Joe Manchin

The type of money we're putting in for maintenance is equal to how much?

I just applaud Senator Coburn's effort on this bringing it to our attention. But the bottom line is that he's absolutely correct.

I want us to try to endow. I want us to create the place where we can have people come in and invest in our parks.

I think we have to look at it as a whole, not just as what is good for my State.

But the mandated 2-percent line, you have been below that since 2009, right?

The other thing I would say, based on that reply and the other replies I have heard, are we relying on the pure hope that the housing market is going to recover?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and mine is more basically philosophical, where we are going...

It is imperative that reform be done without inflicting further harm on the already fragile housing market and, most importantly, does not inadvertently harm creditworthy Americans who wish to own their home.

So is it fair to say the Administration's claims are misleading?

I will not rest until this injustice is fixed.

I want to ask my friend this question: Does he believe he could have built that plant in North Dakota today under the regulations that the EPA and this administration were to put in front of him?

Let me ask another question. If the plan the President has put forward makes it almost impossible to build another coal plant--and maybe shut down many in this country--is there still going to be a demand for our coal overseas? Will we be…

Here in Washington, in the atmosphere that you are looked upon, let's say, in the atmosphere you enter into, do they believe we just throw caution to the wind and we do not care about the environment because we come from an energy State…

If I may ask the Senator this, the Senator and I know the facts of what we do in our States and how we do it and how much energy we produce. Both of our States are energy-producing States. We are net exporters of energy, correct?

I think what we are talking about also is that they are saying if it consolidates, it strings the payment out for the maximum of 30 years, which means they are paying a lot more back in interest; correct? That is the argument I have heard…

So that is $9 billion versus $2 billion, and that is about as simple as I can make it.

If we look at it from year to year, we have 3.4 percent for the smallest group, 6.8 percent for everybody above that, and 7.9 percent for PLUS. Under our bill, it is 3.66 percent for all undergraduates, and every rate comes down; correct?

I have one question that I would like to ask in the spirit of a colloquy to my dear friend from Iowa. They are saying 1 year, and they are looking at the compromised, bipartisan bill we have worked on. In 3 or 4 years the rates may go up…

Maybe Congress did a better job of getting its financial house in order than we have.

Everybody in college during that period of time could borrow at the low rate of 2 percent with no interest at all?

Was that for every student who was in college at that time no matter what their ranking or what service they had performed in the military or whether they had the GI bill?

I think we are going to have a chance to vote on one bill, and that is about $2 billion. In West Virginia that is a lot of money in savings of $7 billion that students don't have to pay in interest, which is across the board for students…

I don't intend to vote on the extension again because we have not fixed it. By voting on this extension, what we are voting on is 3.4 percent just for the subsidized, and everybody will be at 6.8 percent, and 7.9 percent for PLUS loans…

I am not sure how the Senator voted on the extension a year ago. I voted for the extension a year ago.

I think what they are referring to--and I might have misunderstood, but I think I am accurate on this. Everyone will take the loans for the longest period of time, and I just got out of school so I want the smallest payment. Four or five…