U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–771 PDF 2012

GOVERNMENT–RUN STUDENT LOANS: 

ENSURING THE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM IS 

ACCOUNTABLE TO STUDENTS AND TAXPAYERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 25, 2011 

Serial No. 112–45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

George Miller, California 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 25, 2011 .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training ......................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bandre ́, Mark, vice president for enrollment management and student 

affairs, Baker University .............................................................................. 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Day, Ron, director of financial aid, Kennesaw State University .................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Hoover, Nancy, on behalf of the National Direct Student Loan Coalition 

(NDSLC) ........................................................................................................ 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Runcie, James W., Chief Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student 

Aid, U.S. Department of Education ............................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Additional Submissions: 

Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey: 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 51 

Mrs. Foxx: 

Letter, dated Oct. 25, 2011, from the National Council of Higher 

Education Loan Programs, Inc. ............................................................ 48 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 49 

Ms. Hoover: 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 52 

Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Iowa: 

Question submitted for the record ........................................................... 51 

Mr. Runcie: 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 55 

(1) 

GOVERNMENT–RUN STUDENT LOANS: 

ENSURING THE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM IS 

ACCOUNTABLE TO STUDENTS AND TAXPAYERS 

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Kline, Petri, Biggert, Platts, Roe, 

Thompson, Bucshon, Hinojosa, Tierney, Altmire, Bishop, Andrews, 

Davis, Loebsack, and Miller. 

Staff Present: Jennifer Allen, Press Secretary; Katherine 

Bathgate, Press Assistant/New Media Coordinator; Casey Buboltz, 

Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Daniela Garcia, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy 

Counsel and Senior Advisor; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff 

Member; Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Krisann Pearce, 

General Counsel; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human 

Services Oversight Counsel; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant 

to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Kate 

Ahlgren, Minority Investigative Counsel; Daniel Brown, Minority 

Junior Legislative Assistant; Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; John D’Elia, Minority Staff Assistant; Jessica Finkel, Minority 

Detailee—Education; Brian Levin, Minority New Media Press Assistant; Melissa Salmanowitz, Minority Communications Director 

for Education; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel. 

Chairwoman FOXX. A very strong quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I would like to thank our witnesses for 

joining us today. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your perspective on the Department of Education’s implementation of the 

Direct Loan Program. 

Nineteen months ago, the Democrat-controlled Congress approved a federal takeover of the student loan industry to help pay 

for the president’s health care law. My Republican colleagues and 

I were rightly concerned this political tactic could have unintended 

consequences on the nation’s students’ higher education institutions and our economy. Any time the federal government assumes 
2 

control over a private sector industry, there can be national complications. 

As the sole provider and guarantor of federal student loans, the 

Department of Education is now one of the largest banks in the nation. In fiscal year 2012, it is expected to originate $124 billion in 

student loans. This is an enormous responsibility for any company 

or organization, let alone the agency also tasked with administering all federal education programs. 

When the transition to the Direct Loan Program began, critics 

warned of a possible increase in student default loan rates. In today’s economic climate with reports of loan default rates on the 

rise, this is something the committee should take seriously. 

Some are also concerned that growing default rates could be further exacerbated by the elimination of helpful services previously 

available through the now defunct Federal Family Education Loan 

Program. These services, such as debt counseling, default prevention programs, and financial aid personnel training help to ensure 

financial aid officers and students fully understood the loan terms 

and processes. Schools and students must now rely on the Department of Education to provide these services, which many complain 

are no longer being offered or effectively administered. 

The transition to the Direct Loan Program has also resulted in 

a decline in customer service for students and financial aid officers. 

Given the volume of students applying for loan assistance, it has 

become difficult to speak to a program administrator to ask questions or share concerns about the loan process. Although the Department of Education had lofty promises of strong customer service when this transition began, many schools have voiced concerns 

about increasing instances of problems and mistakes. 

For example, earlier this month the Direct Loan Web site 

crashed and users were able to see other students’ personal and financial information. The implications of this kind of Web site malfunction are severe particularly when it affects millions of borrowers nationwide. 

Additionally, institutions have criticized the Department’s handling of student loan data. Some schools report they no longer receive accurate or consistent information from the handful of government loan servicers which limits their ability to assist students 

with their loan options and terms. 

As members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and 

Workforce Training, we have the responsibility to conduct proper 

oversight to ensure the Direct Loan Program is meeting the needs 

of higher education institutions, students, and taxpayers. The witnesses with us today will provide interesting insight into execution 

and accountability measures of the program. I look forward to a 

productive discussion on this important issue. 

I now would like to recognize my distinguished colleague, Rubin 

Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Mrs. Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I’d like to thank our 

witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the opportunity to hear your perspective on the Department of Education’s implementation of the Direct Loan Program. 
3 

Nineteen months ago, the Democrat-controlled Congress approved a federal takeover of the student loan industry to help pay for the president’s health care law. 

My Republican colleagues and I were rightly concerned this political tactic could 

have unintended consequences on the nation’s students, higher education institutions, and our economy. Any time the federal government assumes control over a 

private sector industry, there can be national implications. 

As the sole provider and grantor of federal student loans, the Department of Education is now one of the largest banks in the nation. In fiscal year 2012, it is expected to originate $124 billion in student loans. This is an enormous responsibility 

for any company or organization, let alone the agency also tasked with administering all federal education programs. 

When the transition to the Direct Loan Program began, critics warned of a possible increase in student loan default rates. In today’s economic climate, with reports of loan default rates on the rise, this is something the committee should take 

seriously. 

Some are also concerned that growing default rates could be further exacerbated 

by the elimination of helpful services previously available through the now defunct 

Federal Family Education Loan Program. These services, such as debt counseling, 

default prevention programs, and financial aid personnel training, helped ensure financial aid officers and students fully understood the loan terms and process. 

Schools and students must now rely on the Department of Education to provide 

these services, which many complain are no longer being offered or effectively administered. 

The transition to the Direct Loan Program has also resulted in a decline in customer service for students and financial aid officers. Given the volume of students 

applying for loan assistance, it has become difficult to speak to a program administrator to ask questions or share concerns about the loan process. Although the Department of Education had lofty promises of strong customer service when this transition began, many schools have voiced concerns about increasing instances of problems and mistakes. 

For example, earlier this month, the Direct Loan website crashed and users were 

able to see other students’ personal and financial information. The implications of 

this kind of website malfunction are severe, particularly when it affects millions of 

borrowers nationwide. 

Additionally, institutions have criticized the department’s handling of student 

loan data. Some schools report they no longer receive accurate or consistent information from the handful of government loan servicers, which limits their ability to 

assist students with their loan options and terms. 

As members of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 

we have a responsibility to conduct proper oversight to ensure the Direct Loan Program is meeting the needs of higher education institutions, students, and taxpayers. 

The witnesses with us today will provide interesting insight into execution and accountability measures of the program. I look forward to a productive discussion on 

this important issue. 

I now recognize my distinguished colleague, Rube ́n Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I also want to welcome and thank our distinguished witnesses for 

joining us today. It is a pleasure to see you, and we look forward 

to your presentations. 

Today’s hearing will provide us with an update of the U.S. Department of Education’s remarkably successful transition from the 

Federal Family Education Loan Program, better known as FFELP, 

to the Direct Loan Program. As ranking member of this subcommittee, I am pleased that about 6,000 schools are using the Direct Loan Program. 

Enacted as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 

Act of 2010, the Student Aid and—SAFRA, which is the Student 

Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, took both steps to expand accessibility and affordability in higher education by ending the taxpayer subsidized federally guaranteed Federal Family Education 
4 

Loan Program and replaced it with the William D. Ford Federal 

Direct Loan Program. 

SAFRA, a tremendous victory for students, families, and taxpayers, made Federal college loans more stable and efficient at no 

cost to the taxpayers, reinvested billions of dollars into student financial aid programs such as Pell Grant, and supported President 

Obama’s college access and completion goals. 

On July 1, 2010, eligible students began borrowing directly from 

the Department of Education and no longer paid new subsidies to 

banks to make loans. Under the DL programs, student lending remains a federal program, and the Department of Education continues to work with the private sector and nonprofits to service student loans. 

In terms of oversight, while the Department of Education’s Office 

of Inspector General has conducted several reviews of the transition to DL programs, I understand that none of these reviews have 

identified material issues associated with the transition. Instead, 

the reviews demonstrate that the Department has led a seamless 

and successful transition to the DL program. In fact, the first report found that the Office of Federal Student Aid took actions to 

monitor student loan market conditions and estimate the impact of 

the significant changes on DL origination and servicing demands. 

FSA also took actions to expand existing DL processing systems, 

awarded four contracts to assist in servicing potential log-in increase and appeared to have access to sufficient resources to assist 

schools with the ability to transition to the DL program and maintain FSA’s compliance monitoring activities. 

The second report found that although there was a variance between the actual and the projected monthly activity in the DL’s 

origination process, the level of risk in exceeding the DL origination capacity was low. 

The final report found that FSA took actions to ensure the effective processing of student loans as a result of the 100 percent transition to the DL program. 

The OIG also concluded that the FSA had been providing appropriate technical assistance to help impacted schools successfully 

transition to the DL program. 

While I am encouraged by the OIG’s findings, we must be vigilant in protecting the taxpayer investment in higher education programs. Today, I am eager to hear more about the transition from 

our panel of witnesses and about how the Department is ensuring 

accountability to students and taxpayers. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I want to welcome and thank our distinguished 

witnesses for joining us. 

Today’s hearing will provide us with an update of the U.S. Department of Education’s remarkably successful transition from the Federal Family Education Loan 

Program (FFELP) to the Direct Loan Program (DL). As Ranking Member of this 

Subcommittee, I am pleased that about 6,000 schools are using the Direct Loan Program. 

Enacted as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, the 

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), took bold steps to expand acces-
5 

sibility and affordability in higher education by ending the taxpayer-subsidized, federally guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and replacing 

it with the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) Program. 

SAFRA, a tremendous victory for students, families, and taxpayers, made federal 

college loans more stable and efficient at no cost to taxpayers, reinvested billions 

of dollars into student financial aid programs such as Pell Grants, and supported 

President Obama’s college access and completion goals. 

In July 1, 2010, eligible students began borrowing directly from the Department 

of Education and no longer paid new subsides to banks to make loans. 

Under the DL Program, student lending remains a federal program and the Department of Education continues to work with the private sector and non-profits to 

service student loans. 

In terms of oversight, while the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) has conducted several reviews of the transition to DL program, I understand that none of these reviews have identified material issues associated with 

the transition. 

Instead, the reviews demonstrate that the department has led a seamless and 

successful transition to the DL program. 

In fact, the first report found that the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) took 

actions to monitor student loan market conditions and estimate the impact of the 

significant changes on DL origination and servicing demands. 

FSA also took actions to expand existing DL processing systems; awarded four 

contracts to assist in servicing potential volume increase; and appeared to have access to sufficient resources to assist schools with the ability to transition to the DL 

program and maintain FSA’s compliance monitoring activities. 

The second report found that although there was a variance between the actual 

and the projected monthly activity in the DL’s origination process, the level of risk 

in exceeding the DL origination capacity was low. 

The final report found that FSA took actions to ensure the effective processing 

of student loans as a result of the 100 percent transition to the DL program. The 

OIG also concluded that the FSA had been providing appropriate technical assistance to help impacted schools successfully transition to the DL program. 

While I am encouraged by the OIG’s findings, we must be vigilant in protecting 

the taxpayer investment in higher education programs. 

Today, I am eager to hear more about the transition from our panel of witnesses 

and about how the Department is ensuring accountability to students and taxpayers. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the permanent hearing record. Without objection, 

the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing 

record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Mr. James Runcie was appointed as the Chief Operating Officer 

for the Office of Federal Student Aid on September 15, 2011. Before 

joining the Department of Education, Mr. Runcie served as co-head 

of Equity Corporate Finance of UBS investment bank. 

Mr. Ron Day is the Director of Financial Aid at Kennesaw State 

University. Prior to Kennesaw State University, Mr. Day served in 

the same capacity at several other schools. 

Ms. Nancy Hoover has been Denison University’s Director of Financial Aid for more than 17 years. She is the immediate past national chair of the National Direct Student Loan Coalition. 

Mr. Mark Bandre ́ has served as Vice President for Enrollment 

Management and Student Affairs for Baker University since June 

2010 after having served in similar capacities at other schools. 
6 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You will have 5 minutes to present 

your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will turn 

green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. And when 

your time has expired, the light will turn red, at which point I 

would ask that you wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. 

After you have testified, members will each have 5 minutes to ask 

questions of the panel. And of course your submitted remarks will 

be made a part of the record. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Runcie for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. RUNCIE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, OFFICE OF FEDERAL STUDENT AID, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF EDUCATION 

Mr. RUNCIE. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Congressman Hinojosa, and other distinguished committee members, for the opportunity to testify before the committee. 

My name is Jim Runcie, and a little over a month ago I was appointed by Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, to be the Chief 

Operating Officer of the Department’s Federal Student Aid Office. 

Federal Student Aid, or FSA, is responsible for implementing 

and overseeing the federal student financial assistance programs. 

I am here today to discuss the transition from two major federal 

student loan programs to 100 percent direct lending. I also want 

to share with you the many new processes and programs that have 

been implemented by the Department to ensure appropriate stewardship of taxpayer funds and the continued integrity of the student aid programs. 

Let me begin by providing some context. As you know, the decline of the financial markets that began in 2007 directly affected 

student lending by severely restricting the availability of capital for 

private lenders to make federally supported student loans. This potentially could have left millions of students without the funds 

needed to finance their education. Many schools observing the economic and financial landscape at the time began the process of 

transitioning to the DL program. In fact, the number of schools entering the DL program increased by 52 percent in the 19 months 

prior to President Obama’s proposal to originate all federal student 

loans through a single loan program. 

As the number of schools moving to the DL program increased, 

we took steps to make sure that FSA had the capacity to assume 

additional direct loan volumes. Beginning in 2008, we increased 

our standby loan origination capacity to ensure it could handle expected volumes. We also augmented our back-end servicing capacity with the award of loan servicing contracts to four private sector 

companies. The structure of these contracts ensures that borrowers 

will have access to better counseling to help manage their student 

loan obligations. Borrowers will also receive the highest quality 

service at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers. 

In the summer of 2009, FSA began reaching out to schools that 

were considering joining the DL program. In October, we implemented a comprehensive training plan designed to assist schools 

with the transition. I can report to the committee that every school 

wishing to originate a direct loan has been able to do so. Last year, 
7 

the Department made $102 billion in direct loans to 11.5 million 

students and parent borrowers. This transition from a dual program structure increased the Direct Loan Program disbursements 

from $42.6 billion in the 2009-2010 academic year to $102.2 billion 

the following year. 

With the number of schools participating in direct lending came 

the need to significantly increase our program’s support efforts. We 

increased staff to provide oversight and compliance to ensure that 

taxpayer funds are being used as intended. In addition, we continued to enhance our processes to identify at-risk schools. This will 

ensure the highest integrity in the student aid programs. 

We are also taking steps to improve accuracy of information provided by students and families through the Free Application for 

Student Federal Aid, or FASFA. This includes the new IRS data 

retrieval tool which provides greater accuracy of the financial information provided by applicants, and new regulations will help the 

Department and institutions better target the verification of student reported data. 

We augmented our risk management capacity within FSA to better identify and mitigate systemic, operational, and business 

vulnerabilities. Additionally, we are enhancing our security efforts 

with those organizations charged with compiling and storing student aid data. With the growth in federal student aids borrowing 

base, we are also increasing our customer outreach, default prevention, and risk management efforts. 

Last year, FSA established its customer experience office, which 

is charged with managing customer advocacy, financial literacy, 

and consumer protection. We also updated our student loan counseling for borrowers and provided incentives to our new private sector loan servicers to better counsel borrowers in an effort to reduce 

defaults. 

Ultimately, it is the student aid recipients and their families who 

are our customers, and we want to equip them with the best tools 

and resources to make informed financial decisions. 

In an effort to support the transition to and, more specifically, to 

enhance the financial literacy and deprevention services for student 

borrowers, the Secretary of Education invited sale program guarantee agencies to submit proposals for voluntary flexible agreements, or VFAs. VFAs use existing statutory authority to leverage 

private sector best practices to improve efficiencies and customer 

service at no additional cost to taxpayers. We look forward to working with the guarantee agencies as they continue to provide services to students and families. 

A summary of our progress to date would be incomplete without 

an acknowledgment of the student aid staff. I also want to recognize financial aid professionals at institutions participating in the 

DL program, including my colleagues on this panel, for their tremendous efforts in enabling this transition. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I am happy to take 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Runcie follows:] 
8 

Prepared Statement of James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, 

Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on the Department 

of Education’s office of Federal Student Aid’s progress in transitioning to the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan Program). I believe that 

this transition has been and continues to be a success, and I am pleased to appear 

before you today. 

A little over a month ago, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appointed me as 

the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid. Prior to this appointment, I held 

the position of Deputy Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid. By way of 

background, my prior experience includes over 20 years in management and financial services in the private industry. I was also a recipient of federal financial assistance over 20 years ago while attending Harvard University as a graduate student. 

I am honored to serve the very programs that helped me to complete my education. 

It is a privilege to be a part of an organization that supports student access to higher education and workforce training. 

Federal Student Aid is responsible for implementing and overseeing the federal 

student financial assistance programs, authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). These programs represent the largest source of student 

aid for postsecondary education in the United States. Last year, Federal Student 

Aid processed over 21 million applications for federal student aid and delivered 

roughly $150 billion in grant, work-study, and loan assistance to approximately 15 

million postsecondary students and their families. Today, our loan portfolio is valued at over $848 billion, with 36 million individual borrowers and 146 million loans. 

Federal Student Aid is not alone in these efforts; we are supported by our publicprivate partnerships. Federal Student Aid’s workforce includes over 1200 employees 

supported by approximately 9,000 private sector contract employees. In fact, approximately 84 percent of Federal Student Aid’s administrative budget goes to private-sector vendors. In addition, we are supported by, and work closely with several 

offices within the Department. As the numbers will tell, we efficiently manage a 

high volume of work with our federal staff in an effort to be good stewards of taxpayer money. 

Before I discuss the Department’s process in transitioning FFEL Program lending 

to the Direct Loan Program, I would like to quickly highlight some of the other work 

Federal Student Aid is doing to support students as they pursue education and 

training beyond high school. 

First, we have greatly simplified the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) as part of our overall strategy to increase access to postsecondary education and meet President Obama’s goal of having ‘‘the best educated, most competitive workforce in the world’’ by 2020. Federal Student Aid redesigned our online application—FAFSA on the Web—with improved ‘‘skip-logic’’ and expanded the availability of the Internal Revenue Service Data Retrieval Tool. These improvements reduced the time for families to complete the application by approximately one third. 

FAFSA on the Web allows financial aid applicants and their parents to retrieve, directly from the Internal Revenue Service, certain income and other information they 

had reported on their federal income tax returns and to automatically transfer that 

information to their FAFSA. This not only makes it easier for families to complete 

the application, but it also increases the accuracy of the information used to determine a student’s eligibility for federal student aid. Aid applicants are taking note 

of these changes. Last quarter, the FAFSA received a score of 90 from the American 

Customer Satisfaction Index, which is a national economic indicator of customer 

evaluations of the quality of products and services available to household consumers 

in the United States. The average government score is 75, and scores above 88 are 

considered ‘‘outstanding.’’ 

Another improvement I would like to highlight is the smooth completion of the 

Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Loan Purchase Programs, which resulted 

from the authority given to the Secretary of Education in the Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA). As you know, the decline in the 

financial markets that began in 2007 directly affected student lending by severely 

restricting the availability of capital for private lenders to make federally supported 

student loans. This crisis had the potential to leave millions of students without the 

funds needed for a postsecondary education. We have many of you on this Committee to thank for ensuring students had access to these funds. 

As a result of Congressional action, the Administration established the ECASLA 

Loan Purchase Programs. By authorizing the Department to purchase eligible federal student loans, the ECASLA Loan Purchase Programs provided FFEL lenders 

with the capital necessary to make Stafford and PLUS loans for the 2008—09 and 
9 

2009—10 academic years. The purchase of new loans under the ECASLA Program 

was completed on October 15, 2010 after the Department purchased almost $109 billion in FFEL Program loans representing approximately 85 percent of all FFEL 

loans disbursed during that period. In addition to these programs, the Department 

also guaranteed another $41 billion in FFEL Program loans financed by an assetbacked commercial paper conduit 

These are just a few of the many achievements Federal Student Aid has accomplished in the past few years, while continuing to provide record amounts of aid at 

lower incremental cost to more students than ever before. I am very proud to report 

these achievements to the Committee today. 

The primary reason I am here today is to discuss Federal Student Aid’s efforts 

to ensure a smooth transition of the FFEL Program to 100 percent Direct Lending. 

I also want to discuss the many processes and programs that have been implemented by the Department to ensure appropriate stewardship of taxpayer funds and 

the continued integrity of the student aid programs. 

On March 30, 2010, President Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, P.L. 111-152. The provisions that prescribed the significant changes 

to the Title IV program are referred to as the SAFRA Act. The SAFRA Act ended 

new lending under the FFEL program beginning July 1, 2010. While the SAFRA 

Act ended new FFEL lending, it is important to note that 77 million FFEL Program 

loans totaling almost $490 billion and representing over 23 million borrowers still 

exist today. 

I am pleased to report that the transition to 100 percent Direct Lending was a success and the Department made $102.2 billion in Direct Loans to 11.5 million recipients during academic year 2010-2011. This transition from the FFEL Program 

to the Direct Loan Program resulted in a 140 percent year-over-year increase in Direct Loan Program disbursements in the 2010-11 academic year. 

Beginning in 2007, the decline in the credit markets compelled a number of 

schools to move to the Direct Loan Program and many FFEL lenders to advocate 

for federal assistance in securing loan principal for new originations. In fact, the 

number of schools entering the Direct Loan Program increased by 52 percent in the 

nineteen months prior to the February 2009 release of President Obama’s 2010 

budget proposal to originate all Stafford, PLUS and Consolidation loans via a single 

loan program. As the number of schools moving to the Direct Loan Program increased, we initiated steps to ensure Federal Student Aid had the capacity to assume additional Direct Loan volume. Beginning in 2008, we increased the Direct 

Loan origination capacity of our Common Origination and Disbursement system. We 

accomplished this through a series of three upgrades that improved the system’s infrastructure and increased call center and system operations support. 

In 2009, the volume of loans sold to the Department by FFEL lenders under the 

ECASLA loan programs quickly grew, while at the same time schools continued 

their migration to the Direct Loan Program. With front-end Direct Loan volumes 

increasing, we augmented our back-end servicing capacity with the award of four 

loan servicing contracts to our Title IV additional servicers (TIVAS): private sector 

companies—Nelnet Servicing, LLC; Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc; 

SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae); and the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance 

Agency. These contracts provided the Department with the capacity necessary to 

support the anticipated increase in the number of loans owned by the Department. 

The structure of these contracts ensures that borrowers will receive the highest 

quality of service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. Today, the Department’s federally held portfolio with the four servicers is more than $125 billion in 

Direct Loans and over $100 billion in outstanding principal and interest on FFEL 

loans purchased by the Department through the ECASLA programs. 

While Federal Student Aid’s systems and processes were ready to support the increase in Direct Loan volume, many schools still required assistance in transitioning 

to the Direct Loan Program. 

In summer 2009, Federal Student Aid began offering assistance and guidance as 

schools contemplated joining the Direct Loan Program. We established the Direct 

Loan Task Force to provide dedicated technical assistance to schools transitioning 

into Direct Lending. 

In October 2009, the Department implemented a comprehensive training plan to 

assist schools transitioning to the Direct Loan Program. That same month, we 

launched our Direct Loan Webinar Training Series for domestic schools. This consisted of a suite of six different modules on multiple aspects of administering the 

Direct Loan Program. We established and published the Direct Loan Source, a 

monthly newsletter for schools considering a transition to the Direct Loan Program. 

In December 2009, we hosted over 5,300 financial aid professionals at our annual 

conference—providing detailed Direct Loan training. We offered Direct Loan train-
10 

ing again at our 2010 annual conference, with over 5,700 attendees. We also conducted Regional Direct Loan Training Conferences in 15 cities across the Nation, 

serving almost 2,600 financial aid professionals. Additionally, our team traveled to 

10 cities to offer training to foreign schools personnel. 

I can report to the Committee that all eligible institutions of higher education in 

the United States wishing to participate in the Direct Loan Program have successfully transitioned and are able to provide Direct Loans to students at their institutions. Today, approximately 5,800 domestic institutions are participating in the Direct Loan Program. 

The SAFRA Act also amended the HEA to provide eligibility for domestic students 

attending foreign institutions to borrow under the Direct Loan Program. Today, 400 

foreign schools now participate in the Direct Loan Program. Every foreign school 

wishing to originate a Direct Loan has been able to do so. 

We are also taking additional steps to augment our loan servicing capacity. The 

Department is now implementing the SAFRA Act provision that providing mandatory funding for the Department to allow certain non-profit servicers to service Direct Loans. Final pricing was announced on April 19, 2011. To date, 15 entities representing 26 not-for-profit servicers and 30 states have entered into memoranda of 

understanding with the Department, and one servicer has entered into a contract 

with the Department and already received its first allocation. We anticipate that 

other not-for-profit servicers will come on line over the next year. 

With the knowledge that most schools participating in the Direct Loan Program 

would have fewer than two years experience in administering the Direct Loan Program, we significantly increased our program support and compliance efforts. Our 

program support staff continues to assist with account reconciliation and technical 

support. We also increased staff to provide oversight and compliance in this area 

to ensure taxpayer funds are being used as intended. In addition, we are reviewing 

existing policies and procedures for identifying at-risk schools and practices, further 

enhancing our ability to ensure integrity of the program. 

As already mentioned, Federal Student Aid is taking steps to improve the accuracy of information provided through the FAFSA. This includes the new IRS Data 

Retrieval Tool which ensures greater accuracy of financial information provided by 

applicants as well as the resulting aid eligibility determination. New regulations, effective July 1, 2012, help institutions better target the verification of student-reported data for student aid recipients. We are also developing targeted verification 

techniques leveraging enhanced skip logic functionality within future versions of the 

aid application. 

We also augmented our risk management capacity within Federal Student Aid to 

identify and mitigate systemic, operational and business vulnerabilities. Additionally, we are enhancing our security of student aid data to protect FSA systems and 

student data. 

With the growth in Federal Student Aid’s borrower base, we are also increasing 

our customer outreach, default prevention and risk management efforts. Last year, 

Federal Student Aid established a Chief Customer Experience Officer, whose role 

is to manage the overall customer experience. This officer is responsible for, among 

other things, customer advocacy, financial literacy and consumer protection. We 

have also updated our financial counseling for new borrowers, and have provided 

incentives for our new loan servicers to reduce defaults. Ultimately, it is student aid 

recipients who are our customers, and we want to equip them with information to 

make informed financial decisions. 

Finally, with the growth in the number of federal student loans owned by the Department comes greater risk for a higher number of defaulted borrowers whose accounts must be serviced. Over the years, we have increased the number of debt collection vendors under contract to 23, and are implementing a new default management system that features more flexibility and greater analytics to increase the effectiveness of our debt collection efforts. 

In an effort to support the continued transition from FFEL to Direct Loans, the 

Secretary invited FFEL Program guaranty agencies to submit proposals for Voluntary Flexible Agreements (VFAs) in late May). As authorized by the HEA, VFAs 

use existing authority to leverage private sector best practices to improve efficiencies and customer service in the administration of the Title IV programs, while 

reducing the cost to the American taxpayer. As of August 1, 2011, the Department 

received a total of 22 proposals, representing 24 guaranty agencies. The Department 

is currently reviewing these proposals. We look forward to working with the guaranty agencies to continue to provide services to students. 

A summary of our progress to date would be incomplete without an acknowledgment of the incredible efforts of the Federal Student Aid staff. The dedication, professionalism and absolute commitment of this team to ensuring students have the 
11 

aid they need to achieve their educational pursuits is truly inspirational. I would 

also like to recognize financial aid administrators at institutions participating in the 

Direct Loan Program for their efforts in making the transition a success. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Department’s progress in the Direct 

Loan transition and for the opportunity to present the steps we are taking to ensure 

that eligible students and their families have access to Direct Loans they need, and 

taxpayers’ investments are protected. On behalf of the dedicated staff of Federal 

Student Aid, I would like to reiterate our commitment to serving the Nation’s students and their families. I am happy to take any questions you may have. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Runcie. 

I now recognize Mr. Day for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RON H. DAY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID, 

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DAY. Good morning, Madam Chair, and other distinguished 

committee members. I am Ron Day, Director of Financial Aid at 

Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Georgia. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify about the successes and the challenges of 

the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. 

Today I will offer my perspectives on the transition process from 

FFEL and the current strengths and weaknesses from the now single federal loan program. As a current and former board member 

and now serving as incoming chairman to the National Association 

of Student Financial Aid administrators, I want the share some national perspectives as well. 

As an aid administrator for over 28 years, I have previously been 

associated with both private and public nonprofit schools that have 

participated in the FFEL program. FFELP allows students and 

parents the opportunity to selecting a lender of their choice from 

the private loan market. The FFELP lenders assisted us in our 

schools and students with the following—brochures and informational items, step-by-step processes for applying and repaying, 

budget calculators, budget advice, financial planning tools. One of 

the most helpful things was default management counseling and 

management tools that helped explain to students how to keep out 

of default, the consequences of default, and the basic how to and 

why to repay student loans. Their assistance was extremely valuable to our students. 

With the situation that occurred in 2008 with the financial markets, we have consulted and many of the private lenders decided 

to discontinue participation in the FFEL program. The community 

became very unrested. Financial aid administrators sought advice 

and direction but quickly realized that the change of transition 

would not be as easy as turning on a light switch. 

We were faced with staffing concerns, how to implement a transitional plan all within a relatively short time frame. We were concerned about internal systems and our need to reconfigure computer systems, yet we were compelled to begin the planning process. And after gathering information, reading materials, attending 

many workshops and seeking assistants from campus administrators, key staff members and discussing with units and divisions on 

my campus, I advised my administration that we would be 

transitioning to DL in January of 2010. 
12 

The transition was not without bumps. We did need to reconfigure our systems and not just our computer systems. We had to 

formulate training and retraining activities and develop communications plans for students and parents on new processes and procedures. It was not an easy task for students. Being transferred 

from liaison to liaison on the department level, this required the 

daily need for conversations with area colleagues. 

Yet I can say that today I have not heard of any student that 

was denied access to a student loan. The current process is not perfect. I raise the following concerns: 

Reporting must improve within the process. This causes delay in 

disbursement of funds to students; better real time processes 

should be solved. Additional streamlining is needed. The FAFSA 

should and could double as a promissory note or at least link for 

ease of completion to the document. Previously a question was included on the FAFSA asking the student if they wished to receive 

a student loan. Against the advice of the financial aid community, 

it was removed. Default management tools and assistance tools 

should increase, and educational process for students is important 

to show how to prevent defaulting on student loans. 

Standardization must increase. Many of the previous FFELP 

winners are now servicers. They have been allowed to implement 

different policies and practices. There is no single publication that 

has been released that easily tells students about these differences. 

Finding their loans between multiple servicers. There is no single 

point of contact that should be available to students. Because of 

multiple servicers of the DL program, students are often uncertain 

about whether loans are being serviced. This should be corrected 

as soon as possible with a centralized phone system or Web site 

that easily sends students to their servicer. 

I do not see these challenges as insurmountable, and I feel confident that as we partner together we can see positive outcomes for 

students. I once more wish to express my gratitude for the opportunity to offer you a glimpse into our transitional process from 

FFELP to DL and to share some areas that we belive require some 

immediate and additional improvement. We, as aid administrators, 

see ourselves as partners with you, and with the Department in ensuring that nearly $150 billion in federal student aid is delivered 

efficiently, accurately, and successfully to needy students. 

The financial aid community is appreciative of you and your willingness to hear our needs, struggles, and successes. Thank you 

very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Day follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Ron Day, Director of Financial Aid, 

Kennesaw State University 

Good Morning Madam Chair and other distinguished Committee Members. My 

name is Ron Day, Director of Financial Aid at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw Georgia—a 4-year public university located in a suburb of metropolitan Atlanta. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the successes and challenges 

of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. Today I offer my perspectives 

on the transition process from the Federal Family Education Loan Program, or 

FFEL, and the current strengths and weaknesses of the now single federal loan program. As a current and former board member and now incoming chairman of the 

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), I want to 

share some national perspectives as well. 
13 

FFEL Program 

As an aid administrator for over 28 years, I have previously been associated with 

both private and public non-profit schools that participated in the FFEL Program. 

FFEL allowed students and parents the opportunity of selecting a lender from the 

private loan market. The FFEL partners assisted my schools by offering the following to my students: • Brochures and informational items that included: • Basic explanation and eligibility criteria for student loans • Descriptions of step-by-step application and repayment processes • Budget advice and calculators that could be utilized for proper financial planning • Information regarding rebates and other incentives to encourage on-time repayment. • Default prevention, counseling, and management tools that included information on: • How much should be borrowed • How to track and manage loans • How to repay student loans • The consequences of defaulting • Options to prevent student loan default • Consolidation information and when that may or may not be a good option 

• Information on the numerous repayment plan options and how differences in 

those plans would ultimately affect the total cost of their loans 

Their assistance was extremely valuable to our students and provided them useful 

resources that educated students on all aspects of a loan—from the application process through repayment. Inasmuch as schools are held responsible for the numbers 

of students that default on loans, these vital services complimented institutional efforts to keep students out of default. 

DL Transition 

Schools had also previously received information on the current loan environment 

from various higher education associations. For example, on April 30, 2008, the 

American Association of Community Colleges wrote to members, ‘‘As a safeguard 

against any potential disruption in loan capital due to private lenders no longer providing loans to your students, you may want to consider gaining initial approval to 

participate in the Department of Education’s Direct Loan Program.’’ The American 

Council of Education also expressed to its members ‘‘there is a need to consider alternative financial options and whether the Direct Lending Program is a feasible 

way to navigate these uncharted waters.’’ NASFAA issued similar guidance to 

schools in 2009, advising schools to at least make plans to convert into the Direct 

Loan Program given the uncertainty surrounding an ECASLA extension. 

It was a very difficult and confusing time for schools. Financial aid administrators 

sought advice and direction from as many sources as possible, but we knew it 

wouldn’t be as easy as turning on a light switch. Once a school decided to transition 

from FFEL to Direct Loan, many other decisions and considerations came into play, 

such as: 

• What staffing would be needed to implement the transition in a relatively short 

amount of time? 

• What current initiatives would need to be forestalled in order to make the transition quickly and smoothly? 

• What capital investments might be needed for training and system changes? 

• Do we have the necessary staff to administer a new program effectively? 

• What restructuring of staff and organizational arrangements should take place? 

• How do we learn and adapt new processes to our computer systems? 

• How long would it take for full implementation to occur? 

Kennesaw State University Planning 

After weighing all of the pros and cons, the current and predicted future market 

conditions, and talking to many colleagues across the country, in the Fall 2009 we 

at Kennesaw State University began the planning process of determining whether 

to move to the Direct Loan Program. 

We developed a timeline to implement this transition, which included: 

• Reviewing information available from various groups—including current DL 

schools, local schools with the same computer system as KSU who had previously 

transitioned to DL, and transitional plans developed by schools of comparable size 

as KSU 

• Selecting a ‘‘Task Force’’ of campus individuals from critical offices to explore 

the possibility of transitioning: 
14 

• Budget Office 

• Bursar’s Office 

• Business Services 

• Information Technology 

• The Financial Aid Office 

• Developing an informational meeting for key individuals to explain the differences in programs and seeking feedback regarding the possibility of moving to Direct Loans. These individuals included: 

• Upper Administrators 

• Budget and Planning 

• Office of Financial Planning 

• Internal Audit 

• Attending and participating in webinars, workshops, and conferences from the 

higher education community and the U.S. Department of Education 

• Reconvening the institutional Task Force in early January 2010 for additional 

education in process changes 

• Seeking assistance from other schools who had the same internal computer system to help with: 

• Transitional information 

• Manuals 

• The timeline in making this transition 

• Talking with IT professionals employed by the school (KSU) 

• Reviewing steps needed to setup our system 

Although an avid supporter of FFEL, when the financial markets froze in 2008, 

when many local and area banks discontinued participation in 2009 and 2010, when 

remaining private lenders showed an uncertainty in their longevity of participating 

in FFEL, the decision became clear. Ultimately, I determined the Direct Loan Program was the best option for our students and our institution and advised my administration on January 28, 2010, that we would be making the move from FFEL 

to DL by the following summer. Our first disbursement was successfully made during the Summer 2010 semester. 

What is Best for Students 

Kennesaw State University has always framed decisions from the perspective of 

what is ‘‘best for students’’ first and then what is ‘‘best for KSU.’’ We felt Direct 

Loans to be good for students for the following reasons: 

• Funding is obtained directly from the Federal Government, which were the surest form of undisrupted capital at that time. 

• Federal Direct Loans are fully integrated into the Federal student aid delivery 

process through ED’s common origination and disbursement (COD) system, the 

same system that delivers Pell Grant funding. 

KSU Transition Process 

Although ultimately successful, our transition was not without bumps and challenges. Challenges included: 

• Reconfiguring our computer system(s) to accommodate new processes 

• Training and retraining of staff 

• Counselors within the Financial Aid Office 

• Processing staff within the Financial Aid Office 

• External staff in KSU 

• Bursar Office 

• Business Services 

• Developing a communication plan to assist students with new requirements: 

• New Promissory Note for all previous and future borrowers 

• New processes and location and revamping of websites, links, and forms 

With the assistance of workshops, colleagues, manuals, and the U. S. Department 

of Education, our students did not experience insurmountable struggles or roadblocks through the transition. 

As a board member of NASFAA, I heard from schools on an ongoing basis who 

were struggling to make the transition successfully. This was no easy task for 

schools to undertake in such a short amount of time and many schools were shifted 

from liaison to liaison at the U.S. Department of Education as ED increased their 

operational capacity to help schools transition and implement the program successfully. However, when it was all said and done, I am proud to say that I am not 

aware of any student who was denied access to student loans due to a school not 

successfully transitioning into the Direct Loan Program. 
15 

Today, schools across the country are successfully operating in the Direct Loan 

Program. However, this program is not perfect. I raise the following issues that I 

believe require additional, immediate attention: • Better and more accurate reporting. Quite often the data is not reported in a 

timely fashion from multiple servicers to our national, central database—The National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Delays in reporting data adds to the 

student confusion and could have negative ramifications for disbursement of funds. 

As an example: • If an institution originates a student loan because a student indicated s/he 

would be attending that term and only finds out several weeks later that the student decided to attend another institution—the current institution must delay disbursement until the data is cancelled and resubmitted. This causes great harm to 

students. Other private, national student loan and attendance databases are successful in updating student information within a 24-48 hour turnaround. Improvements should be made or additional partnership struck with the private sector to 

ensure a more timely delivery of information. • Additional streamlined services: With a single federal loan program, many of 

the processes that used to be in place during the FFEL program could be updated 

to make the entire student aid process easier for students. For example, until this 

last year, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) would ask whether 

students were interested in taking federal loans. If they indicated yes, the FAFSA 

could easily double as a Master Promissory Note or link over to the federal MPN, 

which would streamline the entire process. Instead, and against the advice from 

NASFAA and other financial aid administrators, the Department has simply eliminated that question altogether from the FAFSA. The promise of a single federal loan 

program should result in innovative ways to streamline other federal student aid 

processes. I think much more can be done on this front. • Additional college access and default prevention materials and assistance: The 

legislation that eliminated the FFEL program also allowed previous FFEL program 

student loan guarantors to offer college access and default prevention materials and 

services to schools and students. Unfortunately, there has been a bit of a lapse between the period when FFEL was eliminated and these new programs coming to 

fruition. Recently the Department announced it would allow guarantors to operate 

under new flexible arrangements to compensate them based on metrics like keeping 

students out of default or participating in other college access initiatives. However, 

the timeframe to get these programs up and running has some schools scrambling 

to fill in the gaps, all while a sour economy is leading to ever increasing student 

loan defaults. Schools and students need these services sooner rather than later. • Increased standardization of loan servicing: Perhaps one of the most disconcerting parts of the Direct Loan Program has been the lack of standardization 

in loan servicing. Many of the former FFEL partners went from lending federal student loans to servicing them. These servicers are awarded student loan accounts 

based on several criteria and they are allowed to implement different policies and 

practices in the name of competition in hopes of receiving additional servicing contracts. However, to date no single publication has been released that easily tells 

schools and students about the different practices and policies of these servicers. 

Under the FFEL program, lenders and guaranty agencies came together to create 

a ‘‘Common Manual’’ that clearly outlined lender policies, procedures, and practices. 

It is disappointing that a similar effort has not been spearheaded by the Department, who oversees these contracts. 

In some instances, these differences in servicing practices have resulted in drastic 

increased expenses for students. For example, servicers have different practices for 

capitalizing interest after periods of deferment or forbearances. Those differences 

have resulted in different expenses for students, sometimes resulting in drastically 

higher costs. We were recently assured 

By the Department of Education that this issue is being standardized, yet other 

variances may still exist such as the type of documentation individual servicers will 

accept for deferments, forbearances, or income based repayment. We believe students should have standardization with a single federal loan program. And where 

there are differences between servicers, finding all of these practices in one location 

should be a requirement. 

With dozens of other servicers scheduled to come online in the coming months, 

we as a community are extremely concerned about how students are to keep up with 

the various processes and procedures. 

Finding Loans In Between Servicers: One of the outcomes of ECASLA and the 

switch to 100 percent Direct Lending has been the transition of loans from FFELP 

lenders to Direct Loan servicers. Because of multiple servicers of the Direct Loan 

Program, students are often uncertain about where their loans are being serviced. 
16 

There have been scattered reports that some loans have gone ‘‘off the grid’’ entirely 

for multiple weeks, sometimes over a period of time when a borrower was expecting 

to make payments. This process must be smoother for students and they must be 

informed in an expeditious way the unique phone numbers and websites where they 

can obtain assistance. NSLDS is not updated in real-time, and that time lag can 

cause angst and possibly missed payments for students. 

I do not see these challenges as insurmountable and I feel confident that as we 

partner together we can see positive outcomes for students. 

I once more wish to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to offer you 

a glimpse into our transition process from FFEL to Direct Loan and to share some 

areas that we believe require some additional improvement. We as aid administrators see ourselves as partners with you and the Department in ensuring that the 

nearly $150 billion in federal student aid is delivered efficiently, appropriately, and 

successfully to needy students around the country. The financial aid community is 

appreciative of you and your willingness to hear of our needs, struggles, and successes. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Day. 

I now recognize Ms. Hoover for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY HOOVER, DIRECTOR OF 

FINANCIAL AID, DENISON UNIVERSITY 

Ms. HOOVER. Chairwoman Foxx, Senior Democratic Member 

Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness for this important hearing on federal student loans. 

I am Nancy Hoover, the immediate past chair of the National Direct Student Loan Coalition, and I am the Financial Aid Director 

at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. Denison is a selective, 

independent, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with an 

enrollment of about 2,200 students. Denison University implemented the Direct Loan Program as a year two school in 1995. 

Prior to my becoming the director at Denison in 1994, I had processed or administered the processing of loans in the FFEL program 

at three other private universities. 

I speak to you today on behalf of the National Direct Student 

Load Coalition, a grass-roots organization comprised of schools 

dedicated to the continuous improvement and strengthening of the 

Direct Loan Program. Its members are volunteers who are practicing financial aid professionals. The coalition would like to extend 

its thanks and congratulations to the staff at the Department of 

Education and especially at Federal Student Aid for the tremendously successful transition of all schools into the federal Direct 

Loan Program. Over the past several years, the coalition has 

played a significant role in the successful transition of schools into 

the Direct Loan Program by establishing a mentoring program of 

financial aid administrators who were working at direct loan 

schools. 

These financial aid professionals were willing to volunteer their 

time and expertise to help other schools making the transition. The 

mentors represented schools from every sector, from different enrollment sizes, and different software platforms used to process 

loans. The Coalition Mentoring Program assisted over a thousand 

schools at no cost to any of these schools. 

While some in the industry predicted that 100 percent transition 

to direct lending was an impossible task, the partnership of financial aid administrators and the Department of Education resulted 
17 

in a very successful outcome and it built on the existing collegiality 

in our profession. To date, I do not recall there was a single instance in which students did not receive their Stafford loan funds 

during and after the transition. 

This transition of all schools to the federal Direct Loan Program 

could not have been more successful for students, schools, and taxpayers. Benefits to the students and families generate savings that 

support increases in the maximum Pell Grant. It simplifies the federal loan application process by embedding it in the application for 

federal aid. It assures the availability of capital for educational 

loans. It provides repayment options for borrowers that can prevent 

defaults. 

Accountability to students. Every disbursement record for student loans is recorded in the federal Common Origination Disbursement System to ensure accountability for the individual student’s records. 

Benefits to school. With all the federal loans and the grants processed through one system, the Common Origination and Disbursement System, student aid processing and delivery is now focused 

on the student rather than each individual program. 

Schools that were already processing federal programs in the system did not have to buy additional software and hardware to make 

the transition. Some of the features of this system are its loan delivery system so that financial aid staff can have more time to 

counsel students and parents. The standard common format in the 

system enables quick programming. If Congress develops new programs, then the software vendors then can do the program quickly. 

The system provides accountability because funding for all programs is processed through one system, the Department of Education’s Grant Management System. The system now contains information about the multiple servicers so that schools will know 

where their student loans have been assigned. 

In closing, the accountability that is inherent in the Direct Loan 

Program provides benefits to the taxpayers, requires reconciliation 

by the schools of the loan funds to the penny for each fiscal year, 

and ensures accountability of taxpayers’ funds. The elimination of 

subsidies to private lenders saves taxpayers billions of dollars and 

helps support financial aid programs without additional costs. 

There are those who continue to argue that the transition of all 

schools to federal Direct Loan Program is just another government 

controlled program. It should be very clear that the FFEL program 

has already federal loan program since its beginning. The cost of 

both programs have always been borne by the taxpayers. Instead 

of the government paying dollars to lenders to make the loans, the 

government is spending some of these dollars on students to improve the aid programs and provide them access to college. 

Chairwoman Foxx, thank you again for the opportunity to appear 

before you and your committee today to provide the National Direct 

Student Loan Coalition’s perspective on the successful transition by 

all schools to direct lending. I will be happy to respond to any questions you or the members of the subcommittee might have on. 

[The statement of Ms. Hoover follows:] 
18 

Prepared Statement of Nancy Hoover, on Behalf of the 

National Direct Student Loan Coalition (NDSLC) 

Chairwoman Foxx, Senior Democratic Member Hinojosa and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be a witness for this important hearing 

on federal student loans. 

My name is Nancy Hoover and I am the immediate Past Chair of the National 

Direct Student Loan Coalition (NDSLDC). I am the Director of Financial Aid at 

Denison University in Granville, Ohio. Denison University is a selective, independent, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with an enrollment of almost 

2200 students. Prior to becoming the Director of Financial Aid at Denison in 1994, 

I was an aid administrator at two other nationally known private universities where 

I administered the loan processing in the Federal Family Education Loan Program. 

Denison University implemented the Federal Direct Loan Program as a Year Two 

school in 1995. 

I speak to you today on behalf of the National Direct Student Loan Coalition 

(NDSLC), a grass roots organization comprised of schools dedicated to the continuous improvement and strengthening of the Direct Loan Program. Its members are 

volunteers who are practicing financial aid professionals working in participating institutions. 

The Coalition would like to extend its thanks and congratulations to the staff at 

the Department of Education, and especially at Federal Student Aid for the tremendously successful transition of all schools into the Federal Direct Loan Program. The 

Department’s staff was proactive in ideas for a successful transition and worked 

tirelessly to ensure schools could implement the new loan program with minimal 

interruption to their financial aid production. 

Over the past several years, the National Direct Student Loan Coalition has 

played a significant role in the successful transition of thousands of schools into the 

Federal Direct Loan Program by establishing a mentoring program of financial aid 

administrators who were working at direct loan schools. These financial aid professionals were willing to volunteer their time and expertise to help other schools that 

were making the transition to Direct Lending. The mentors represented schools 

from every sector with different enrollment sizes and different software platforms 

used to process loans. The number of mentors increased as a result of financial aid 

administrators having a good transition experience and subsequently volunteering 

to become mentors. The Coalition mentoring program assisted over 1,000 schools 

and at no cost to any of these schools and it built on existing collegiality in our profession. 

The Coalition also monitored several professional list serves for any discussions 

by schools about processing issues that were related to the transition to Direct 

Lending. The Coalition partnered with the staff members in the Office of Federal 

Student Aid to mentor any school that needed extra assistance. While some in our 

industry predicted that the 100% transition to Direct Lending was an impossible 

task, the partnership of financial aid administrators and the Department of Education resulted in a very successful outcome. To date, I do not recall that there was 

a single instance in which students did not receive their Stafford Loan funds during 

and after the transition. This transition of all schools to the Federal Direct Student 

Loan Program could not have been more successful for students, schools, or taxpayers. 

Benefits to Students and Families : 

• Generates savings that support increases in the maximum Federal Pell Grant 

• Simplifies the federal loan application process by imbedding it in the application for federal aid 

• Assures the availability of capital for educational loans 

• Provides repayment options for borrowers that can prevent defaults 

Accountability to students: 

• Eliminates excessive and expensive lender marketing about ‘‘borrower benefits’’ 

that are not included in the promissory note and thus not guaranteed 

• Every disbursement record for student loans is recorded in the federal Common 

Origination and Disbursement System to ensure accountability for the individual 

student’s records 

Benefits to Schools: 

With all federal loans and grants processed through one system, the Common 

Origination and Disbursement (COD) system, student aid processing and delivery 

is now focused on the student, rather than on each individual program. Schools that 

were already processing other federal grant programs in this system did not have 

to buy additional software and hardware to change their loan delivery system from 

FFEL to DL. 
19 

• The Common Origination and Disbursement system streamlines the loan delivery system so that financial aid staff has more time to counsel students and parents. • The Direct Loan Program simplifies student loan administration processes and 

improves institutional efficiency and accountability. • Monthly and annual reconciliation processes that require a school to account for 

funds to the penny minimize the possibility of fraud and abuse that became possible 

in the bank based system. • The standardization of the common record format in the Common Origination 

and Disbursement system simplifies and enables quick programming that is required by software vendors to deliver funds for new programs that Congress develops. • The Common Origination and Disbursement system provides accountability because funding for all programs is processed through one system—the Department 

of Education’s Grant Management System (G5) • The Common Origination and Disbursement system now contains information 

about the servicer to which students’ loans have been assigned. This information is 

crucial now that the loans made by a school can be assigned to multiple servicers. 

In closing, the accountability that is inherent in the Direct Loan Program provides 

benefits to the taxpayers: • Required reconciliation by schools of the loan funds to the penny for each fiscal 

year ensures accountability of taxpayers’ funds. • The elimination of subsidies to private lenders saves taxpayers billions of dollars and helps support financial aid programs without additional costs. 

There are those who continue to argue that the transition of all schools to the 

Federal Direct Loan Program is just another government controlled program. It 

should be very clear that the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program has 

always been a federal loan program since its beginning. The costs of both programs 

have always been borne by the taxpayers. Instead of the government paying dollars 

to lenders to make the loans, the government is spending some of these dollars on 

students to improve the aid programs that provide them access to college. 

To summarize the experiences that I had as a mentor to over 100 schools, I would 

like to give a quote from a colleague that I personally mentored when he had to 

transition to DL in July of 2009 after two lenders called him and told him they 

would not be able to process his students’ loans for that fall semester. His comments 

are similar to hundreds that the Coalition heard as we helped schools make the 

transition. 

‘‘Things are going well for us and Direct Loans. I had to make some changes to 

a FFELP loan the other day and decided I was glad we went Direct. I am saddened 

by my years of resistance to DL.’’ 

Chairwoman Foxx, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and 

your committee today to provide the National Direct Student Loan Coalition’s perspective on the successful transition by all schools to Direct Lending. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee might 

have. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Mr. Bandre ́, I would like to recognize you for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARK A. BANDRE ́ , VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT AND STUDENT AFFAIRS, BAKER 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BANDRE ́. Thank you, Madam Foxx, thank you for this opportunity. It is a real pleasure to be here. I represent Baker University in Baldwin City, Kansas. Baker has a student population of 

3,700 split between several different multiple delivery options, 

which I will explain in a little bit. 

Having personally served at five private colleges and universities 

since 1989, I particularly value the chance to share information 

that has the potential to improve service to those pursuing higher 

education. Prior to my appointment at Baker in June 2010, I 

served as Director of Financial Aid at Hendrix College, in Conway, 

Arkansas, another small liberal arts college serving 1,400 students. 
20 

Because I was serving at Hendrix when the direct loan mandate 

was signed into law, I am able to share experiences from both institutions, which I will do. 

First, I would like to talk about the Hendrix experience a little 

bit. Hendrix’s student loan program had always been through the 

FFEL program that Ms. Hoover mentioned; however, the institution there welcomed the opportunity to add direct lending as a 

choice for students. Beginning with the fall 2009 semester and 

prior to the mandate, Hendrix added direct loans as an option for 

all new borrowers. Interestingly, that first semester only four students chose direct lending out of 200 potential borrowers. 

However, working with those students, the financial aid staff, 

the business office, and the registrar were able to learn how the 

direct lending process works. Hendrix uses software called 

PowerFAIDS, which is a product of the College Board. It was compatible with direct lending but there was a learning curve at the 

school for sure learning how to figure out the functions of direct 

lending within that software. 

In June 2010, when I arrived at Baker, Baker’s financial aid and 

business office staffs had previously decided to delay their transition in direct loans until there was clear direction from Congress. 

Staff based this decision on experience with past financial aid, legislative, and regulatory changes that resulted in them putting forth 

a great deal of time and effort only to have the legislative regulatory decision changed by the time they were actually ready to implement. 

When it became clear the decision would stand, though, on direct 

lending, Baker rapidly moved forward, learned the systems, and 

with the software in place at Baker, which is known as 

CampusVue, they were efficient in enabling the transition. 

One reality faced by all colleges and universities is they were 

now extremely reliant on selected companies to provide the software necessary to process aid and conduct business. Of course, software providers also need time to implement changes. And at the 

time we needed help with direct loan process from the CampusVue 

folks, they were busy working on year-round federal Pell Grant 

regulations that you may recall came about at the same time. What 

wound up happening of course 2 short years later the year-round 

Pell Grant Program no longer exists. The end result though was for 

much of the 2010 spring and summer, a great deal of energy went 

into trying to make both programs work. 

Prior to the direct loan transition, Baker processed over $15 million annually in FFELP, Stafford, and PLUS loans for approximately 3,000 borrowers. Converting the Direct Loans for our traditional program in less than 6 months was an educational challenge 

for our new and current students in that we had to teach them 

about process in a short amount of time. 

We also, as I mentioned, have non-term programs with multiple 

class starts, different loan periods and disbursement dates, numerous schedule changes, and reviewing and making necessary adjustments by staff in order to accommodate new promissory, make sure 

notes compiled, et cetera, again an educational challenge. 

A list of things that Baker did to prepare for direct lending. Six 

staff members participated in four Direct Loan Webinars, three 
21 

staff members participated in conference calls, 8 hours per week 

over 11 weeks were spent developing procedural changes, consumer 

information. Much time was spent trying to get the learning curve 

up so we that would be ready to help students. 

The Department of Education did assign a financial aid office 

with a contact person who was to assist Baker with any processrelated questions or concerns. We discovered though that these people hadn’t had as much training as we might have preferred. We 

wound up instead of relying on the Department official, we relied 

on peers from other colleges that used the same software to be able 

to work through the process. 

Looking forward, there are several ways the Direct Loan Program could be improved. For example, borrowers use the 

studentloans.gov Web site to complete a promissory note and complete loan counseling. The Web site in our opinion needs to be more 

user friendly and clearly direct borrowers to each require task. We 

see too many students who unknowingly complete either a promissory note or entrance counseling but not both even though they 

need both to complete the Stafford loan. The system needs to require both promissory note and counseling once the students commences the sequence. 

I am happy to report we experienced no disruption in loan availability to our students either during or after the transition. The Direct Loan Program is working. However, it is also correct to report 

that Baker financial aid staff now spend more time trying to help 

students track down, understand the details of their loans than 

was previously the case. We are now doing most of the work that 

customer service representatives used to do at the banks and guarantee agencies. 

Despite the lack of competition that I feel drives innovation, we 

hope the Department of Education continues to seek ways to improve service to students. I thank you for holding this hearing and 

for the opportunity to participate. 

[The statement of Mr. Bandre ́ follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Mark Bandre ́, Vice President for 

Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, Baker University 

Good morning Madam Chair and other distinguished Committee members. I first 

want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before this Committee. 

My name is Mark Bandre ́ and I am Vice President for Enrollment Management and 

Student Affairs at Baker University—a private not-for-profit institution serving 

3700 students in Baldwin City, Kansas. This morning I offer you the perspective 

of the transition to Direct Loans from a small institution. I will also address some 

areas of concern that remain. Having served at five private colleges and universities 

since 1989, I particularly value the chance to share information that has the potential to improve service to those pursuing higher education. 

Prior to Direct Loan Mandate 

Prior to my appointment at Baker University in June 2010, I served as Director 

of Financial aid at Hendrix College, another small school in Conway, Arkansas. Because I was still serving at Hendrix when the Direct Loan mandate was signed into 

law, I am able to share experiences from both institutions. 

First, I would like to address my experience at Hendrix. Hendrix’s student loan 

volume had always been through the Federal Family Education Loan, or FFEL, program; however the institution welcomed the opportunity to add the Direct Loan Program as a choice for students. Beginning with the Fall 2009 semester, and prior to 

the mandate, Hendrix added Direct Loans as a student lending option for all new 

borrowers. Interestingly, only four students out of over 200 new borrowers that semester chose Direct Loans. Through working with those students, the financial aid, 
22 

business office, and registrar staff at Hendrix were able to learn how the Direct 

Loan process worked. The software used at Hendrix at the time (PowerFAIDS, a 

product offered by the College Board) was not particularly compatible with administering Direct Loans so there were numerous learning curves, even for a small 

number of students. 

In June 2010, I accepted the position at Baker University. Prior to my arrival, 

Baker’s financial aid and business offices had agreed to delay their transition to Direct Loans until there was clear direction from Congress. Staff based this decision 

on experience with past financial aid legislative and regulatory changes that resulted in a great deal of time and effort in order to comply, only to have the decision 

reversed shortly after implementation. When it became clear the decision would 

stand, Baker rapidly moved forward and learned the Direct Loan process in order 

to ensure timely service to students. The software in place at Baker, known as 

CampusVue, was efficient in enabling the transition. 

The Transition and Implementation Process 

Although Hendrix and Baker began the Direct Loan transition process at different 

times, both schools experienced similar challenges related to service from the Department of Education and respective software providers. For example, colleges and 

universities are extremely reliant on selected companies to provide the software necessary to process aid and conduct business. Of course, software providers also need 

time to implement changes mandated by legislation or regulation and at the time 

we needed help with Direct Loan transitions most software providers were busily 

working out how to manage the new year-round Federal Pell Grant regulations— 

a provision of the Pell program that, two short years later, no longer exists. As a 

result, for much of the 2010 spring and summer a great deal of energy went into 

trying to make both programs work. I would like to share with you more detail on 

how this process unfolded at Baker. 

Prior to the Direct Loan transition Baker processed over $15,000,000 annually in 

FFELP Stafford and PLUS loans for approximately 3,000 students. Converting to 

Direct Loans for our traditional programs in less than six months was an educational challenge for our new and current students in that we had to teach them 

about the new process in a short amount of time. On the other hand, our non-term 

programs have multiple class starts, different loan periods and disbursement dates, 

and numerous schedule changes, all of which led to significant manual review and 

necessary adjustments by financial aid staff in order to accommodate new promissory notes, make sure disbursement dates complied, etc. Because new student cohorts start each month, and some students’ enrollment periods went past September 

30, we were literally doing twice the work, by processing both a FFEL and a Direct 

Loan for a period of time that in the past was covered by just a single FFEL loan. 

This effort did require significant investment. From the administrative side, I’d 

like to offer the following estimates related to the Direct Loan transition: 

• Six staff members participating in four Direct Loan webinars 

• Three staff members participating in four conference Direct Loan set-up calls 

• Approximately 8 hours per week were spent over 11 weeks developing procedural changes and consumer information 

• Getting the office set up with Department’s Direct Loan component of Common 

Origination and Disbursement or COD process 

• Developing and distributing student and parent application process instructions 

to both new and current students and parents 

• Updating catalog copy and web sites 

• One staff member attended a Direct Loan conference in St. Louis 

• Two staff members attended state conference for sessions on Pell and Direct 

Loan changes 

• Working with IT on testing our system and the communication flow with COD 

• Pending work—re-awarding hundreds of students in the non-term programs 

with Direct Loans to complete their academic year funding. 

The Department of Education assigned the financial aid office with a contact person who was to assist Baker with any process-related questions or concerns. After 

working with the contact person through early phases of the transition, we soon realized it was not feasible to wait for the contact person to provide answers to our 

questions. Instead, Baker contacted its software provider to inquire about schools 

that had already completed the testing and transition process. Thankfully, such a 

school existed, and their financial aid staff cooperated with us in order to solve a 

number of problems. While we believe the Department had good intentions by assigning a specific contact person, their availability was limited based on the number 

of schools transitioning; there is no doubt that working with colleagues at other 

schools is what enabled Baker to complete the transition successfully. 
23 

While I left Hendrix before full implementation to Direct Loans, former colleagues 

shared with me that throughout the 2010-2011 academic year, they encountered numerous problems with software and inability to get files through to COD. They attribute portions of this to issues on the PowerFAIDS software end while others 

stemmed from inability to obtain helpful answers from their assigned Department 

contact. It seems the frustrations centered on problems with accumulating and 

sending needed files. In the current 2011-2012 award year, my Hendrix colleagues 

believe Department officials are much more knowledgeable about the process. 

Suggested Improvements 

Obstacles do remain and there are several ways that the Direct Loan Program 

could be improved. For example, borrowers use a Direct Loan web site, 

studentloans.gov to complete a promissory note and complete loan counseling. The 

web site needs to be more user-friendly and clearly direct borrowers to each required task. We see too many students who unknowingly complete either a promissory note or entrance counseling, but not necessarily both even though both are required before they can receive a Federal Stafford Loan. The system needs to require 

both promissory note and counseling once a student commences the sequence. 

I am happy to report we experienced no disruption in loan availability to our students either during or after the transition. The Direct Loan Program is working. 

However, it is also correct to report that Baker financial aid staff now spends more 

time trying to help students track down and understand the details of their loans 

than was previously the case. We are now doing most of the work that customer 

service representatives used to do at the banks and guaranty agencies. It is my observation that under the FFEL program, lenders and guarantors would help borrowers even when the loans had been transitioned to another lender or servicer. 

We’re finding an increasing number of borrowers with loans mixed between the two 

programs coming back to us to help them track down loan records. It would be helpful if all servicers were able to provide comprehensive information on a student’s 

loan so students would not need to call multiple agencies to try and track down important loan information. 

Despite the lack of competition that often drives innovation, we hope the Department of Education continues to seek out ways to improve service to students. Thank 

you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to participate. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Bandre ́. I would like to now recognize Mr. Petri for 5 minutes to ask 

questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the panel. And Ms. Hoover, I would like to thank you 

and your members for donating voluntary time to help other 

schools mentoring or advising on your members’ experience with 

the Direct Loan Program so that they could transition successfully 

to it. 

I wanted to give Mr. Runcie an opportunity to respond to some 

of the comments of the other witnesses, particularly about enhancing the information and effectiveness of the Department’s Web 

sites for students and for schools. We are moving into a new world 

and government tends to lag on that but I expect you are hard at 

work attempting to upgrade that and make that a more powerful 

and effective tool. 

And secondly, if you could at all comment, you mentioned that 

you are coordinating or collaborating to some extent with the IRS 

on data. And in other countries that have direct loan programs, 

they have gone further. And I know in Australia, I think New Zealand and Britain, so that students have the option of having a flexible income contingent repayment through their IRS system. So it 

works very effectively. Years ago some of us worked on that in Congress and we were told by the IRS they had a mess on their hands 

at managing the move from sort of paper and manual processing 

to a computer IRS. And that is now largely completed although I 
24 

am sure there are problems. So this might be an opportunity to 

take another look. I know there are other contingent programs out 

there, but this would be pretty seamless once it was set up from 

the point of view of the student would avoid default and collection 

costs and yet ensure repayment when people were earning money. 

So there are a lot of advantages. And if other countries have done 

it, we have something we can look at as an experiment. 

I wonder if you could comment on any of those points. 

Mr. RUNCIE. In terms of the customer service aspect of our Web 

sites, we hire a customer, a chief customer experience officer, who 

is really focused on looking at, making sure we optimize our Web 

sites so that we provide the optimal service to students and also 

to institutions that rely on these Web sites. I do acknowledge the 

comments that were made. And some of those criticisms were very 

constructive. We will look at ways to make it easier for folks to 

navigate through our Web sites. 

We are also looking at consolidating potentially some of our Web 

sites. We have a good number of Web sites and the ability to consolidate those Web sites could be a way that we would potentially 

make it easier for students and institutions to leverage the information we have on those Web sites. 

In terms of our work with the IRS, it has been tremendous in 

terms of the ability to reduce the time to fill out the application as 

well as to eliminate inaccuracies. And that has improved our improper payment rate. I think it reduced about 40 basis points 

which equated to about potentially $146 million of lower improper 

payments. 

In terms of working with the IRS to find additional ways to leverage that institution and what we do, we are very open to it. I 

have not had discussions about that level of engagement. But 

again, it sounds like it is a potential way to make it more efficient 

and more customer friendly. So we would be open to looking at 

that, and thanks for that input. 

Mr. PETRI. I have another question. We have been working in 

this committee and others with the for-profit institutions and their 

relationship to the program. One complaint they make is the 

amount that students can borrow exceeds commission in many 

cases and is an incentive for students to over borrow and buy cars 

and things like that. Do you have any idea if that is a major problem or if there are things that could be done to tighten up on what 

the funds can be used so that it is more closely related to education 

and kids don’t unintentionally dig themselves too deep a hole? 

Mr. RUNCIE. What we do is we oversee statutory, I mean there 

are certain legislative and regulated uses of the funds. And I think 

we have a pretty substantial group of folks in our program compliance area that monitor that aspect of the funding. But I think some 

of the things that could potentially impact that would be more policy related, and we are more operational and we implement whatever the regulations and whatever the laws are. So I don’t know 

that we would have an impact on the uses of those funds. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Petri. I thank you, Mr. 

Runcie. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Hinojosa, for 

5 minutes. 
25 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Runcie, first of all, thank you for being here. And I would 

like to thank you and all of the hardworking staff in the Federal 

Student Aid Office for your professionalism and your commitment 

to ensuring a smooth transition to the Direct Loan Program so that 

students can receive the assistance they need to pursue their educational goals. 

My first question to you refers to the testimony. You state that 

you are pleased to report that the transition to 100 percent direct 

lending was a success. Can you tell us how you have measured success? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I think the ultimate measure of success really has 

to do with making sure that all students who are eligible to receive 

federal aid through Direct Loan Programs, they were able to do so. 

I think some of my colleagues on the panel have mentioned that 

no student who was seeking direct loans were not able to—they 

were all able to receive those funds. I think that is the ultimate 

measure. 

I think in terms of working with the institutions, we put together 

significant resources, had contracts with vendors, put up Web sites. 

We did a lot of things in terms of providing resources so that the 

transition could be as seamless as possible. 

Clearly when you look at the scope of trying to make sure that 

5 to 6000 schools are all DL ready and all of these schools have 

different levels of capability, different systems, it is not a trivial exercise. But I think given the circumstances, the ability to migrate 

all of those schools over, and I also want to recognize the fact that 

other organizations and Ms. Hoover also got into the discussion 

about how they were able to work with schools as well, but I think 

the totality of that effort and the collaborative effort that we went 

through delivered all of the schools over to the DL program that 

wanted to provide those funds and those loans to students. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Runcie, we have heard the testimony that the 

Department and its transition partners provided valuable technical 

assistance and guidance to facilitate a successful move. Can you describe the steps the Department has taken to assist the schools? 

Mr. RUNCIE. To assist the schools? Well, initially as I said, we 

put a number of resources in place, including a point of contact for 

all schools, and the point of contact typically was the point of contact for the Pell program, and we leveraged the system that was 

used for Pell so that it was a bit easier for schools to migrate since 

most schools that used the Pell had some expertise related to that. 

Of course the addition of leveraging or using the promissory note, 

that added some complications but at least we had a base to work 

from. 

In addition to that, we had Web sites, we had training conferences throughout the year. We had the big FSA conference that 

roughly 2000 institutions and 6000 participants from financial aid 

community attended. And there we had discussions as well as 

training on the transition. 

We also had vendors that were on standby so that we could provide on-site support as well as folks at FSA that were willing to 

provide on site support. We also have remote support. So we had 

a large basket of assets and resources that were there for schools 
26 

and we were pretty proactive in terms of trying to make sure that 

people were trying to realize that we had resources available to 

them. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. The number that attended are amazing. They are 

high. It looks like you are going to have a lot of success. Can you 

tell us the steps that the Department has or is taking to ensure 

that the security of its loan systems and can you also tell us the 

steps that the Department has or is taking to aid those student 

borrowers against default? 

Mr. RUNCIE. In terms of the security, our systems are all—they 

go through vigorous technology review. That is required for all federal systems, so we comply with those standards. And our partners 

and their systems that we leverage, they have to be FISMA compliant. So we have to meet that standard. We also have quite a few 

security, technology security officers. We also have Privacy Act 

folks that are associated with the security process. 

So I think we can always sort of the augment the system. This 

year, for instance, we are adding two-factor authentication which 

is now the need for a token. So in addition to passwords and identification, you need a token. So it is another level of security that we 

are providing both internally and rolling out to the schools. 

In terms of default prevention, we are leveraging the servicers 

we have contracts with for private sector servicers for the Direct 

Loan Program. A part of how they are allocated and how they compete relates to how well they handle defaults. So there is a customer satisfaction component and there is a default prevention 

component so they look at the default rate. So the way they run 

their business models I am sure you know would necessitate that 

they provide as many resources around preventing defaults as possible because ultimately it is going to impact their revenue and 

profitability. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. My time has expired. But I appreciate 

that you answered all of my questions. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you both. 

I would now like to recognize Mrs. Biggert from Illinois for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here. 

My first question would be for Mr. Runcie. In your testimony you 

talk about the Secretary inviting the FFEL program guarantee 

agencies to submit proposals for voluntary flexible agreements. 

Could you talk a little bit about that and I know that you say here 

that it has the existing authority to leverage private sector best 

practices to improve efficiencies in customer service in the administration of the title IV programs while reducing the cost to American taxpayers? I know they are not doing it for free but I am wondering how it works and how it lowers costs. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Thank you. The voluntary flexible agreement, and 

they were used before, not as extensively as we are looking to use 

them now, but one of the requirements for a voluntary flexible 

agreement is that it would be that it at least cost neutral. So the 

idea of cost neutrality means that there would be additional cost 

to taxpayers. 
27 

We are looking at that structure because given that there is no 

more new origination, we wanted to recognize and acknowledge the 

level of expertise and service that these guarantee agencies have. 

They have a fair bit of expertise in default prevention, debt management, financial literacy and outreach, and they have the infrastructure that spreads across the country. So we wanted to look at 

ways to leverage that expertise and collaborate with them in the 

vehicle that we have is the voluntary flexible agreement. 

Some of the outcomes that we are looking to achieve is we are 

looking to have a level of performance-based metrics if we could. 

We are looking to potentially eliminate perceived conflicts of interest between default prevention and the collections piece because 

conceptually they may be at odds in terms of how folks might be 

incentivised. 

We are looking at risk management. We want to make sure that 

their systems have the level of security in terms of PII that systems that are contracted with the federal government have because 

these are agreements with the guarantee agencies not contracts so 

potentially there could be a different level of security. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I am glad you are looking at financial literacy. I 

know Mr. Hinojosa and I have looked for a long time on the issue 

of financial literacy. What does cost neutral mean. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Sort of hypothetically, if we were to spend a billion 

dollars over 10 years in terms of payments and fees to the guarantee agencies, if we change the way they provide services and 

they change their business models, we would pay no more than 

that billion dollars that we would have paid otherwise, and so it 

is cost neutral in terms of not costing us any more money outlays 

to those guarantee agencies. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. In other words, this is an ongoing programs so 

there is moneys that has available for that? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I am sorry? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I said it is an ongoing money program so there is 

already money that has already been allocated? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes. Because even though the FFEL origination has 

stopped there is still a portfolio of 450, it is well in excess of $400 

billion that is still out there that needs to be monitored and there 

is a wind-down process. So these guarantee agencies would be 

around for X-amount of years anyway in terms of managing the existing portfolio. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Day, you talked about some delays in information reporting that has caused some confusion to students about 

where to pay or when to pay their loans. And you talk about other 

private national student loan and attendance databases that are 

successful in updating student information within a 24—48-hour 

turnaround. What specific improvements would you recommend to 

help the Direct Loan Program achieve a similar data processing capacity? 

Mr. DAY. Thank you very much. What is happening, and this 

may get a little bit technical so bear with me just a moment. We 

have a system that originates student loans from our campus up 

through what is called Common Origination Disbursements, COD. 

They communicate with the national database, which is NSLDS, 

where all of the student loans reside. 
28 

Quite often what we are finding is that students may indeed say 

they are coming to my school but in essence will go to another. I 

will have to cancel it on my side and then report it to COD, and 

they have to report it to NSLDS. It is not done in a very timely 

fashion. What happens is we may have students that come to my 

school that I may have to pro-rate their eligibility. What we are 

finding is some of the other situations that we have such as the 

national clearinghouse where we report attendance records are unable to do those things in a timely fashion. So with all of that automation, I would hope this would improve. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I would now like to recognize Mr. Bishop 

from New York. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you 

to our panel for your testimony. 

I have to say I found your testimony quite gratifying for those 

of us who worked hard to see to it that we would make the transition, that we would make the public policy decision to move to 100 

percent direct lending. Your testimony taken in the aggregate validates the wisdom of that decision. Because what you have all said 

in one form or another is that not a single student was disrupted, 

that their access to student financial aid programs remained 

unencumbered and not disrupted. 

And I hope you would all agree that when we evaluate financial 

aid programs, and there are several different vantage points that 

we can use to evaluate them, that the extent to which students are 

serviced and not inconvenienced has to be far and away the most 

important measure. Do you all agree with that? 

So by that measure, is it fair for me to conclude that you would 

all agree that this transition has been a success? 

[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Let me go to a couple of things. 

Mr. Day and Mr. Bandre ́, you both spoke about some issues having to do with computer platforms and processing and so on. Would 

you both agree that those issues that you raise—and I don’t mean 

to minimize them—they both fall into the heading of growing 

pains; is that fair to say? 

Mr. BANDRE ́. I think it is fair to say. In the Department’s defense, they didn’t get a whole lot of lead-in time either. So I mentioned that the assigned representative we had at the Department 

wasn’t always able to answer our questions so we relied on peers 

instead. 

It is fair to say that person, whoever he or she was, didn’t have 

enough time to really get trained. So I agree. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Day? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. I agree with that as well. The systems we had 

are quite often canned systems. We had them configured one way 

and they had to be reconfigured another. That was an internal 

issue that we had to face in our State. In Georgia, for example, 

most of our public schools have the same system so we sought assistance from them. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for that. 

You are all much younger than me, but I was a financial aid director in the first year of the basic educational opportunity grant 
29 

program, and we had our share of growing pains. But I think we 

would all agree that a financial aid program that didn’t have the 

Pell Grant would be one that would be significantly deficient in 

terms of our ability to help students. So we worked through them, 

and I am confident that the current generation of enrollment management professionals will work through them. 

Ms. Hoover, one of the things that we heard as we were debating 

this issue is we heard some Armageddon-ish type of projections of 

the staffing burden that would be imposed on enrollment service offices, specifically financial aid offices, and the extent to which colleges and universities would have to materially staff up in order to 

accommodate this transition. 

In your experience with the schools that you work with, or Mr. 

Day, in your experience—you are now the President of NASFA, is 

that right? Incoming. Have any of those projections come true? 

Have there been massive increases in enrollment services staff so 

as to accommodate this transition? 

Ms. HOOVER. I have not heard of any increased staff issues. And 

as I indicated, our coalition worked with over a thousand schools. 

My loan processor, who is now my associate director, I want to 

make sure if he is watching, that he knows he has been promoted, 

helped. And he and I personally mentored over a hundred schools. 

We never heard that issue that they had to increase staff. In fact, 

it became so streamlined that in times they were able to have this 

current staff do other responsibilities and actually gain some staff 

time in essence. But I have not heard that. But again, that is the 

experience from a thousand schools. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, thank you. Mr. Day? 

Ms. DIXON. From a personal perspective, we did increase staff. 

We did not increase staff for reasons that we later found were necessary. The processing end that we thought would indeed be there 

was much more streamlined than we had anticipated. However, I 

will say this, we have now had to remove some of those staff from 

the loan processing and move them over into the area of default 

managers, for example. We did take on that responsibility because 

we feel it necessary that the FFELP lenders had done previously. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you al very much. My time is about to expire. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Runcie, for presiding over the Department’s efforts to make this transition as seamless as it obviously 

was. Thank you all very much for your testimony. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I would now like to recognize Dr. Roe from 

Tennessee. 

Dr. ROE. Thank you all for being here today. It has been a great 

panel. 

Before I came to Congress, I served as a foundation board president where I went to college at Austin Peay, and one of our things 

was to raise money for students, and it is the greatest investment 

that I ever made in my life was my college education. No doubt 

about it. I went out to dinner last night, it was more than a quarter of college when I went. It was $65 a quarter to go to college. 

Unbelievable. That shows how ancient I am. 

But it is becoming, as Mr. Hinojosa and Mrs. Biggert have pointed out, much more difficult for young people to afford to go to college now. It is just astronomical. And I hear stories all the time. 
30 

And one of the things I am concerned about is the financial literacy 

part is making sure students understand if I graduate from college 

and get a $35,000 or $40,000 a year job, if I can find that job, I 

can’t pay off a $200,000 loan. I had a parent that came to me the 

other day. It was a young doctor who had a 200 and something 

thousand dollar loan that he had to start paying back while he was 

a resident, and it took up almost a third of his liveable income. 

So we are creating problems in this country. 

And I guess the question I have is how much can a student borrow through this program? Mr. Runcie, I guess you are the person 

I should ask that to. 

Mr. RUNCIE. The Pell Grant is $5,500, and there is a limit in 

terms of subsidized piece and unsubsidized loans. It could be a substantial amount. 

Mr. ROE. How much is that? If a student comes into college, 

Denison or Baker University, how much could I go on the—could 

I borrow? And I want to make sure because, as an 18- or 19- or 

20-year old, tomorrow is a long time. It is hard to—I have to pay 

this money back. I know how much trouble I have gone through to 

raise money for scholarships that you don’t have to pay back; these 

loans have to be paid back. So how much can you go into debt for 

through this program. 

Mr. BANDRE ́. The answer to your question results in a fairly complicated answer. I hate to say it depends, but it does, on the students choices. Does the student stop at a bachelor’s degree? And if 

so, the second question is, does that student have parents that are 

of good credit and willing to assist? If a student borrows the basic 

amount each year, they can borrow $3,500 as a freshman, $4,200 

as a sophomore and then $5,500 each their junior senior year. That 

is pretty common. There are a lot of students out there who borrow 

those, so $21,000 is one way to answer your question. 

Let’s say, though, that that student’s parents don’t have good 

credit and they are denied credit for a parent loan that Mr. Runcie 

mentioned, that adds to it. So there are other variables that impact 

each individual choice. And you mentioned your doctoral student, 

certainly those who pursue graduate degrees of some sort add to 

their total. 

Mr. ROE. How many students—what percent of students are on 

the FFEL program and the Direct Student Loan Program when 

this transitioned, before 2008 and before we could see it happening; 

how many chose one, and why did they chose one versus the other? 

Just out of curiosity. I don’t know. 

Mr. DAY. Primarily that was because of the way the school was 

configured. Most of the FFEL lenders—is the choice of the schools 

to decide to stay with the FFEL lenders with a private market. You 

had a choice; you could choose to be DL or are FFEL, but most of 

the schools that were FFEL just basically felt that the service they 

were receiving was better on that side then going the DL route. 

Mr. ROE. So it was just a choice that the university made? 

Mr. DAY. That is right. 

Mr. ROE. What interest rates are the students charged? On the 

direct program, what interest rate are they charged on their loans? 

Mr. RUNCIE. 6.8. 
31 

Mr. ROE. 6.8? Whew. It couldn’t be a little lower? Because interest rates now are at historic lows. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes, that it is a statutory rate. 

Mr. ROE. Did we do that? If we did do that, we need to look at 

that again. 

And I guess the last thing, again, through financial literacy, I 

want to be really sure that we are doing that. 

And congratulations, Mr. Runcie, on making this transition. I 

know you have worked a lot of long hours, and thank you for doing 

that. 

Students really don’t care where the money comes from; they just 

want the money to go to school. I know I would. I could care less 

where I get the money. But I would like to be able to pay it back, 

and it seems like 6.8 percent is a pretty steep interest rate. I think 

that is something we could look at. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yeah, there are—we have income-based repayment, 

and we need to sort of get that message out. There are public service loan forgiveness programs. There are certain options that can 

be leveraged, but I think you are right in terms of the financial literacy piece, making sure people understand that it is an investment, and there needs it be a return component that is commiserate with the investment that they are making. So we have a lot 

of efforts around that in terms of making sure people understand 

at the point of decision what their needs might be. 

Mr. ROE. I yield back. 

One last thing, Mr. Day, I don’t wish you any bad ill, but I hope 

East Tennessee State beats Kennesaw State. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Would the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? 

Mr. ROE. Yes, I will. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I like that last question that you asked on the 6.8 

percent being pretty steep, but we need to remember that before 

this, 10 percent interest rate and 12 percent interest rate was common in some of the bank loans and some of the Sallie Mae loans. 

So this looks pretty attractive to most parents, like myself, that 

have two girls going to college. 

Mr. ROE. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I want to recognize Mr. Andrews for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the panel. 

I would say to my friend from Tennessee that I would support 

a bill that says the interest rate on direct loans should be calculated as follows: Take the cost of the government acquiring the 

money, add to that the cost of administering the program, both on 

campus and the Department of Education, put in reserve for loan 

default, and make the interest rate that, which is what we proposed in 1991, as setting a rate that would be considerably lower 

than 6.8 percent. If he would be happy to cosponsor that, I would 

welcome his help. I would yield to him. 

Okay. Let me ask the panelists some questions. My understanding is that the consensus on the panel from Mr. Bandre ́, Ms. 

Hoover, and Mr. Day is that no student went without a loan during 

this transition period because of the transition; is that correct? And 

although there were bumps in the road that—in the case of Mr. 
32 

Bandre ́ and Mr. Day, that are actually running programs on campus. 

Ms. Hoover, are you as well? 

Ms. HOOVER. I am a Direct Loan school, yes. 

Mr. ANDREWS. So, all three of you, there have been bumps in the 

road, but the program is working pretty well on your campuses. 

And the third thing that I heard is that I heard some very constructive suggestions that I am sure Mr. Runcie and his colleagues 

will take any account. I think a quicker turn around time is essential. I think that students need the money to do a lot of things at 

the beginning of the semester, and waiting is a problem. I think 

that certainly the Web site problems that the chairwoman pointed 

out need to be addressed at the Department. 

I think there are a number of other things, but would anybody, 

particularly the three campus witnesses, would anybody here characterize the Direct Loan Program as a disaster? 

No. 

Would anybody characterize it as a very flawed law? 

No, I wouldn’t either. 

Would anybody here support the repeal of the Direct Loan Program, any of the three campus-based witnesses? 

No, okay. 

I think we have reached a point of consensus here that is commendable. I think the program absolutely could use improvement. 

And Mr. Runcie, again, I would hope that you would take to 

heart the very constructive suggestions you have heard from the 

campus-based witnesses here today to try to see what we can do 

about it. 

Mr. Runcie, the final thing I would ask you, and I will ask it for 

the record—I have written to the Secretary, and you have been 

kind enough to respond. I have some concerns about the consolidation loans, the statutory authority and the consolidation loans that 

I have some concern has been exceeded by some loans that had 

been originated. I am going to send you some follow-up questions 

on the record for that. 

I will just close by saying this, that the source of the question 

about the program being a disaster was a Wall Street Journal editorial that claims the program should be done away with. And the 

source of the very flawed law comment was the chairwoman, who, 

in January of this year, called the program a very flawed law. I 

think she has made some very constructive suggestions about how 

it could be improved, and I would work with her. 

But I would disagree; I would join you in asserting the fact that 

the program is not very flawed and should not be repealed. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. Andrews has raised the issue of a follow up from us to members of the panel for additional questions that may not get asked 

during this hearing. And so we will be, all of us have that opportunity. And I think you could probably expect that from various 

members of the committee. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania 

for 5 minutes. 
33 

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the chairwoman. Thanks to the panel for 

your service to education and your expertise. 

With the direct lending bill, you know, it is seems to me that 

when it comes to access of loans, that I assume our somewhat status quo, it sounds like consensus is that young folks pursuing education have access the loans. I would argue that they had access 

to loans before, so I want to dig a little deeper than just that one 

metric. 

I happen to think this is a flawed bill, based on three premises. 

At a time when our economy is struggling with the weight of the 

cost of government, it grew government. It cost private sector jobs. 

Those two are not compatible. 

And frankly, I think it failed to address a primary issue that my 

good friend, the physician from Tennessee, raised and adequately, 

I believe, but I want to explore that more with my questions in 

terms of financial literacy. 

Mr Runcie, thanks for your leadership with the role you stepped 

into. In your testimony, you talked about increasing staff to provide 

the oversight and compliance. How many staff do we have now in 

terms of with this direct lending; what has been the growth in 

terms of number of positions to administer? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yeah, we have—our staff’s mid 1,200s right now. 

And we have increased from a little over a 1,000 over a 2-year period. 

Having said that, the numbers are still lower than what they 

have been at points historically, but I think more importantly, in 

terms of the DL program, a lot of that is outsourced. So 84 percent 

of our budget goes to private contractors. And so, in addition to the 

folks that we use for DL, there’s another 9,000 contractor folks that 

we use to operate. And a portion of that, a significant portion, relates to the servicing level. 

So the ratio is about 1 to 7, 1 to 8, our employee base to the contractor, so I think that has probably expanded maybe more so than 

our own internal hiring. 

In addition, the contracts that we put in place with the servicers, 

they require for all those jobs to be domestic. And so there were 

a number of jobs that were overseas that came back into the U.S. 

because of the way the contracts were structured. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have—is there—I am not sure you should 

know this, but do we know how many private sector jobs were actually were eliminated as a result of this direct lending program over 

the past—course of the past year where we have increased the government ones? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I don’t know. I really sort of was speaking how we 

have grown some of the numbers. But in terms of the elimination, 

I don’t have that information. 

What I can say is that we are also standing up not-for-profit 

servicers, and those servicers were servicing FFEL loans before. 

We are now moving them over to service Direct Loans, so I would 

imagine that that would have a positive impact in terms of the job 

counts. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You had, also in your testimony, talked about— 

let me find it here in my notes, basically equip with the best tools 

and resources, so I want to move into the financial literacy part of 
34 

my question. Last week I had a visit to a large university. I am 

blessed with a number of universities I have, one that was direct 

lending, and many small ones have had to make that transition. 

This one has been a direct lending university for some time. And 

when I raised the question of financial literacy, there was like 

there is no direction to—there is no importance, it doesn’t seem, 

that comes from this direct lending program to address that. 

Students there are graduating with an average debt of 31—over 

$31,000. I think the national average, from what I understand, is 

slightly less than that. And to me, that is what we should have 

been focusing on when we looked at this bill. And it doesn’t seem 

like we have done that. 

Some of my colleagues have raised other issues about just financial literacy and making good decisions. You are accruing long-term 

debt when you are investing, and do we—how have we done with 

financial literacy in terms of how much can we borrowed? Is it a 

good return on investment? Right down to the kids are going to 

school for this first year, and there is an attrition rate, but when 

they drop out of school after a year, they drop out with these loans 

and, frankly, grants they have to pay back; all have to do with 

what I call financial literacy. And I managed to run out of my time. 

So if you can provide that, any thoughts on that in terms of response to that in writing, that would be fine. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Absolutely, absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Davis from California. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you to all of you for being here. One of the areas that 

I wanted to focus on for a minute are the default rates. And it is 

my understanding that I think, despite the fact that people felt 

that they would go up, in fact, the default rates are going down; 

at least that is my understanding. 

Is that correct, in your view, Mr. Runcie? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Well, the default rates, the overall default rates 

have risen. And they have risen—there are a number of factors 

that are associated with the rise. A lot of it has to do with the economy. It has to do with graduation rates, job placement. And that 

was the—I think folks had expected that there would be some rise, 

given the current the given economy. 

In terms of the increase, maybe it was potentially lower than expected. So it may be that that is a part of the discussion. But you 

know, the efforts that we have around dealing with those cohort 

default rates relate a little bit to some of the servicing that we 

talked about before. We have servicers that have performancebased contracts, so they are incentivized to do whatever they can 

in terms of financial literacy and default prevention to lower those 

rates. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. I guess perhaps it is compared to what? Because at least what I understood was that they had gone down 

compared to what the FFEL rates had been, but like you say, perhaps there are some other situations going on. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Absolutely. No, if you look at the overall FFEL rate 

default rate versus Direct Loan default rate, the Direct Loan default rate is lower across all school types and all categories. So the 
35 

Direct Loan—and I don’t know sort of underlying reason for that, 

but I will say as a matter of fact that the DL rates, default rates 

have been lower. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I have seen numbers of 9.5 percent under FFEL and 

5.6 percent under DL. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes, I think—yes, if that is what you are speaking 

to in terms of DL rates being lower. Yes, that is right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Day, you had mentioned that some of your employers actually had gone over to become default managers so they were able 

to assist students. I wondered specifically what you found was the 

most helpful to students. We have talked a little bit here about the 

interest rates being even lower. And again, this is—we know they 

were quite a bit higher, and there have been proposals in the past 

to make them even lower than they are today. Is there—do you 

have any information that would suggest, had they been lower, 

that there are fewer students that were perhaps defaulting? What 

has really been the experience of your default managers as relates 

to students? Because I think what we are looking for here is, how 

does this benefit our students? Does it make it easier for them to 

access it? Do they have as much information as they need to really 

act responsibly, which is what we hope that they can do? 

Mr. DAY. Let me answer it this way, I think the more you can 

offer the students as far as assistance in literature or assistance in 

Web sites or in training initiatives or any form or fashion whatsoever to assist them in staying out of a default situation, whether 

it be literature that you offer them up front, Web sites or whatever 

the case may be, is vitally important. I have not been able to research your particular question to know exactly how to answer it. 

However, I will say that I do appreciate every effort that can be 

made to assist the students; it must be the students first. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

And I don’t know, Ms. Hoover, do you have some thoughts as 

well, perhaps giving Mr. Runcie a little more ammunition here in 

terms of, what is it that really would make a difference for them 

so that they don’t default? 

Ms. HOOVER. Thank you for the opportunity to answer. 

As indicated, Denison has been a Direct Loan Program since 

1995. And when I came to Denison, I noticed the default rate was 

somewhat higher, and it has been substantially lower since we 

were in the Direct Loan Program. 

Now I am fortunate that I am at a small school, but we are a 

very expensive school. And I took a personal passion in believing 

that if these students are paying this price for my education, they 

need to come out of here with some absolutely incredible information. 

So we actually print a personal portfolio for every senior of every 

loan they borrow. And we have personal interviews with them. We 

go through and show them every repayment option, what they 

would have. And we explain to them, if you earn this and so, this 

is what you have to earn for your indebtedness. 

And I am extremely happy to say that my default rate has been 

either 1 or less than 1 percent for the last 4 years. And I believe 

it just comes from taking the materials the Department has and 
36 

just working internally. Again, I am a small school, but I take it 

passionately, and I believe that it is important, because when they 

pay what they pay for my school, that is just part of the return for 

the investment. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Could you yield me 30 seconds? 

Chairwoman FOXX. The gentlewoman’s time is up. 

I would now like to recognize the chairman of the committee, Mr. 

Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I thank the panel for your testimony and for answering the questions. I understand that the gist of your testimony for everyone is 

that the transition has gone relatively smoothly, that the students’ 

loans are being provided and serviced, and for that, I am very glad. 

We still have a difference of opinion on this panel and elsewhere 

as to whether or not the law was a good law, whether it is flawed 

or not flawed. My friend and colleague, Mr. Roe from Tennessee, 

was talking about the loan rate, and as everybody at the table 

knows and we up here know, 6.8 percent, the federal government 

is borrowing at something less than 1 percent and loaning at 6.8 

percent, you create a pretty good slush fund for the government, 

over $60 billion when we passed it. And immediately, of course, $10 

billion of that was taken to pay for the health care law, 

Obamacare. So it is a slush fund. I think it was a mistake to do 

it. Having said that, I am glad to see that the transition seems to 

be going pretty well. 

However, Mr. Runcie, we have heard some problems regarding 

the security of borrowers’ private information. This has been 

touched a little bit on. You said there are a good number of Web 

sites and so on. But last week, the Direct Loan Web site crashed, 

as I understand it, according to my note here, and personal financial information was revealed to other borrowers. And there have 

been some complaints that Social Security numbers have been divulged in the address line to official correspondence due to an error 

with the initial booking and disbursement of student loans. Can 

you take a minute or two here and talk about what the Department is doing to address those concerns? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes, yes, you know, last week or the week before, 

we had an issue; we have, obviously, very large-scale systems. And 

we were in the process of doing a transition of 11.5 million borrowers. During that transition, we experienced what I would call 

sub-par response times. So, as a part of that process, there was a 

configuration change to improve the performance time. So, because 

of that configuration change, there was a 6- to 7-minute span 

where users who logged on saw account information of others that 

had logged on but not their own. 

So the site did not crash; we took the site down for those security 

reasons. Within 48 hours, the site was back up. We immediately 

notified all the impacted—potentially impacted users and offered 

credit monitoring. And so we responded as quickly as we could. 

Mr. KLINE. You mentioned—I am getting my numbers confused 

here, you said something about 11 million, 11.5 million; how many 

students were impacted? 
37 

Mr. RUNCIE. Oh, yeah, that was the pool—the impact of students 

potentially was as much as 5,000. 

Mr. KLINE. Go ahead, I am sorry. 

Mr. RUNCIE. And we immediately notified folks. I think the first 

day or two, we received 25 responses from the 5,000 that we contacted. But having said that, we still sent mailings out to everyone 

to make sure that they understood that credit monitoring was 

available. We corrected problem. The system is back up. That has 

been addressed. 

But in terms of the overall security architecture, that is something that, you know, we are very concerned about. We invest 

meaningful sums of money. But when we have this scale of system, 

when we are doing transitions, sometimes glitches occur, and we 

look to respond and try to fix those and remediate those as quickly 

as we can. 

Mr. KLINE. Do you have any idea what that goodly sum of money 

might be? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I am sorry? 

Mr. KLINE. You said you are spending a goodly sum of money in 

this effort. Are we—billion—— 

Mr. RUNCIE. I am sorry? 

Mr. KLINE. How much? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Well, it is embedded in some of our contractors, because our contractors also provide a level of security. We have security initiatives that range, you know, sort of $2.5 million up to $10 

million, if you sort of took out some of that money. But it probably 

pales in comparison to maybe what is offered by other private sector institutions. But we have a limited budget, but I think we are 

pretty efficient in terms of how we use those dollars. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay, as long as we are protecting those students. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Runcie, as you well know, the Department’s OIG recently 

identified an increasing number of cases involving large, loosely affiliated groups of individuals who conspired to defraud Title IV programs through distance education program. Mr. Miller and Mr. 

Hinojosa then urged Secretary Duncan to take swift action to address this fraud, and many members of this committee were 

pleased to see the Department issue a ‘‘dear colleague’’ letter last 

week urging colleges, universities to take immediate steps to detect 

and prevent fraud. I was hoping that you could, for the record, inform the committee of the specific steps FSA is taking or plans to 

take to detect and defeat fraud, waste, and abuse in the Title IV 

programs. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yeah, that is right. Thank you. We took it very seriously. We have been cooperating with the OIG to work with them 

on this distance fraud issue. 

There are a number of recommendations that were made, none 

of them surprising, a lot of those that we had considered, and we 

are in the process of trying to figure out which ones we can actually address. 
38 

But immediately we sent out the ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter to promote awareness and to identify some of the issues around distance 

fraud. Our conference, which is coming up in another month or so, 

will have 6,000 financial aid professionals and represent about 

2,000 schools. 

We are going to have training sessions and incorporate that as 

a part of the financial aid conference. So we feel that we could provide the institutions with the tools to combat that through the 

training process. 

In addition, we have established an intra-department task force 

to address all the recommendations and also come up with new 

suggestions in terms of how we can address this issue. We are looking at technical, technology. We are looking at systems and other 

processes that we could use potentially to address this issue. In addition, we are going to look at the regulatory and legislative process to see if that is something that can help address the situation. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Congressman Altmire, could you yield any 30 seconds? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Certainly. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to say that I am one of the cosigners of 

this letter that expressed our concerns of waste and fraud, dated 

September 28th. And one of the big concerns I had was the example that was given to us when OIG found that gangs of criminals 

were completing the paperwork and enrolling straw students in online programs and then logging into the classes online for the first 

30 days in order to obtain the balance of the Title IV funds not 

used for institutional charges. And there is no doubt in my mind 

that this is something that shows that our side of the aisle is very 

concerned about this taxpayer money and that it not be wasted by 

examples as I just gave you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. KLINE. Would the gentleman yield? 

I thank the gentleman. 

As I understand it, the reporting of this fraud came from the 

schools; is that correct? 

Mr. RUNCIE. That is correct. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Mr. Runcie, also, while the federal government is exempt from 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, private collection agencies 

are not. And with 23 private collection agencies, there is a lot of 

potential for abuse for defaulted borrowers. For example, one PSA 

could receive a letter from the borrower asking them to stop contacting them, but nothing stops the Department from then assigning the borrower to a new private collection agency, and then the 

borrower would have to exert their rights a second time. And just 

on this issue, I was wondering what is the Department doing to 

monitor and prevent abusive practices by the private collection 

agencies? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Well, we have an oversight group that deals with 

that. And that is their role. I mean, they follow sort of the regulations, and that has just been brought to my attention. I will make 

sure that when I go back, we will see if there is an issue around 

that. But I don’t have an answer for you at this time. 
39 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. And lastly, just a statement for you to 

consider, Mr. Runcie, as my time expires, this committee previously, in a previous Congress, made sure that veterans under veterans disability determinations did not have to reapply if they are 

determined by the VA to be 100 percent disabled for the purpose 

of waiving student loan obligation; they didn’t have to go through 

that process again for the Department medical review. There is a 

similar situation which has not been corrected with the Social Security disability and the ability of 100 percent disabled folks to 

have their loans waived. Is that something the Department has reviewed? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Oh, yes, absolutely. We are looking at streamlining 

the process and making it consistent so people don’t have to go 

through multiple applications and multiple processes to get that 

determination. 

So we are looking to address that shortly. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Altmire. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to focus a little bit on default rates. I am interested in 

that, because I have—my wife and I had a tremendous amount of 

student loans, and we paid them all back, so we weren’t one of the 

people who defaulted. 

I am interested in the data that is being used to say that one 

program is better than the other. And I was a health care provider, 

a surgeon, before, and I know every patient is different. And in 

that respect, every university is different, based on the size of the 

university, the scope, the location. And I would argue that discussing overall default rates is something that is not that helpful 

to me, honestly, without getting down into the weeds, and in that 

vein, although the low default rate at Denison is very commendable 

in the Direct Loan Program, your university is completely different 

than Indiana University. You are in a unique situation. 

I would be more interested, honestly, in the data that is to come 

in the future years, because the data that I am going to be interested in is what is going to happen at schools that have the FFEL 

students, specifically within their university, and then what the default rates were and what they will be in the future. Are we—I 

guess, Mr. Runcie, are we going to have the ability to track individual universities and give more specific in-the-weeds type data? 

Because I think it is a confounding thing to quote from one university and then compare their results with the Direct Loan Program 

to another university that had both or one more than the other and 

say that one program is better than the other. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, they are all very different, the characteristics and composition of the student population, core structure; everything is different, so you are absolutely 

right. The large numbers mask the individual identities and characteristics of the institutions. So the ability to dig into the details, 

you know, we have a pretty substantial database that has a lot of 

information. So I think there is a possibility that we can look at 

that data and provide more actionable information in terms of 

making decisions about default rates and making comparisons. But 
40 

what we have are those aggregate numbers. We also have them by 

school types. So we do break it down a little bit but not to the point 

where I think you can look at one school and potentially have a 

control group and make a good comparison. 

Mr. BUCSHON. I just wanted to point out that I consider that 

comparing apples to oranges. And to make an argument based on 

one school type that a program, whatever that is—and I am not arguing that the Direct Loan Program or the other are better than 

the other. The fact of the matter is we don’t know, because it may 

take us years or maybe decades to know what the difference will 

be between what we are doing now and what we have been doing 

in the past. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Well, I mean, the data we have, it is sort of statistical information. What we can look at, though, is we can look at, 

you know, FFEL for public 4-year, and we can look at DL for public 

4-year. And the statisticians might tell you that any number above 

100 or some number would be statistically meaningful. So from a 

statistical standpoint, I think there is a body of information that 

says that you could compare the two, and there is some meaningful 

difference, but again, that is not comparing individual schools and 

students before and after, which is what I think is—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Another confounding factor, of course, would be 

graduation rates at different institutions. As everyone knows, students who don’t graduate have a much higher incidence of default. 

I know universities like Ms. Hoover’s are excellent in that area. 

But, for example, University of Illinois, where I went, I know the 

graduation rate of all starting freshman, at least in 1980, was 

about 65 percent of the students. So whether they went on to other 

universities or didn’t finish their education is very important. 

So the point I just wanted to bring up with this is there are 

many, many confounding factors, and I really believe that it would 

be helpful to Congress going forward to assess these type programs, to not discuss just apples and oranges, but give us data that 

is in the weeds. Otherwise, you really can’t make a fair comparison. So with—I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. 

It is, again, helpful to have different members of the committee 

bring up their different perspectives. It is very useful. 

Mr. Tierney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

And thank all the witnesses. You have added some good perspective and information to us today. 

One thing I am hearing is the program is working well. And one 

thing that I know is we saved over $60 billion by taking away 

guarantees in subsidies to private lenders who had then relatively 

high interest rates. As Mr. Hinojosa pointed out, some of the interest rates were up as high as 12 percent. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Who is asking? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Bucshon. Did we save the $60 billion and use that 

is as deficit reduction, or did we spend it elsewhere? 

Mr. TIERNEY. It is wonderful you ask. It is a good segue. We took $10 billion of that, and we paid it down on the debt. With the balance of it, we were able to increase the Pell Grants, which had fall-
41 

en from about three quarters of the cost of a public higher education down to a third. So we were able to raise the Pell Grant 

amounts on that, which helped not only more students get that but 

higher up on the income scale to some lower middle-class families. 

We were able to cut interest rates on the subsidized loans significantly, in half in some instances. And I have heard some talk about 

interest rates here being an issue on that. So the resistance we got 

at that time was tremendous. It is nice to hear two of my colleagues over here complain about the interest rate now, because we 

would certainly like to work to get that down. 

We put some money, invested some money into community colleges, so that they were able to further do their work, improve 

their facilities, and help people to get trained for jobs on that. 

And we had the income-based repayment system, which we were 

able to do out of that and which I think is probably one of the most 

under-heralded positive factors that have come out of it. 

And Mr. Runcie, tell us just what the income-based repayment 

system is, because I think a lot of families don’t know it, and they 

should. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Thank you, Congressman. 

Yes, that is something we have talked about as a way to manage 

the debt and also decrease the default rates. There is a universe 

of people that could use that, and of that universe, we don’t think 

the take-up rates are what they could potentially could be. So as 

those take-up rates go up substantially, we would see a positive impact on the default rate, because it is just another tool that allows 

students and borrowers to be able to manage their debt based upon 

what their income levels are. 

In addition to that, there is a public service loan forgiveness program, which is another tool I think we have to get the word out, 

because that is something that, again, is another way to manage 

debt and also to make sure that there is some return on your investment and you don’t fall into default and delinquency. Those are 

two things that we know we have to make sure that we market, 

publicize, get the word out, and put it up on our Web sites. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And campuses as well have a role in that. I am 

sure our three other witnesses acknowledge that the campuses 

have a role in making sure students are aware of that. 

Let me speak briefly to the interest rate situation, Mr. Kline 

made a mention that we are getting our money at 1 percent and 

then turning around and getting 6.8 percent from students. The 

fact of the matter is I think we get it at about 2.5 percent for a 

10-year loan, if I am not mistaken. Would that be fair to say, Mr. 

Runcie? Somewhere in that ballpark? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes, in that ball park. 

Mr. TIERNEY. The difference in that cost of managing the loan. 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes, the cost of managing the loan would be in that 

difference. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And if there are any balances, that would go back 

to issuing further loans or more loans? 

Mr. RUNCIE. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So Mr. Andrews had a suggestion that we calculate 

the interest rate on some of the cost of the money, plus the cost 
42 

of administering it, plus a little bit for reserve, and then establishing that rate. Do you find that objectionable? 

Mr. RUNCIE. It is not objectionable to me. I know that others 

make that decision. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I can tell you who it has been objectionable to, and 

there is a whole host of people over to my left over here. We have 

had that fight going on and on. But I was very happy to here Mr. 

Kline raise it as an issue and Dr. Roe, because hopefully now we 

can work with them to try and lower that interest rate even further on students. It does make a difference. 

I think we have covered all the ground. I don’t want to get into 

an area of raising the same issues over again. But I have an unrelated thing, so we can sort of get off of that and take you off the 

hot seat. 

I have had graduates come in and tell me about their private 

loans, which are substantial and the interest rates are significantly 

high. They find it a burden, and they have trouble consolidating 

those loans. And they feel if they did consolidate those loans at a 

lower interest rate, they would not only be able to carry out their 

lives better on that, but they would have more money to spend, 

which would help the economy on that. It is difficult for the Department to do anything about that; it is private loans on that. But 

I was wondering if our other three witnesses had any thoughts. 

You must see some of your students come back with those issues, 

and if you had any thoughts on how we might provide some assistance to that cohort. 

Ms. Hoover. 

Ms. HOOVER. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. 

One of the things that helped my students is when the ECASLA 

was passed and the extra 2,000 unsubsidized loan for all undergraduate students, I have seen a substantial decrease in my private loan volume. Also, the fact that the parents now have the ability to get a deferment for parent loan substantially also reduced my 

private loans. 

And I was very grateful to you and to Members of Congress for 

those benefits that have helped my students. 

If we could do something like that, I think that would help reduce the private loans further, if we could increase. 

I know there are other viewpoints that don’t want to increase the 

loan indebted—loan amounts for students—again, I am coming 

from a private school perspective, high costs, and I understand we 

all have different perspectives, but for my students and my parents, that was very helpful, thank you. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Platts is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank 

you for hosting this hearing, very important topic and for all our 

witnesses. I don’t want to be repetitive, apologize for coming in late 

from another commitment, but I do want to express my support 

and the importance of ensuring the long-term strength of this program. 
43 

I paid off my last student loans from undergrad and law school 

as a Member of Congress and understand the very important resource that we provide. 

I have always looked at our nation as being the land of opportunity. And one of the keys to being the land of opportunity is access to a great education, whether that be K to 12 or higher education. And to me, that is what this loan program is about, is allowing every student out there to have that opportunity to advance 

themselves through higher education. 

I am one who did support the transfer to the direct program here 

on committee, and when it was voted, individually, I did not support its inclusion in the health care reconciliation language. 

I think it is a way of ensuring that the assistance is available, 

but ensuring that any, if we want to say, profit or excess funds that 

are generated by it are put back into investing in the students, 

which I think is what we are doing now, rather than into private 

hands to go elsewhere, that if there are excess funds, that they are 

reinvested. 

So the suggestion that we try to tighten up the program and 

what the interest rate is paid I think is a wise one and an important one to make sure we are given the best value for what is being 

charged. 

And I do think it is also important to recognize that the interest 

rates, my wife and I, ours ranged from 7 to 9 percent when we 

were repaying our loans. We want to drive that rate down as much 

as possible but also recognize that without that program, these individuals would not get loans because they are young citizens without a credit history, a track record. And the private sector would 

not lend in this way without a government role and, in this case 

now, a direct role. So it is critical for us to be involved and make 

sure this program is successful in the long term. 

And to each of you, your testimonies I think add a great knowledge base to each of us committee members as we seek to do just 

that, ensure its long-term success and solvency while we are making sure we give the students the best opportunity possible. So I 

certainly look forward to working with my colleagues on both side 

of the aisle to take your knowledge as we go forward and, maybe 

specifically on the interest issue, try to get an even better opportunity out there for students. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

I yield myself now 5 minutes. You may not know of my background, but I was the director of a Upward Bound Special Services 

Program for several years at Appalachian State University. But it 

has been a while since I have work in the student financial aid 

area, but I do know a little bit about that area. 

I also worked my way through college. I spent 7 years getting my 

undergraduate degree and didn’t borrow a dime of money. I spent 

8 years working on my doctorate, working full time. So I have a 

background in this area and some experiences. 

I would like to say, one quick question, ask one quick question 

to Mr. Runcie. It seems to me that with the income-based interest 

rates and public service loan forgiveness, there is very little reason 
44 

for anyone to ever default on these loans. Would you agree would 

that? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I don’t know all the factors involved, but I think 

that those are two mitigating factors. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

There is also—I have some interest in the fact that we hear 

these horror stories of people borrowing $80,000 a year. I mean, I 

have talked to students who have told me that, and yet you have 

a limit on the amount that people can borrow, so I find it kind of 

interesting that we can hear these stories that people have borrowed so much money when I know, again from my own experiences and others, that it isn’t necessary to do that. 

I would like to ask you a really important question, Mr. Runcie. 

We know that the president’s budget proposal included a loan conversion plan and possibly some other changes in the loan programs 

that would dramatically increase the amount of direct loans on the 

federal government’s books. And we have heard today—there is a 

report in the Wall Street Journal—that the president is about to 

announce a major change in the program that we have not yet 

acted on in the Congress. And I am wondering if the Department 

is moving forward with this proposal through executive fiat, and 

then, if this is the case, what specific authority does the Department have for this administrative action that we read in the press 

is about to be announced? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I can’t answer that question. I mean, I think that 

question is more sort of OGC, and it is about what our legislative 

authorities are and what the regulatory framework is. And I 

can’t—but what I will say is that whatever we are told to do in 

terms of implementation and execution, we will make sure that we 

optimize and we do what is in the best interest of students and 

borrowers. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Let me switch gears just a minute and ask 

a different kind of question. As you know, because of the new gainful employment regulation, some institutions of higher education 

are being judged on whether their graduates are paying down the 

principal on their loans. What steps is the Department taking to 

ensure that its servicers work to keep student loan borrowers in actual repayment and not simply be directed to deferment or forbearance? 

Mr. RUNCIE. I believe the structure of the contracts of the 

servicers speak to that. I think that there is incentive to keep them 

in repayment; they get paid depending on the status of the loans. 

So there are some statuses that result in less payment. I think it 

is geared toward keeping them in repayment. So the servicers are 

provided servicing for RDL loans. Their contracts are structured in 

such a way that I think they are incentivized to keep folks in repayment. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Day and Mr. Bandre ́. You 

both talked about how institutions are spending a lot of time providing services to students and borrowers that used to be done by 

lenders and guarantee agencies. Have there been implications to 

these changes? 
45 

Mr. Day, you talked a little bit about needing to do counseling 

and financial planning management. Would you talk a little bit 

more about that in terms of the services that you are having to provide? 

Mr. DAY. Yes. The financial aid office has to provide services in 

a wide variety of activities, particularly in assisting students with 

all type things. Not having the assistance from the FFEL lenders 

that previously provided default management, for example, work 

the loans, if you will, to try to keep kids out of default. We have 

felt the need. I am not familiar that much with the default management on the DL side at this time because we are so relatively 

new in the system. But I felt the need to go ahead and implement 

a process and put it in place, just to ensure that our students are 

educated on the process. So I felt that need. I applaud that need. 

I think our staff has done an exceptional job with that. 

Mr. BANDRE ́. Yes, ma’am, the biggest thing that we have found 

in that area, as Mr. Day alluded, is ability for our staff to learn 

things that the banks and guarantee agencies provided. And I will 

cite one example from my experience in Arkansas, since default 

prevention has been a key topic amongst your colleagues. The Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of Arkansas with Hugh Hendrix 

College has and does work quite closely, had a default prevention 

measure that they informed the school when the student was in 

danger of going into long-term default or short-term default. They 

would send a list of students. The colleagues there and I worked 

together to write a letter, which they sent us a copy of the letter 

when it was a student at risk. We forwarded that right on to the 

student. So it was a way for the guarantee foundation and the college to work together to help students out of default. 

I know Mr. Runcie and his colleagues are working on ways for 

that to happen. But as Mr. Day alluded, I don’t know how those 

will take place, not having been in the Direct Loan Program all 

that terribly long. 

I also just wonder, going back to default rates, what is going to 

happen when our graduates—because our freshmen now are the 

first group truly having Direct Loans, it is going to be a while before we know, as Mr. Bucshon alluded, how long it will take for 

those to truly hit the books. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

I would like to, again, thank our distinguished panel of witnesses 

for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. And 

I thank all of the members of the subcommittee who were here. 

Mr. Hinojosa, do you have any closing remarks? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Yes, I do. In closing, I want to share with you that, from 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010, I served as the chair on the Subcommittee 

on Higher Education, and I had many college presidents from 

throughout the country, West Coast and East Cost, and chancellors 

of college systems come to visit in me my office and share with me 

their concerns about affordable and accessibility of higher education because of the rising costs of higher ed. 

And I am glad to say that much of what was discussed on both 

sides of the aisle here have been solutions to increase the numbers 

of students who are now able to afford it. I saw a study done by 
46 

the Pew Hispanic Center, a study that they did for 2009 to 2010— 

I am sorry, 2009 and to the next year 2010, and their results indicated that they found an increase of 24 percent of Hispanics being 

able to access higher education, which is extremely important to 

us, because it is a group, a population, that is growing so very fast 

in the United States. 

So I am pleased that in the materials they gave us, we have this 

chart that talked a lot about the comparison of all types of student 

loans together, and then they break them out, one being the federal 

Direct Student Loan Program versus the Federal Family Education 

Loan Program. And without a doubt, from 2006 through 2010, the 

default rates for the blue on this thing is the family—Federal Family Education Loan Program, that is the highest, at 9.5 percent. 

You compare that with the Direct Loan the same year of 2010— 

I am sorry, 2009, and you see 5.6 percent. So I think we are dining 

the right things. We are on the right road to address what the 

chancellor said, accessibility and affordability. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair, for having this hearing. 

And I thank all of you for joining us today. 

And I commend the Department of Education for their leadership 

in making a seamless and successful nationwide transition to the 

Direct Student Loan Program. This program clearly expands what 

I said, accessibility and affordability in higher ed, for millions of 

students throughout the country. As we strive to achieve President 

Obama’s pledge to lead the world in proportion of college graduates 

by the year 2020, we must ensure that eligible students have access to the Direct Loan Program. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

Again, I would like to thank the members of the panel for being 

here today. 

I will say that I am a big proponent of access to higher education, and my own experience, again, tells me that we have tremendous access to higher education in this country. Never before 

have we had as much as we have today. There is no excuse for anyone who wants to get a degree past high school not to get one. It 

is available out there, in community colleges and distance learning 

and on campus programs and small campuses and large campuses. 

It is everywhere. There is no lack of choice in this country. 

At the same time, there are many questions being raised about 

whether or not people need to be getting higher education in order 

to be able to get a job. Skills are really what students need, not 

just degrees, but they need skills in order to get degrees. And I 

have great concern over the number of people who are going to 

school and taking on huge loans because they lack financial literacy. 

And I will always be concerned about our government taking on 

a function that the private sector has always been able to do and 

do well. I think the federal government should be very limited in 

its work. I think the Founders were right when they delineated the 

responsibilities of the federal government. So I believe that we 

should draw back on what we do instead of expand what we do in 

the federal government. 
47 

However, I commend the Department of Education for what it 

has done. 

I commend all of you for the work do you and for your commitment to individual students. Again, having been close to your work 

when I was in university and college work, I understand what you 

do, and I understand the importance to those individuals. 

And I think, as Dr. Bucshon brought out earlier, we need to look 

at this from many different perspectives in terms of the data that 

we collect. And I know, again, from having been a college president 

and having students come in and talk to me about how their lives 

have been changed by being in a college or university, that we do 

make huge differences in the lives of people. I want to thank you 

for what you do. 

And I want to pledge to you that our committee looks for ways 

that the federal government can provide the most effective and the 

most efficient services to our students. So thank you very much for 

being here with us today. 

And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Additional submission of Mrs. Foxx follows:] 
48 
49 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, November 10, 2011. 

Mr. JAMES RUNCIE, Chief Operating Officer, 

Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 1st Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

DEAR MR. RUNCIE: Thank you for testifying at the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training hearing entitled, ‘‘Government-Run Student Loans: 

Ensuring the Direct Loan Program is Accountable to Students and Taxpayers,’’ on 

October 25, 2011. I appreciate your participation. 

Congressional oversight is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately. To that end, committee members request your response to the enclosed 

questions. Please provide written responses no later than December 1, 2011 for inclusion in the official hearing record. Responses should be sent to Amy Jones or 

Mandy Schaumburg of the committee staff who may be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

After receiving your responses, committee members will review the answers and 

pose any additional questions they may have. 
50 

Thank you again for your contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

CHAIRWOMAN VIRGINIA FOXX (R-NC)

1. The FSA strategic plan states that you are in the process of establishing a position of Chief Customer Experience Officer (CCEO) to be the ‘‘internal champion’’ of 

customers at FSA. At what level are you establishing the CCEO? Will they have 

staff? How will the CCEO have a different role than the FSA Ombudsman? 

2. I have heard from institutions of higher education that they have a much higher default rate on their put loans than on their non-put loans. Have you analyzed 

the data to determine whether the default rate on put loans is higher than on regular loans? How have you analyzed that data? What notice has been distributed to 

students to inform them that their loans have been sold to the Department of Education? 

3. Has the Department taken any proactive steps to warn college students about 

the interest rate increase that will be happening next year as a way to better prepare these students and, hopefully, prevent over-borrowing? What else is the Department doing to help prevent over-borrowing? 

4. I understand that FSA has recently shut down the ability of lenders and 

servicers to view the loans of any borrower, except those that they service, on the 

National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). This is preventing lenders from helping married borrowers that apply for income-based repayment (IBR) unless both 

borrowers use that lender or servicer. Why is the Department preventing a lender 

or servicer (including its own direct loan servicers) from helping borrowers and implementing the Department’s own regulations? 

5. We heard during the hearing that the quality of the Department’s customer 

service has slowly been deteriorating. Since that time, we have also received a number of complaints that the website and customer service line has been experiencing 

severe disruptions making it impossible for borrowers to view their payment information. How are you ensuring that borrowers are receiving the same level of customer service touted by many in the FFEL program? Did the Department develop 

a comprehensive plan to ensure high levels of customer service are maintained? If 

so, can you give us some details on that plan and how it was implemented? 

6. What type of outreach does the Department undertake to inform students about 

their obligations of repaying their loans, particularly during the post-graduation 

grace period when borrowers often need to be reminded that they are about to enter 

into repayment? 

7. Can you describe how the Department funds all the functions (originations, 

servicing, collections, personnel costs, other contracts, or administrative expenses) 

of the Direct Loan Program? Please detail from what accounts (student aid administration appropriation, mandatory servicing account, off-budget financing account, 

etc) each of these items is funded. 

8. What types of regular interaction does the Department have with the four main 

servicers? How do you oversee the current servicing contracts and how is FSA planning to oversee compliance with the addition of new nonprofit servicer contracts? 

Furthermore, how do you ensure that the products coming out of each servicer are 

consistent? Could you articulate which products are consistent across all servicers 

and what products are different? 

9. Now that the Department of Education is one of the largest banks in the country, what is your office doing to combat any fraud and abuse that may occur within 

the federal student aid programs? 

10. Earlier this year, the Department launched its Voluntary Flexible Agreement 

initiative, which you have stated is a way to preserve the services provided by the 

nation’s guaranty agencies. Under the initiative, guaranty agencies are encouraged 

to propose new and innovative means of providing services to schools and students. 

Yet the Department has signaled that guaranty agencies will not be able to provide 

services to Direct Loan borrowers. At a time when defaults are on the rise, why 

would the Department prohibit guaranty agencies from providing cost effective supplementary services to Direct Loan borrowers? 

11. Under the Voluntary Flexible Agreement initiative announced by the Department in May, guaranty agencies have been informed that they need to give up their 

efforts to help already defaulted borrowers in order to be able to help borrowers who 

are struggling to meet their obligations. Is this true? 

12. The Higher Education Opportunity Act established a new set of requirements 

for how institutions of higher education must interact with student loan lenders. It 
51 

appears that at least one aspect of these changes has resulted in an unintended consequence with negative impacts on students and families. There are a number of 

entities, including those state-chartered non-profit agencies, which provided advisory services to students and families on campus. Even though the HEOA specifically allowed advisory services to continue, a majority of campuses will not allow 

lenders on their campuses out of fear for being criticized or penalized by the Department. Can you confirm that the HEOA does permit institutions of higher education 

to allow entities, such as the state-chartered, non-profit lenders, on campus for the 

limited purpose of providing advisory services to students and families? 

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT ANDREWS (D-NJ)

1. Describe: How the Department (and the Department’s subcontractor) independently and empirically verify (i.e., other than a verbal or written statement made by 

prospective Direct Consolidation Loan applicant) that the prospective Direct Consolidation Loan applicant that intends to pay off a FFELP Consolidation Loan qualifies for such Direct Consolidation Loan pursuant to the Act. 

2. Describe: The additional costs to the Federal government, including loan forgiveness costs and foregone interest, resulting from illegally made Direct Consolidation Loans paying off FFELP Consolidation Loans. 

3. In a letter to Congressman Andrews on September 19th, James Runcie, COO 

of the Department Education wrote that the Direct Loan Program does not have to 

verify whether or not a borrow who already has a consolidation loan qualifies for 

a Direct Loan consolidation by meeting on the three criteria in the law. Is the DOE 

mean then it does not have to enforce the law and ignore the specific conditions 

Congress put into the law regarding whether or not a borrower qualifies for a certain loan? 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, November 10, 2011. 

Ms. NANCY HOOVER, Director of Financial Aid, 

Denison University, 100 President’s Drive, Granville, Ohio 42023. 

DEAR MS. HOOVER: Thank you for testifying at the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training hearing entitled, ‘‘Government-Run Student Loans: 

Ensuring the Direct Loan Program is Accountable to Students and Taxpayers,’’ on 

October 25, 2011. I appreciate your participation. 

Congressional oversight is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately. To that end, committee members request your response to the enclosed 

questions. Please provide written responses no later than December 1, 2011 for inclusion in the official hearing record. Responses should be sent to Amy Jones or 

Mandy Schaumburg of the committee staff who may be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

After receiving your responses, committee members will review the answers and 

pose any additional questions they may have. 

Thank you again for your contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

VIRGINIA FOXX, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training. 

REPRESENTATIVE DAVE LOEBSACK (D-IA)

1. I know that ending FFELP freed up $68 billion in funding for college affordability and deficit reduction. Partly due to the transition to direct lending, the Pell 

Grant Program has been expanded significantly in recent years, increasing the maximum award to $5,550 from $4,050 and increasing the number of Pell grant recipients from 5.2 million to 9.4 million in the last 5 years. Nationally, two thirds of students at 2-year colleges and one third of students at 4-year colleges receive Pell 

grants. Especially in the current economic downturn, grant aid is essential for making college affordable for many students. 

Could you tell me a little bit about the need for federal financial aid, especially 

Pell grants, and how the transition to direct lending has benefitted low-income students at yours and other colleges that are members of the National Direct Student 

Loan Coalition? 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ