|00:00:00||WAS CUT, CERTAINLY THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ACCESS TO COLLEGE, REMAINS URGENT AND IMPORTANT, THE ECONOMY HAS BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE, NOT LESS SYSTEM OF WHAT HAS CAUSED THIS SORT OF WILLINGNESS TO SORT OF TURN OUR BACKS AS A CONGRESS, MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON YOUNG PEOPLE?|
|00:00:24||WHAT DO YOU THINK HAS CHANGED?|
|00:00:26||MR. COURTNEY: CONGRESSMAN BISHOP WAS AROUND BEFORE THE 2006 LECH AND WAS THERE WHEN WE PASSED THE COLLEGE|
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Courtney, I was just wondering. You talked about how the interest rate was cut in half by the prior Congress, which was obviously very important for young people and for families, and how the Stafford Act was created and named after Republicans. So this was done in a bipartisan way, which reminds me that I just finished reading a book called ``An Uncommon Man'' about Senator Pell. In fact, it recounted some of the bipartisanship that existed. I'm wondering what your sense of it is. Why was it that access to higher education seemed to enjoy bipartisan support as recently as a year or two ago when the rate was cut? Certainly the importance of higher education and access to college remains urgent and important. The economy has become more competitive, not less. So what has caused this sort of willingness of my friends on the other side of the aisle to turn their backs on young people? What do you think has changed?