintained. That will mean more 
profit than any time in the history of the world for the major oil 
companies. It's time to get that under control.
  And to the gentleman that we got cut off with last night because we 
were out of time, let me just say: Son, dumb, dependent, and Democrat 
is no way to go through life.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.

                          ____________________