Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/11/23 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

 SESSION 3, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

December 11, 2023

On the 11th day of December, 2023, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m.

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. JEFFRIES: Welcome back. I'm Cindy 

Jeffries from FMCS. I'll be the facilitator in the set 

for this afternoon's session. So I hope you all had a 

good lunch. We- I'm going to turn it- be turning it over 

to Tamy, the lead negotiator for the Department of 

Education to give us some direction and a brief outline 

of where we're going this afternoon. Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Cindy. I'd 

like to take a few minutes to reset our focus for this 

afternoon. We heard a lot about what we said- what was 

said this morning, and it seems to us that you want to 

talk about this as an overall solution to student debt 

that combines all these items together. But these are 

distinct and separate stand alone provisions that propose 

to provide relief to different groups of borrowers within 

each section. In some section, that means full 

cancellation. In others, it means addressing negative 

amortization. When we seek consensus on these sections, 

we're looking for whether or not the Department should 

provide relief to the borrowers captured in that section 

in the manner that we are proposing. Expressing dissent 

from a given section is saying you do not want the 

Department to pursue the relief we are proposing in that 

section. Expressing neutrality or approval of a section 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

is not telling us that you do not want other forms of 

relief for other groups of borrowers not represented in 

that section. We will be having a hardship discussion 

tomorrow, and we will be hearing the ideas that you are 

presenting tomorrow. Forgive me. My screen is frozen. We 

wanted to put the hardship discussion at the end to 

ensure that we had time to hear your feedback on the 

regulatory text that we've provided you. We are committed 

to providing student loan borrowers with meaningful 

relief where we can. We have provided regulatory text 

that would provide relief to many borrowers in many 

different categories, and we believe we are negotiating 

in good faith by incorporating many of your suggestions. 

Just because we are not accepting every edit does not 

mean we are not committed to providing much needed relief 

to our borrowers. And a few other things to remember, we 

are talking about the regulatory text. When we write the 

preamble, we are able to add additional clarity. So for 

example, on section 30.85, our first goal is to get 

borrowers access to the statutory loan forgiveness 

opportunities available to them. That's why we have 

already taken steps to encourage automation within those 

regulations. But we see this provision as providing an 

additional way to catch them if those efforts still fall 

through the cracks. And if we reach consensus on a given 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

section, then we share a copy of that portion of the 

preamble with you, the committee, prior to that 

publication. At this point, Cindy, I'll turn it back over 

to you. You're on mute.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sorry. I didn't even 

look for my button. John, do you have a clarifying 

question?

MR. WHITELAW: Well, not so much a 

question as a comment, and you can tell me, can I do it 

now, or should I wait? It's about a response to what Tamy 

just said.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MR. WHITELAW: Again, I, you know, nowwhat, orMS. JEFFRIES: Yep. No. We don't want 

to- we're not trying to stifle anything. 

MR. WHITELAW: No, that's why I'm 

asking.

MS. JEFFRIES: Go right ahead. Go right 

ahead, John.

MR. WHITELAW: I just want to take 

issue with how the Department frame this. I- you know, I 

understand why they want us to vote individually on each 

narrow provision without taking into account the big 

picture. But I think that that is not necessarily how 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

those of us who are sitting here voting, either, a, need 

to behave, b, should behave, or, c, have to behave. I 

mean, I think it's one of these things where I think it 

is legitimate to say, I am- my comfort level with a 

particular provision turns on information that we don't 

have and other provisions that have not yet been fully 

fleshed out. So I certainly understand the Department's 

position that you need- that we're supposed to look at 

these narrowly, but I think it's not that simple. And I 

do think it is appropriate, for those of us who are 

advocating for our constituencies to take a different 

framing of that. And I just wanted to sort of again, 

certainly, the Department is entitled to have its view on 

how we should look at these, but I would like to set an 

alternative view that it is not as simple as we have to 

look at these in narrow isolation when it's- in the real 

world, it's- you can't do that. We can't do that. We 

can't do that. Our constituencies can't afford us to do 

that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, John. 

Alright. Hello? You have your hand up.

DR. BISHOP: Yep. I have a clarifying 

question for Tamy. So, I- if I understood correctly, I 

heard you encourage the negotiators to consider the 

regulatory text both for who's being offered relief and 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

then the manner in which the Department is going about 

offering that relief. But then I thought I heard you say 

that if we vote down, where the vote down would mean that 

we don't believe, particular groups should get relief. 

And I'm wondering- I guess I'm wondering, is there a way 

for us- our vote down to say, not only to not exclusively 

say that we don't want that group to, to, be excluded 

from relief, and instead say, we may be completely okay 

with the groups that are being targeted under the 

regulatory text, but take issue by the manner in which 

they're being targeted or the manner in which that 

targeting is excluding other groups, other distressed 

borrowers who are in need of relief. So I just wanted to 

clarify what a- what a thumbs down means, because I think 

there's some nuance there that I may have misheard or, 

wasn't clear to me.

MS. ABERNATHY: We will be happy to 

respond to that in just a little bit. We will need to 

make sure that our framing further clarifies your 

questions. So, can we circle back to that in just a bit? 

Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR: I just want to join on to 

what Jalil said in that thumbs down is commenting on the 

regulatory text itself, not the motivation, or the group 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

of borrowers. I think a legitimate reason to disagree 

with the text may be that the text just doesn't go far 

enough. So we could agree with what is motivating the 

Department, or agree with providing relief to that 

population of borrowers, but want it to meet 

significantly broader. I think if it means something 

else, then we should- we should have restructured how we 

were voting on this in the first place, or perhaps done 

temperature checks earlier on.

MS. ABERNATHY: So we think of a 

downvote is because you don't like the text in that 

respective section, not that you want a different text in 

a different section. So, that's our view of what a 

downvote is from you. These regulatory provisions are not 

meant to catch all. They are- you know, they are narrower 

in some regards, and we understand that you guys want a 

lot broader, forgiveness provisions and waiver for 

certain things. But our intent was to keep these 

respective sections narrow and make sure that that impact 

for that particular group of individuals receives that 

benefit.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Tamy. Thank 

you, Kyra. Okay. seeing no further hands, we do have an 

agenda change for this afternoon. We're going to be 

covering sections 30.86, 87, and 88 this afternoon. In 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

respect to sections 30.83, the Department will be sending 

some text out this evening that FMCS will promptly 

distribute to you for review. So 30.83 will be moved to 

discussion for tomorrow, as well as the hardship 

discussion. Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. I was wondering if 

Tamy or someone else at the Department could just give us 

anything about what's coming in 30.83 because I think 

that, you know, I have some concerns about that 

provision, and I have regulatory text drafted to send to 

you, but I wanted to hear you out. But if I'm not going 

to get a chance to hear you out today, then I don't 

really know- like, I just feel like we're running out of 

time and I'm not sure that we could do that in the last, 

you know, what, you know, two hours? But if you could 

maybe just even without reg text, describe what's coming, 

that might help guide my limited hours tonight.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm not- I'm not sure 

they're going to have an immediate response to- oh, go 

ahead, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: We are looking at 

clarifying how consolidation gets treated, Jessica. So I 

would recommend that despite us not going through 30.83 

today, if you did have recommended text to please send it 

to us as we look at that later this afternoon and 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

circulate that to you guys this evening, we'll be better 

positioned to take a look at it holistically, and you may 

provide some additional clarification that we're seeking 

as well. So if you would be so kind as to get that to us 

anyway separate from the discussion, we are happy to take 

a look at that, and then we will circle back sometime 

this evening with 30.83, for you guys to look at in 

preparation for our discussion tomorrow. Would that be 

okay, Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. That's fine. As, as 

you know, I'm all about clarifying the consolidation 

thing. I think it's really important. If I'm 

understanding you correctly and that the, the point of 

the revisions is really just about consolidation. I do 

think that it might be productive to have a discussion 

today to allow some of us to raise some other issues to 

the Department even just at a conceptual level without 

regulatory text, so that you wouldn't be getting those 

proposals in a, in a vacuum, if we have time.

MS. ABERNATHY: We will, if we have 

time, Jessica, entertain that idea. So thanks for that 

suggestion. I just don't know where we're going to be 

today. So, stay tuned. If we can get to it, we certainly 

will do that today. Thanks so much. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Seeing no further 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

hands, let's move on to 30.86. I do want to remind you 

that, you know, I've been reading the text and I see the 

chats and, you know, I'm hearing the statements that 

things just don't go far enough or it's too broad. The 

more details that you can give the Department and what it 

is that you feel is lacking, the better they can look at 

things and review. Okay. So, forgive me if I press you

this afternoon a little bit more for details on your 

comments, but, trying to get as much information to the 

Department as we possibly can, okay, for their 

consideration before tomorrow. So with that, Tamy, I'm 

going to turn it over to you for 30.86.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Cindy. I 

want to make sure that the screen sharers have got the 

text up on the screen. This is an area where we have made 

a number of changes. In 30.- in section 30.86, where 

appropriate, we incorporated your suggestions. The big 

picture is that the proposed reg text does two things. 

One, captures situations where the Secretary terminates 

Federal Aid access going forward for a program or 

institution that fails measures of student outcomes as 

required under the Higher Education Act or its 

implementing regulations. And two, capture situation 

where the- situations where the Secretary terminates 

Federal Aid access going forward for schools or programs 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

because they did not provide sufficient financial value 

to students. In section 30.86, you will see we captured 

the broader set of circumstances that we think are 

appropriate here. There are situations where the 

Secretary has taken formal action to cut off aid going 

forward, and in paragraph A, we lay out those kinds of 

circumstances. This is conceptually similar to what 

negotiators suggested in their language, but we did not 

take all the ideas in that text. The suggested language 

basically included any circumstances of loss of Title IV 

eligibility, but we do not think that is appropriate. For 

instance, an institution that loses Title IV eligibility 

solely due to institutional financial concerns would not 

be appropriate to capture here. I want to highlight two 

things here. One, by saying the Secretary issued a final 

decision that terminated, denied participation, etcetera, 

captures the idea that these actions occurred after the 

exhaustion of any appeal options by the school. So if the 

Secretary announces an action and the school challenges, 

this proposed paragraph would not apply until the appeal 

is exhausted, and if the appeal is ultimately determined 

in favor of the school, this text does not apply. And 

two, this language does not create liabilities to be 

assessed against the school as we noted last session. As 

such, institutions would not be subject to any attempt to 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

repay these funds under this provision. You will see in 

paragraph one, we capture failures of student outcomes 

measures. This includes things like cohort default rate 

and gainful employment measures. It does not include 

things like financial responsibility scores or 90/10. I 

note here that this requires the program or institution 

to fail enough times to lose access to aid as described 

in paragraph A. Paragraph two is other actions. Again, we 

see these as needing to relate back to the financial 

value of what students received. In advance of the 

meeting, we received amendatory text changes for 30.86 

from Jessica. We respectfully ask FMCS to turn this over 

to Jessica to briefly discuss her changes with the 

committee.

MS. RANUCCI: Hi. So I submitted, like, 

in some ways what was a pretty technical amendment to 86 

and it's the theme for, I think, 87 or 88, so I'll just 

say it once. But, basically, those of you who are 

familiar with PSLF may know that there was- there's been, 

like a- historically, like, a lot of, stakes as to if a 

borrower consolidates their loans. And for PSLF, some 

borrowers who, you know, potentially could have been 

eligible had they not consolidated, consolidated, and 

then lost some or part of their eligibility. And, 

basically, I wanted to submit a proposal that made sure 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

that whether or not a borrower consolidated their loans 

basically, like, didn't matter for the purposes of these 

relief provision- provisions so that, you know, just like 

in the most simple way, like, if a borrower has one loan 

where they would get the waiver and one loan where they 

wouldn't get the waiver, if they didn't consolidate, 

they'd get the waiver for the one and not the other. If 

they did consolidate, they would get the waiver for the 

portion attributable to the one and not the other. 

Basically, that is to say, consolidate or don't 

consolidate, it shouldn't change your availability or 

entitlement to relief.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Jessica. Anything further, Tamy or Jessica, before we, 

turn to the committee for a temperature check and 

discussion on this?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. We wanted to 

mention that we agree with these edits, and I'd like the 

screen sharers to share the text that includes these 

edits in section 30.86 so that this is the complete 

regulatory text we would like FMCS to ask for a 

temperature check on.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Did you want to 

walk through that, or is there- can we take the screen 

share down? Okay. Alright. Thank you. So is everyone 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

clear on what the temperature check will be? It will be 

the regulatory text, including the amendments that the 

Department, took from Jessica's submission. Okay. So if I 

could please see a show of thumbs. Jessica, you had a 

question before we go on? 

MS. RANUCCI: I'm sorry, are we at the 

point where we can do clarify and questions now? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Absolutely. Go 

right ahead.

MS. RANUCCI: Thank you. So Tamy, could 

you just talk through how this would apply to a school 

that loses accreditation and then the loss of IV stemming 

from accredit- sorry, so then loses Title IV stemming 

from their loss of accreditation. Would that be covered 

by this or not? Or would it depend on what the loss of 

accreditation was for?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yeah, I'm going to ask 

one of my colleagues to jump in. Ben, do you have a 

response to this question? If not, we can circle back, 

Jessica.

MR. MILLER: The- the sheer year loss 

of accreditation wouldn't just trigger that. Right? So, 

obviously, there's a lot of accreditors that revoke 

accreditation for reasons just solely due to finances. I 

think that we would want to look at the reason behind the 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

loss of accreditation then build it into the Department 

action. So, you know, if you think there's a way to 

capture that, we're happy to look at that. But basically, 

we didn't want to capture was, you know, we know there 

are some, you know, small colleges that are just in 

financially dire straits. They close. There's no record 

of sort of problems where they provide to students. And 

so that is the concept we are trying to, narrow and then 

focusing on here.

MS. ABERNATHY: And also, there needs 

to be a demonstration that students didn't receive 

sufficient financial value.

MS. RANUCCI: Right. I guess what I'm 

trying to figure out is- I'm like, this is, like, way 

outside of my expertise. I'm sorry. But, like, you know, 

formally, my understanding is if the institute, let's 

just say institutional accreditation grant, if the 

institution loses its institutional accreditation, the 

loss of Title IV, the like, formal basis for that action 

would be the loss of accreditation itself. And so I guess 

my question is, like, does this reg give the Department 

the flexibility to, like, sort of look under the curtain 

of the loss of accreditation and say, okay, that loss of 

accreditation really was for one of the things here. So, 

like, we're going to sort of count the- the sort of loss 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

of Title IV due to loss of accreditation as being under 

this language, or would it, like, automatically be 

excluded from this if the technical reason for the loss 

of Title IV was the loss of accreditation.

MS. ABERNATHY: We're going to take 

that back. We may have to get back with you tomorrow. So 

don't- please put that in the chat so that we can capture 

that and get back to you, Jessica. Thanks so much.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Angelika, you have 

a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. My comment was to 

somewhat piggyback off of Jessica. In some cases, are 

there a loss of accreditation where the institution goes 

on heightened cash monitoring? Also known as- also known 

as HCM1 or 2. And I would say that would be in 

correlation to what a projected revision would stand in 

this particular case because there are- there are some 

accreditation factors where the Department will 

automatically place the institution on heightened cash 

monitoring.

MS. ABERNATHY: Angelika, please 

forgive me. I was multitasking. I need you to repeat your 

question. I'm sorry. I got half of it, and I didn't get 

the first half of it, so I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: No problem. Are there 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

some accreditation issues where the Department will 

automatically place the institution on heightened cash 

monitoring?

MS. ABERNATHY: So, heightened cash 

monitoring alone is not enough to trigger this particular 

section, so I hope that answers your question. If it 

doesn't, stick it in the chat, and we'll try to circle 

back and get you a better answer on that.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I was wondering 

whether someone could talk through the reasons behind 

requiring the decision to be final is including the 

resolution of any appeals. In my view, I would- I would 

understand the basis where there are recruitment, but 

since there's no recruitment here that I can see, you 

know, it seemed to me that the Secretary certainly 

doesn't take steps to terminate Title IV lightly, and 

I'm- I'm not sure what the- I think there's a lot of loss 

to students of waiting for the resolution of the appeal 

because it would delay it, but maybe I'm missing 

something.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jessica, it doesn't 

appear as though they can answer that right offhand here. 

If you could also put that in the chat. I also want- I 

also want to bring to your attention just for- 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. ABERNATHY: Cindy?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah.

MS. ABERNATHY: Ben is going to take 

that one.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay, Ben. Thanks.

MS. ABERNATHY: If he didn't freeze up. 

MR. MILLER: Sorry. I'm back. So the 

idea here is we see situations where we cut off borrowing 

for student- for students going forward at a given school 

or program because we have significant concerns about 

that school or program. And in the meantime, the various 

students whose outcome measures or experiences may have 

formed the basis or evidence for that termination under 

current structure are basically kind of left to possibly 

get a Borrower Defense claim, but beyond that are not 

really otherwise automatically picked up. And so we see 

this as coming behind after that borrower has been 

terminated going forward to provide that relief. And so 

our concern is if it's not a sustained termination 

action, we are not in fact cutting off the borrowing 

going forward, and so we're- we don't think that that 

would be a place where we would pick this up. But that's 

kind of the concept is to say, if we cut off the loans 

going forward, we want to provide a way to help the 

borrowers that were basically captured during that period 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

of work that justified that cutting off action.

MS. RANUCCI: Right. Again, this is 

outside of my wheelhouse, but, like, my- someone may know 

more than me, but my understanding is that, you know, 

often those appeals drag on for a really long time and 

that the aid wouldn't often be dispersed in the interim, 

and so- but maybe I'm wrong about that. But the- anyway, 

that, like, borrowers could be waiting years and years to 

sort of know whether or not they apply and sort of 

whether or not- you know, appeals can get denied for all 

sorts of reasons that, like, really have nothing to do 

with the merits here. And so I think, like, I hear what 

you're saying. If the appeals process was in one day, I 

think I would, like, totally conceptually agree with you, 

but I think I would want to know- you know, have like- a 

little more about how this, like, plays out in reality 

because I just imagine borrowers might get- it gets stuck 

for years, and sort of whether or not the appeal turns

out a certain way doesn't necessarily always implicate 

the, like, evidence and reason to judgment that the 

Department used in the first place to make a decision 

that I think is, like, you know, a really significant and 

serious decision that the Department takes seriously.

MR. MILLER: So, I mean, the appeals 

vary in time and depending upon the reason for what 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

you're talking about. I mean, there are some schools that 

will fight it and some that will not. As well as keep in 

mind that the appeals around, say, like, CDR are more 

clearly prescribed and sort of more, [inaudible] or, 

like, straightforward as compared to, like, sort of the 

essentially legal proceedings that entail a termination 

action. So I think that there is a variation there in 

terms of how long they take and what they look like 

there. But the other thing I would just note is, you 

know, our goal with this one is not to have it be an 

application-based waiver, but rather to look at, you 

know, we know what- where borrowers borrowed and we know 

at the time of the period they were borrowing. So we're 

not viewing this as a apply-type approach.

MS. RANUCCI: Right. I understand. I 

think- I think we might have a slight point of 

disagreement, but I think I understand your position, and 

I guess I would just maybe say that in my view, that 

would maybe be better to the Secretary's discretion in 

the future rather than to, like, put that limitation on 

the Secretary's discretion in the rule.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, 

Jessica. Ashley, clarifying question?

MS. PIZZUTI: Yes. What about those 

accreditations that have acted in bad faith in the past 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

like ACICS and those schools that kind of fall under 

their accreditation that have either closed or changed 

accreditation. Again, with the appeals process and the 

length of it, I know from experience from Borrower 

Defense. I know you said that there's not an application 

process, but we can see just from the backlog and the 

years and years and years that folks have been waiting 

for Borrower Defense. Are these loans- you know, if this 

is an automatic system, are they going to be put into 

forbearance while the appeals process goes on? Are the 

borrowers going to be notified that this might affect 

their credit? It just feels like there's a lot of missing 

language that kind of defines these other things.

MR. MILLER: We're happy to take 

language if you think there's things that are missing 

with regard to those pieces, and we're happy to take a 

look at them.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I know I'm 

technically not supposed to do this right now, but, I 

just want to say thank you for including this. I know 

that we're really only supposed to have clarifying 

questions, but this is a brand new provision. And I just 

wanted to say that, I know I'm asking a bunch of 

questions, but I really appreciate you hearing from the 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

committee that this was important and that you putting 

out language there, and I think it really has the 

potential to help a lot of people. And so, thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jessica. 

Kathleen?

MS. DWYER: Yes. I agree with a lot of 

the text that's here. Just wanted to ask a clarifying 

question again around sufficient financial value in part 

two. So is there a regulatory definition of providing 

sufficient financial value? I noticed this doesn't link 

over to gainful employment like some of the other text 

does. So I just wanted to know, does the Department have 

a specific definition of that that they're referring to, 

that schools could understand and follow here?

MR. MILLER: Sure. So on the- on the 

school side, you know, I think part of what we are saying 

here is that we view the process and proceedings with 

respect to the school as being separate from the process 

and proceedings here. That's partially why we've got that 

piece about the exhaustion of any appeals and the part 

about liability because we see this as sort of running 

separate from that. But, basically, the- you know, the 

first paragraph or I guess not the first one, but the 

paragraph that talks about student outcomes measures 

would pick up CDR or gainful employment, where again, 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

those have hit the point where the Secretary has taken 

the termination action. So, it wouldn't just be like a 

single failure if the program stays in. And then with 

regard to sort of the other category, we think that is 

something that would come up in the actual termination 

action. So, you know, when we deny recertification or 

things of that nature, we explain to the school why we 

took that action, and so we will be looking at that type 

of question as we- in terms of what the underlying 

rationale for why we did the thing we did. But again, 

that's partially why we have this language about saying 

this follows after sort of the administrative proceedings 

with respect to this quarter done and there's not 

liability for the school.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Jessica? 

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah, can I just clarify? 

Because I think that this was part of the proposal that I 

put in. I think the idea is, in my mind in, like, very 

simple terms. Like, what happens once the school can no 

longer give Title IV Aid, what happens to the students 

who were at that school? I think that's the question, and 

I think, this sort of- there are lots of complicated 

questions about what happens before a no longer has 

access to Title IV Aid, and I think that this is really 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

not to meant to answer those, but just to the what 

happens after.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks for that 

clarification, Jessica. Alright. Seeing no further hands, 

let's go ahead and take a temperature check on 30.86. 

Could I see your thumbs, please? Okay. I'm not seeing any 

thumbs down. Am I missing something? Okay. Alright. So, 

we can open this up for further discussion if you'd like, 

at this point, as we did this morning. Is there anything 

anyone would like to let the Department know, share with 

the Department, ideas, suggestions, concerns on 30.86? 

Okay. Alright. Sounds good. Let's move to 30.87, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. If my screen 

sharers would get the text up. This is waiver following a 

closure. In section 30.87, we're capturing a similar 

idea, but it is a more limited situation. Here, we are 

trying to get at circumstances where a program or 

institution has failed an outcome measure in a way 

similar to how it's captured in the section 30.86, 

paragraph (a)(1). The difference is that we have seen in 

the has that some institutions or programs will fail a 

measure once and then choose to close. In those 

situations, there will not be additional years of data to 

make a judgment about student outcomes. Therefore, since 

that program or institution has closed following that 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

failure, we think- we think it is fair that the 

Secretary- to reasonably infer the program or institution 

did not provide sufficient financial value to students 

and therefore warrants providing relief to the borrower. 

Again, it is important to note that this only includes 

programs or institutions that close. And, again, we 

incorporated reg text from Jessica, the same reg text 

that she spoke to before. So I just ask that the team 

share the appropriate reg text that references Jessica's 

edits, and I'll turn it back to you, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you. Isthere we go. So this has the appropriate edits from the 

things that the Department did adapt from Jessica's 

proposal that she sent in. That would be inclusive in the 

temperature check when we do it for 30.87. Okay. Thank 

you. See, you read my mind. I don't even have say. 

Thanks. Alright. So, I will open it up for clarifying 

questions prior to the temperature check. Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry. I don't mean to 

sound repetitive. I actually think this is a different 

question here. Could you explain what final determination 

means here? Because I don't actually think these are the 

kind of determinations that could be appealed. Right?

MR. MILLER: We wanted to capture here 

where the outcomes measures are final. So a couple of 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

them have the ability to be appealed, But, it's a little 

different than, yes, you're correct about the, like, you 

know, we issue a perm review saying we intended to deny 

recertification, and then it needs to go through, but 

we're just trying to indicate that the- you know, a good 

example would be like say you failed the court default 

rate one year, but not high enough to hit that 40% 

threshold, you decide to close, we want to use this sort 

of absence of future data to catch you there, but the 

idea would be that it would have to be our sort of final 

read of this is what your court default rate is.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Ben. 

Any other clarifying questions before the temperature 

check? Alright. Seeing no hands, let's go ahead and take 

a temperature check on 30.87. Can I see your thumbs, 

please? Okay. I'm not seeing any thumbs down. Alright. 

Let's open it up for discussion. Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks, just on that same 

issue, I think- you know, I think you understood those 

phrases. I did have questions, but I think, you know, 

through our back and forth, I think you understood on 86 

that I would- substantively, I do not think that there's 

a reason to necessarily wait for the resolution of any 

appeals and certainly not to take away the discretion of 

the Secretary to decide in the future that the Secretary 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

doesn't need to wait for the resolution of appeal, so I 

think I would- I would, in 86, want to take that- the 

term final out of the [inaudible] or out of the proposed 

reg for substantive reasons. Here, I just- I'm not sure 

that it- I think it's just confusing as to what is a 

final termination, and so I think I would maybe suggest 

striking the word final just for clarity's sake. I think 

it would just be a determination by the Secretary, and 

again, the Secretary would obviously maintain the 

discretion to make that determination at any point. It 

says that the Secretary may waive the balance. So, I 

think it would come out of both, but for different 

reasons.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Irma, did you 

capture that, or did you want that dropped in the chat as 

an idea? Got it? Okay. Okay. Alright. Great. Scott 

Buchanan. 

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, I would just 

offer- I know this is sort of- we have some slightly 

changed language in front of us, but- and I think we're 

going to have to look at that in terms of implementation 

and how that would actually work. With a lot of these 

things, I do want to emphasize that sort of the 

complexity that's being overlaid here is something the 

Department's going to have to strongly consider about how 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

they fund and implement, because some of these new 

additions, particularly, will be very challenging 

operationally. And will require a lot of time, absent 

significant resources. So anyway, we're going to have towe'll take a look at that and provide any other feedback 

we can, since we're seeing the language just right now, 

so I can't give any sort of detailed analysis about that, 

but that's something that needs to be considered.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Scott. 

Appreciate that. Jessica? 

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah, Scott, I'm not sure 

if that was directed at the consolidation language in 

particular or this provision in general, but I think as 

to the consolidation language, it's just- it's- it's just 

copied and pasted from what was already in, I think, 

proposed 30.85 (b), and I think it wouldn't really 

involve the treatment of consolidation loans any 

differently than, for example, you do right now with 

closed school discharge or false certification discharge 

where you just sort of look under- you know, under the 

hood of the consolidation loan to see the underlying loan 

and then apply. I mean, I'm not a servicer. I'm sure it's 

complicated. You know, it's not like you just press a 

button on a computer, but I think it's not something 

that's categorically different than what the Department 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

already does in a lot of other respects.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Jessica. Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: Jessica, we would be 

interested if you so choose to go into a caucus to 

discuss, 30.86. We do have some time, so if that's 

something that you think would be beneficial, we'd be 

happy to go ahead and go into a caucus with you.

MS. RANUCCI: Sure. Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: At some point, it 

doesn't even have to be right now, but that would be 

something that we'd be interested in doing if you would 

so like.

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. Yeah. I'd be happy 

to. Thanks.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, you tell me 

when you want to do that caucus. We've- I don't see any 

more hands on 30.87. We can do it now before we move, or 

we could cover the next section.

MS. ABERNATHY: Let's cover the next 

session.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: Section, Cindy, and 

then we can goMS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: We'll couple it with 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

the break.

MS. JEFFRIES: That's what I was going 

to- that's what I was going to say. We only got one more.

MS. ABERNATHY: Great minds think 

alike, right?

MS. JEFFRIES: Right. Right. Alright. 

So let's move on to section 30.88 and let me turn it over 

to Tamy for the walk-through on that.

MS. ABERNATHY: Alright. Screen 

sharers, get that screen up for us. 30.88. Great. This is 

an area where we indicated at the last session that we 

would be providing updated text. The goal of this section 

is to capture programs or institutions that have had poor 

debt to earnings rates or provide graduates with 

insufficient earnings as they closed. The difference with 

this section is that these are going to be programs that 

did not have official rates and then closed. That would 

be captured under section 30.87. Rather, we know that 

many institutions over time have shifted their 

programmatic offerings as they have seen data come out 

of- come out about their performance. So we want to give 

relief to borrowers when we have data showing the 

financial returns to students who were insufficient and 

then the program- program or school closed. I want to 

reiterate that point. The program or school has to have 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

closed. This is not about open schools. Because this is 

not a situation where there would be official rates 

indicating a program's results on these measures, we've 

crafted regulatory text that explains how we would 

measure debt to earnings rates and an earnings premium 

test. This text reflects the data we have available and 

also so various limitations that were in place when these 

data were run. For instance, we are proposing to not 

include certain medical or dental programs in this 

calculation because those would have had their earnings 

evaluated after a longer time in repayment, and we do not 

have those data. We have adjusted the proposed language 

in paragraph (a)(2) to better clarify this exception. I 

also want to draw your attention to paragraph (c) of this 

section, which introduces an additional concept. The goal 

of this paragraph is to provide relief to borrowers who 

attended closed colleges where the majority of Federal 

Aid volume was associated with programs that failed to 

meet the standards laid out here. We would apply this to 

borrowers who attended programs where we didn't have the 

data to evaluate whether their program passed or failed. 

The idea is that if the college overall had a majority of 

its aid in failing programs enclosed, that the Secretary 

can reasonably infer the program did not provide 

sufficient financial value to students, and borrowers 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

should not have to bear the consequences of that fact 

that we do not have the data on their program. Again, 

Jessica provided the same text that she provided, for all 

the other sections. And so we're not going to ask her to 

go ahead and go over that again, but that speaks to the 

additional reg text that you see regarding the 

consolidation piece. I'll turn it over to you, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Tamy. 

Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I just have one clarifying 

question, and I think these are all great additions. I'm 

really excited to see them. In (c)(3), the Department 

notes that it will provide relief if the conditions 

described in paragraph- paragraph (a)(3) are met, but the 

Department doesn't have reliable data. What data would 

the Department rely upon then? Because it might be better 

to clarify that language.

MR. MILLER: So, yeah. So the issue 

here is, you know, the size of programs at colleges vary 

substantially. So there are many that are too small to 

have enough data to evaluate their debt to earnings rates 

or their earnings premium. And so what we're trying to 

say is, if you've got a school where the majority of the 

programs where we did have data failed, and the school 

closed that we would draw the inference that were- had we 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

been able to get data on that program, like, had it been 

big enough, it's likely that it would have failed. And so 

that's what we're trying to pick up there. It's basically 

to sort of address what do we do in a situation where we 

know a majority of the students failed, but we have these 

smaller programs where we don't have data. So, it's like 

how- it's say how we want to fill in the data gaps, 

basically.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Ben. 

Just before I call on you, Jessica, I do want to announce 

that Sarah Butts is now at the table in place of Sherri 

Gammage for four-year student loan borrowers. Welcome, 

Sarah. Jessica? 

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah, I think I had the 

same question and I think maybe, Ben, based on your 

answer, the Department might consider saying something 

like does not have detailed data or sufficiently detailed 

data or the requisite data or some- I- it's just there's 

a- there's a negative inference that somehow the data is 

unreliable that I don't think was reflected in your 

answer. And I have a similar, like, very minor question 

here. On (a)(3), it says for the period in which the 

borrower receives loans for enrollment and the program, 

the Secretary has reliable data, blah blah blah blah 

blah. I think that that could be read as like requiring 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

some, like, borrower by borrower analysis of, like, their 

whole attendance period, and I assume that's not what you 

meant. I assume you meant if- you know, if the borrower 

was attending during a period in which you have data. So 

if I'm correct, I think possibly it could just be fixed 

really easily by saying for any period in which the 

borrower received loans or like that, but it- you're 

welcome to clarify if I misunderstand.

MS. JEFFRIES: I'm not seeing where 

Tamy went.

MS. ABERNATHY: Oh, I'm here. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, there you are. You 

moved over there. Okay. Alright. Good.

MS. ABERNATHY: If I'm lost, don't find 

me.

MS. JEFFRIES: No. I think, you know, 

that there are some- well, I know that there are some 

people having difficulties today with Internet service, 

and it's been freezing up, and then they blank off the 

screen for just a second. So, I lost you there just for a 

minute, Tamy. Alright. So, I don't know if the Department 

had a response to that if Jessica was understanding that 

correctly or not.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yeah. One of the things 

we'll do, Jessica, is we will- we will look at this. And 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

what we do not adjust in the regs, because we do not 

regulate the Secretary's actions, we can address in the 

preamble to provide additional and further clarification. 

So, go ahead and make sure that that is in the chat so 

that we can capture that concern, and then we can kind of 

address this a little bit more in detail in the preamble.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am.

MS. JEFFRIES: Any further questions 

before we take the temperature check? You want to say- I 

see Benjamin Lee. You came in, in place of Scott 

Buchanan. Correct? Alright, great. Welcome. Alright. 

Let's go ahead and see the temperature, the thumbs for 

your temperature check on 30.88. John, you’re wiggling 

yours. Okay. Alright. Great. Thank you. I'm not seeing 

any thumbs down. So, we can open it up for further 

discussion, if anyone has anything they'd like to askadd at this point for 30.88? Okay. So, why don't we go 

ahead and set up he caucus that was asked for by the 

Department with Jessica?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. Cindy, would you 

please put in me, Ben, Soren, Brian Siegel, Genevieve, 

Toby, and Jessica in the caucus? And then we'll have a 

slight break after that caucus.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Do you have any 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

idea on the length of the caucus so that the rest of the 

people can plan accordingly?

MS. ABERNATHY: Let's do the caucus for 

10 minutes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, okay. 

MS. ABERNATHY: I think we can cover it 

then.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. And I can 

always check-in and let people know. So, alright. So I 

have Ben, Soren, Brian Siegel, Genevieve, Toby, and 

Jessica, and yourself. Right?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. We can go 

ahead and go off the live stream, and we will get people 

moved to that room. Okay, we are back live and appreciate 

it. Everyone is back. There were a couple requests made 

of the Department that have been discussed. I'm going to 

turn it over to Tamy to address, a couple of those 

questions. 

MS. ABERNATHY: Great. Thank you guys 

so much for hanging in there. We have heard your request 

for complete reg text. That includes the changes that we 

made prior- since the time that we sent the regamendatory reg text to you and also the changes that we 

included, as Jessica mentioned earlier today. So what we 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

plan to do, we are still changing some things in 30.83, 

so what we will do later this evening is send to you a 

reg text version that in parts before subpart G, you 

already see that that's in red line. There have been no 

changes to that. But in 30.80 and beyond, what you will 

see is the reg text and clean reg text and any of the 

changes that we've made since the time we've posted the 

reg text live will be indicated in red lines, so what 

you'll see is actual red text that includes the 

information that Jessica provided to us and any 

additional changes that we had to make since we've posted 

the reg text. Okay? So please stay tuned. We'll try to 

get it to you as quick as we can after the negotiations 

are over, but we plan to give that to you sometime this 

evening. The other item that you- apparently, there's 

just been popular demand on giving you some time to 

discuss 30.83. So we understand that you want to talk 

about this and how it would work for people who have 

loans just after the date specified. We are still working 

on other parts of this section, but we want to- we want 

to give you some time to talk about it. So we're going to 

open it up for you to share your comments and your 

opinions about borrowers who have loans after these 

specified dates so that we may consider your discussion 

later today. So, Cindy, I'll turn it over to you and we 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

can open it up for discussion.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Alright. Great. 

Thank you. So with that, let's open the floor for

discussion on 30.83 as outlined. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I first- I want 

to say, you know, I think that this is a really important 

avenue for debt relief for many people who really, really 

need it. I think it's- these old loans really follow 

people for the rest of their lives. There's, you know- I 

have clients, you know, one who hopefully will comment 

today, you know, their loans are from before I was born. 

Right? The loans don't go away. They're just trying to 

help a client. The Government has destroyed all of the 

relevant records and the bankruptcy he filed because the 

bankruptcy was so old, because the loans are even older. 

Right? So these old loans stay around forever. It's 

tremendously important because it accrues so much 

interest and they really burden people's [inaudible] 

throughout their lives. So I want to start by saying I 

really appreciate the Department's attitude towards 

tackling this issue. It's tremendously important. I 

really appreciate what you're trying to do here. I think 

that the thing that I would like to- and sorry, and one 

more thing I want to appreciate the Department for is 

that you have, between the second and third sessions, 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

eliminated the idea that we need to count certain months. 

I think the counting of months really, like, 

[inaudible]the detriment of the borrower to the extent 

that there are records that are missing. And so I really 

appreciate that this proposal does not require- you know, 

it requires that you understand the start date and thatthat's it, and we don't need to know what happened every 

month since then, which really, is important when records 

don't exist. I think that, one concern that I have that I 

think is shared by some other people is that, borrowers 

who are just so close to this will just lose their shot,

and that, you know, a borrower who's- you know, a 

graduate borrower, for example, who is 24 years and 10 

months, will just- will just have that opportunity- that 

will not have that opportunity, and I understand that 

there are, you know, sometimes line-drawing exercises the 

Government has to do, but this seems like an incredibly 

stringent one and I hope that the Department might 

consider some other alternatives.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Jessica. Jalil?

DR. BISHOP: I think- well, first, it's 

a clarifying question. Can the Department explain why it 

has to have this cliff or why it's proposing the cliff 

around the 25 years and the borrowers will be cut off. Is 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

there a reason why it has to happen in this moment? Why 

it can't be rolling relief?

MS. JEFFRIES: Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: I actually had 

something to say aboutMS. JEFFRIES: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: -Jessica's- Jessica, 

you had mentioned alternate text. Would you be as so kind 

as to provide that alternate text to us or some proposed 

text on that? That'd be super helpful. Thanks so much.

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. Sure.

MS. ABERNATHY: Jalil, we're going to 

get back to you. I'm waiting for an official response on 

that one. So we're going to go ahead and move on to the

next person, and then I'll circle back.

DR. BISHOP: Okay. Well, that wasyeah.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, sir.

DR. BISHOP: I'll re-raise my hand.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR: Like with Jalil and 

Jessica, I'm also deeply concerned about the cliff here. 

I'm especially concerned about this cliff as it applies 

to folks who have had long periods of time where their 

loans have been in default. That time will not be counted 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

under the IDR account adjustment but will be counted 

under the Department's proposal. And so like others have 

suggested, I recommend removing the cliff, and can also 

provide possible regulatory language as well. In 

addition, like Jessica already said, this proposal is so 

important. It's also- I mean, I talk to clients all the 

time who feel like their student loans are a death 

sentence that will follow them until they hit the grave. 

And it is just incredibly frustrating for them. It keeps 

them in a cycle of poverty. And this is even more true 

for borrowers who have had periods in default and, again, 

have experienced the extreme power of the Department's 

involuntary collection efforts. I would also ask the 

Department to consider including a provision that's 

analogous to its SAVE shorter repayment period for folks 

who have smaller loan balances. So to discharge the debt 

after 10 years, for folks that borrowed $12,000 or less. 

The Department has already provided the justification for 

doing so in the SAVE Plan, and I think it makes sense to 

extend it more broadly here as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Kyra, 

if you could- I think I heard you say that you might be 

able to provide some proposed text on removing the cliff, 

and then you also suggested that the- for smaller loan 

balances $12,000 or less, that the- be similar to the 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

SAVE program. I don't know if you want to put that 

concept in the- okay, thanks. Richard put that in there 

for you, so don't worry about it. Tamy, did you have 

something you want to say? 

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. On the 2025 year, 

we need to acknowledge the presence of Income Driven 

Repayment and Forgiveness timelines. So we see this as a 

one-time action, but keep in mind, we're still doing the 

one-time account adjustment for borrowers in repayment. 

So for those borrowers, they would not see the cliff. And 

on SAVE, we looked at it, but we did not think we could 

incorporate it here.

MS. TAYLOR: Can I just respond to that 

quickly? I think because the IDR account adjustment will 

not capture borrowers in default, so that will not be 

sufficient. Those borrowers will still have a longer 

period of time in repayment, and that is one of the 

things that I am especially distressed by, considering 

that those borrowers have already demonstrated that they 

are distressed, and are more likely to default again. So 

I would hope that the Department would use this 

opportunity to clear those bad debts, and to discharge 

them, especially when they've been in repayment for 20 or 

25 years, but also if there are smaller loan balances as 

well. But I hear that the Department is not considering 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

the other piece, although I would urge it to reconsider 

that position.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, Kyra. I 

want to point out that, India Heckstall has come to the 

table for civil rights organizations in place of Wisdom 

Cole. Welcome, India. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. So first of 

all, I want to mirror what everyone has already said 

here, and I won't- I won't burden you with saying it 

again. No. I want to flag something. One, the cliff is 

unnecessary. Right? And so we argued for making this 

particular provision a provision that doesn't-, that's 

not a one-time provision. To the extent that the effort 

here is to really address sort of retroactively old loans 

and not, prospectively, you can still achieve that 

without a cliff by creating a scenario where loans sort 

of come eligible on an annual basis for some period of 

years going forward. I look forward to seeing proposals 

that others sort of have to address this cliff because I 

think that it's unnecessary and will harm people. But 

also to Kyra's point about the insufficiency of the onetime adjustment for folks in default. I do just want to 

flag that, you know, a lot of- the time period that is 

covered- that will not be covered by the reg text as 

drafted is a time period in which we know that there was 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

an extreme amount of servicer misconduct that resulted in 

people being pushed into default, who would not default 

if they were getting the advice that they should have 

been getting if they understood the programs that the 

Department had available at the time. And so one of the 

priorities, I think, of the Department- or that the 

Department should have in this regulatory process is 

addressing those groups of borrowers, the borrowers who 

ended up in these difficult situations, who've been in 

these situations for a very long time and really need 

relief and, to, sort of not provide that relief for this 

period of years where we have evidence and data of 

extreme servicer misconduct seems like a real missed 

opportunity to the detriment of borrowers. So I do 

suggest that the Department consider the regulatory 

proposals that it will receive to soften this cliff and 

to ensure that those borrowers in such critical need of 

relief receive it. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. I think that a 

part of what, at least, I would like to be on record is 

that 20 to 25 years is not necessary. That it is within 

the Department's discretion to have a wave authority 

applied to student debt balances, without a borrower 

having to wait to 20 to 25 years. I understand that the 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Department continues to respond, that it has to 

acknowledge the repayment timelines already under IDR 

plans. We understand that, but we also understand, as 

Kyra pointed out, that under SAVE, you carve out a 

different timeline for borrowers who have $12,000 or 

less. That's not simply because the student loan balance 

is small. It's because that's a group of borrowers who 

have been identified as distressed borrowers. So we know

we also have distressed borrowers who are at a certain 

age where we see from recent studies from the Federal 

Reserve that found that a borrower who is still in 

repayment when they are near retirement age, it's the- is 

not experiencing the same or typical wage boost that we 

think a college graduate should have. We know that 

borrowers who have balances that are way above their 

principal are distressed. We know the borrowers who are 

Pell Grant recipients or parents of Pell Grant recipients 

show signs of the distress. We have all these other 

markers of distress. So we're not saying ignore the 

timeline under IDR, but we're saying that you have 

already shown that you can carve out a timeline for 

distressed borrowers that doesn't sentence them to a 

lifetime debt sentence of distress of 20 to 25 years, you 

can offer relief in a shorter amount of time. I also want 

to point out that many borrower- many negotiators here 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

have already sent in proposals with detailed regulatory 

text or at least evidence and research of how some 

regulatory text could be curated to capture again the 

carve-out that has a shorter timeline to cancellation, 

but also targeting already distressed borrowers. So I 

just want the Department to understand that it's not 

about just saying, let's throw out the 20 to 25 years, 

but it's about acknowledging that you already have 

provided a pathway to relief for borrowers who are 

distressed and saying that it doesn't make sense to 

continue to try to extract and burden borrowers who 

likely cannot repay, have shown evidence they cannot 

repay, but- and it doesn't make sense to make them have 

to sit under student debt for 20 to 25 years. So, again, 

I encourage the Department to return back to the 

proposals that have been submitted. I encourage the 

Department to think about, again, that you are not 

required to hold borrower from 20 to 25 years on a 

lifetime debt sentence.

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remaining.

DR. BISHOP: You have an opportunity, 

and I encourage you to use that power to offer relief 

here more broadly.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jalil. John 

Whitelaw.
47

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MR. WHITELAW: Just briefly, I want to 

suddenly lift up everything that Jalil just said, but 

specifically want to talk about cliffs, especially when 

they're unnecessary. Cliffs undermine credibility, they 

undermine confidence because on either side of the cliff, 

it's completely arbitrary. Yes, in matters where lines 

are drawn, but to the extent that you could avoid the 

cliffs, you really want to work exceptionally hard to 

avoid cliffs because it sets up two classes of people, 

which are indistinguishable in all but completely 

arbitrary ways. So you have the last person in and the 

first person out, and they look exactly the same. And 

particularly, you know, you only want to do cliffs if you 

absolutely have to. There has to be a way to avoid cliffs 

because they just undermine credibility in the program 

because they set up arbitrary distinctions. And I have 

seen cliffs in operation for 30 years in the benefit 

context, and they're always a disaster, so let's see if 

we cannot have a cliff on these things.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, John. 

Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I just- I think 

that, you know, one of the reasons this proposal is so 

good is not- you know, it's absolutely about the 

borrowers that it helps, but I think it also has the 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

potential to have a really beneficial spillover effect on 

the student loan system as a whole based on, you know, my 

experience working with clients, I think that, you know, 

the clients with loans from, like, 1986 or 1991 or- are 

often the ones who have the most complicated Repayment 

histories, they're the ones who are least likely to be 

able to, you know, find documentation of what they have 

and haven't paid to have to go to the guarantee agency or 

the servicer or the prior guarantee agency or prior 

servicer, to try and figure out who the holder is. Like, 

I think that, like, these clients occupy, like, a 

disproportionate amount of the student loan resources, 

and I think that by sort of getting them off the books, 

it will allow servicers and other people who work with 

student loan borrowers, the Ombudsman's office, to be 

able to sort of focus, you know, a limited amount of 

resources on borrowers and give them, I think, ideally 

better service. And to me, that's like a really- an 

important reason to get rid of the cliff. I think, you 

know, if we're- if we really did that, I think, you know, 

that we're looking at a world wherein, I think, what is 

it, 2035, so we're only, you know, 12 years away from, 

like, essentially the phase out of the FFEL program. I 

think that that would, have some really good benefits for 

the sort of administrability as a student loan program as 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

a whole, and I would strongly encourage the Department to 

think about those effects not just on individual 

borrowers, but in the aggregate when considering whether 

to do this in the future.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jessica. 

Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I just want to add one 

additional point about potentially providing an 

additional provision that discharges the debts of- that 

have been in repayment for 10 years. If they- if the 

borrower originally borrowed a principal of $12,000, 

[inaudible] mirror the gradual relief provisions of the 

SAVE Plan where the borrower has one more year of 

repayment time for, I believe it's one more- $1,000 of 

additional principal debt, original debt. In the 

Department's analysis, it lifted up the fact that this 

disproportionately targets folks who have had one year of 

postsecondary schooling or less. That includes folks who 

have been in short-term programs, but it also includes 

folks who didn't complete their program. And the 

Department's default data indicates that this is a 

population of folks who disproportionately default on 

their loans and are in distress on their loans. And 

that's particularly distressing because people who did 

not complete do not have higher wages. They do not have a 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

better ability to repay their debt, because of their 

schooling. In addition to broadly, we know that borrowers 

with smaller balances are more likely to default on their 

debt as well. So considering a shorter repayment period 

for borrowers who took on smaller principles in the first 

place would disproportionately benefit borrowers in 

default and really target the distressed borrower 

population that the Department is trying to target more 

broadly as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Any 

further comment? Okay. Seeing no further hands, it is 

2:30. Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: Yeah, I do- or I'm 

wondering if the Department can speak to some of the- I 

think a lot of points have been raised here. I would like 

to hear the Department just speak to some of these 

questions around, you know, the 20 to 25 years, you know, 

how in other regulations, distress has been a 

justification to offer quicker relief, why that isn't 

being offered here when we're dealing with the age of 

loans. So just wanted to hear the Department speak back 

to some of the concerns that negotiators are raising or 

at least provide some more context so that we can 

understand if you need more research, more evidence, more 

regulatory texts as we prepare for tomorrow.
51

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. JEFFRIES: Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: We plan to discuss this 

tomorrow, Jalil. We only wanted to give an opportunity 

for you guys to give us some additional information to 

think about. It was your- you know, the negotiator's 

suggestion that we open this up today to talk about it, 

and we will have more to say on this topic tomorrow. But 

we still, you know, we still want to go back and change 

the few little pieces that we want to change and present 

that reg text to you later this afternoon or this 

evening. Excuse me.

DR. BISHOP: Tamy, is it not possibleI'm assuming there's some part of this regulatory text 

that is not going to change overnight. So is it possible 

to provide more context of clarification around those 

pieces that are relevant to some of the issues being 

raised now?

MS. ABERNATHY: I think, holistically, 

we're looking at 2:32 right now with our public comment 

starting at 3:00. And there- we know that we've received 

some proposals to eliminate the cliff, and we know we are 

evaluating that regulatory text. And I don't believe that 

we have enough time with a break to really start the 

conversation on 30.83, so we are going to wait and have 

that conversation tomorrow. So you've given us a lot to 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

think about. We know that we've had proposals on this, so 

we're going to go back and we're going to review this 

this evening, and we'll circulate amendatory text later 

this evening.

MR. WHITELAW: Well, I'll let you getso

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. Thank you, 

Tamy.

MR. WHITELAW: Let me get back on it.

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. So it is 2:33. 

Let's go ahead and take a 15-minute break and be back in 

time so that we can start public comment, directly at 3 

o'clock. We do have a full list for that as well as a 

waiting list. Jessica, one last comment before break. 

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah, it sounds like 

we're not going to do the FFEL today, which is fine. I 

just wanted to make sure that you saw my comment in the 

chat that I would strongly encourage the Department just 

to change the title of that to indicate that it is- did 

not apply to Department-held FFEL. It- just as you're 

considering things tonight. Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Jessica. 

Cindy, would it be possible for us to go ahead and just 

take the break until about 10 till?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Yes.
53

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. ABERNATHY: Let's do that. That way 

it will give us time. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Alright. So we'll be 

back- yeah, we'll be back at 10 minutes to 3 so we can 

get organized and start. So with that, see you in about 

22 minutes or so. Okay. Thank you. Welcome back, 

everyone. So a couple things in the seven minutes we have 

left. One, I'd like to remind those who have signed up 

and have time slots for the public speaking to sign in 

about 15 minutes prior to your time slot so that we can 

keep on schedule. So, go ahead and start doing that and 

pay attention to your time slot for those on the waiting 

list. You can sign in as well, but we will, take those in 

the time slots allotted, prior to moving on. So with 

that, I'd like to open it up one last time for comments 

from the negotiators to the Department. Richard?

MR. HAASE: Yeah. I had a quick 

question. I just didn't know when this would come up. One 

of the proposal items that I had submitted was about the 

joint spousal consolidation. And when we received our 

return phone calls from the Department, I was told that 

that was something that the Department hoped to address 

during these neg regs. So I'm not sure if I missed them 

in the amended text that we received or if that is 

something that the Department intends to bring up during 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

discussions of hardship at the end of the day tomorrow. 

But I did just want to follow-up because I was- received 

that phone call and was hopeful that that was a good 

sign.

MS. ABERNATHY: We do plan to discuss 

the proposals, all the rest of the proposals that we 

haven't mentioned throughout today. As we navigate 

through tomorrow, we'll mention the rest of those. And as 

a part of hardship, we will discuss the spousal 

consolidation issue that you brought up.

MR. HAASE: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. Any 

other comments? Again, a reminder to the people signed up 

for public comment, please sign in about 15 minutes 

before your time slot. Those of you who have immediate 

ones coming up, please get signed in, logged in. Please 

make sure that your name when you log in matches what you 

signed up for and is not just your first name as we have 

several people with the same first name, so we want to 

make sure- that we're calling on the correct person at 

the right time, so, Alright. One last call for any 

comments at all. Ashley?

MS. PIZZUTI: This is a little off 

topic, but I'm going to bring it up just because I keep 

getting a whole bunch of emails and DMs over it 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

throughout the day. It looks like there are several Sweet 

vs Cardona class members who are having their credit 

reports report inaccurate information. So I just wanted 

to bring this up since I have the attention of the 

Department. This seems to be an ongoing problem.

MS. ABERNATHY: Ashley, if you would 

let those individuals know that they can reach out to our 

Ombudsman officeMS. PIZZUTI: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: That would be helpful. 

Yeah.

MS. PIZZUTI: Okay. I will let them 

know to look them up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you. 

Alright. Final call for last thoughts to the Department 

prior to going into public comment that you would like 

them to consider, or- and think about as a draft, the 

text to send to you for tomorrow's discussions. Okay. 

Going to make one last plea to people who have signed up 

for public comment to please log in if your time is near 

within 15 minutes or so. At least sign in. Those of you 

later on down the timeframe, please sign in at least 15 

minutes ahead of time so that we can get you situated and 

get you in. We've got about two minutes prior to the 

start. So in about a minute, we're going to let the first 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

guest in, and we're going to move the list of those who 

have logged in to the meeting and let you address the 

committee. Alright. Brady, you want to bring in our first 

guest and get situated, and we'll get moving here?

MR. ROBERTS: Yep. Absolutely. I just 

admitted Virgilio Lasaga, who is here representing 

themselves.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Welcome. Can you 

hear me?

MR. LASAGA: Hi. Can you hear me?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Yes. We can hear 

you. Thanks for joining the committee for comment today. 

You will have three minutes to present your comments to 

the committee and you will be given a 30-second reminder 

of when your time is almost up. Okay?

MR. LASAGA: Awesome. Thank you so 

much.

MS. JEFFRIES: So with that, go ahead 

and start.

MR. LASAGA: Yeah. So my name is 

Virgilio Lasaga. I would like to address two areas of 

consideration for hardship discussions tomorrow with the 

first being in relation to Pell Grant recipients and the 

second in relation to borrowers with disabilities. To 

give you a bit of my backstory, I received Federal loans 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

as a poverty level low-income borrower. I was nearly a 

first-generation college student, with my parent 

graduating one year prior to me receiving my four-year 

degree. I graduated with an Associate's degree from my 

community college, transferred to a four-year public 

university and then completed a one-year master's degree 

from the same university. Throughout my college tenure, 

I, along with other members of my family, received full 

Pell Grant benefits due to our exceptionally low income. 

I also qualified for and participated in work study 

during my time in college. Because I received Pell Grant, 

I was disqualified from receiving food stamps, and this 

is an a testament to loans being necessary for low-income 

borrowers beyond the scope of tuition as loans help 

provide food, housing, utilities, and other expenses. 

Despite making a decent wage now about four years after 

graduation, I still lack financial stability due to the 

insufficient income on my family. My family lacks 

generational wealth, and I often have to help my family 

with necessities such as medication, insurance payments, 

utility bills, and food. Additionally, very few members 

of my family will be able to retire as most of them are 

unable to save for retirement because they're living 

paycheck to paycheck. I'm currently not able to save to 

purchase a home, could not afford to start a family, and 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

could not afford the expense of purchasing a used 

vehicle. I would like to urge the committee to take into 

consideration the likelihood of continued hardship for 

current and once low-income borrowers, especially those 

who've received a Pell Grant. Automatic qualifiers for 

hardship could be based on multiple years of Pell Grant 

eligibility combined with the amount they were eligible 

for based on their income. Another automatic qualifier 

could be based on Pell Grant recipients who were in 

households with multiple family members who received Pell 

Grant. Again, gauging this based on the amount of the 

grant they were qualified for. For hardship qualifiers 

that would require manual review, please consider 

developing a mechanism that considers the age of 

borrowers and their annual income against the retirement 

savings. So for an example, having saved a one-year

annual salary by age 30. I'd also like to suggest the 

consideration of hardship for individuals with 

disabilities. While Social Security most certainly should 

be used for determining hardship, there are a lot of 

people with disabilities who want to work and wouldn't 

qualify for Social Security otherwise. I would encourage 

the development of a mechanism that utilizes federally 

funded state vocational rehabilitation programs to 

determine eligibility for hardship. Vocational 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

rehabilitation is equipped to categorize the significance 

of individuals' disabilities as it relates to their 

functional capabilities for employment. An application 

that can be submitted by a vocational rehabilitation 

counselor might suffice as it provides an opportunity to 

receive [30 seconds]. Thank you. Receive vetted 

information about the income or potential income of an 

individual with a disability and to determine if their 

student loan creates a hardship based on that 

individual's potential gainful employment. I would like 

to thank everyone on the committee for your time and 

input throughout this process and for the Federal workers 

who made this possible. I really truly greatly appreciate 

the opportunity to provide my perspective. Thank you, and 

have a wonderful day.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Appreciate 

your time. Brady, who is next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Stephen Patterson, who serves as the Executive Director 

of the Veterans Education Project.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, good afternoon, 

Mr. Patterson. Can you hear me?

MR. PATTERSON: Yes, I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Great. You will 

have three minutes to address the committee with your 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

comments. You will be given a 30-second reminder that 

your time is almost up. And with that, your time starts 

now.

MR. PATTERSON: Thanks. My name is 

Steve Patterson. I served in the United States Air Force. 

I'm the executive director for the Veterans Education 

Project or VEP. VEP is committed to supporting service 

members and veterans in their academic pursuits, and I 

appreciate the time to represent their needs and to the 

negotiating committee. I recognize that this rulemaking 

is focused on the Department Student Loan Debt Relief 

Plan, and many might question how this involves veterans. 

In fact, many service members and veterans do access 

Federal loans on top of their educational benefits. I'm 

concerned that this negotiation has not given sufficient 

consideration to those individuals and the circumstances 

surrounding their borrowing. We are grateful the 

Department's efforts to make education more accessible 

and affordable for our veterans. However, it is critical 

that we also engage in thoughtful examination of student 

veteran debt and data and the impact of all potential 

outcomes of large-scale debt forgiveness on veterans. I 

highlight for you three primary concerns. First, I would 

ask that the Department and the negotiators pay 

particular attention to the borrowing needs of service 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

members of veterans. There's a need to examine current 

data on student veteran borrowing. While it is common for 

many veterans to receive full educational benefits 

covering the totality of their educational costs, there's 

nothing that prevents them from borrowing even more on 

top of that, and we must be cautious not to create a 

system that inadvertently incentivizes veterans to take 

on unnecessary debt. The focus should be on providing 

avenues for education that do not perpetuate the cycle of 

borrowing, but instead empower veterans to build a 

prosperous future without shouldering undue financial 

strain. Second, within the context of this negotiation, 

the effort to identify avenues for loan forgiveness, I 

would ask that the Department expand section 30.80 to 

include waivers for veteran-specific conditions and 

contexts. Third, and importantly, I'm compelled to raise 

an issue that extends beyond the corners of this 

negotiation. As the Department expands loan forgiveness 

and creates the programs that provide for free or nearfree education, there's a sense by many that, you might 

be undermining the value of the GI Bill and other 

service-related educational benefits. These benefits are 

not just financial incentives. They are a promise made to 

those who serve that their commitment will be met with 

opportunities for personal and professional growth 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

through education. Undermining the value of these 

benefits could have far reaching consequences, namely 

increased negative impact on already declining military 

recruitment. Educational benefits are consistently among 

the top reasons a person joins the military. Our 

commitment to supporting veterans must extend beyond 

financial relief. It must uphold the integrity of the 

promises made to those who have served. With all politics 

aside, we encourage the Department to consider the 

student veterans and how oftenMR. WEATHERS: Steve, you have 30 

seconds.

MR. PATTERSON: How often wellintentioned legislation has unintended impacts on our 

heroes. We know education has the power to help veterans 

thrive with their post service lives. It is therefore 

vital that we scrutinize and minimize potential negative 

impacts policies will have on our current and future 

heroes. We encourage the Department to continue to work 

bring down the cost of education, increasing 

institutional accountability, and decrease student debt 

amongst the military and veteran community, all while 

retaining the impact and integrity of their educational 

benefits. Thank you so much for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Steve, and 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

thank you for your service.

MR. PATTERSON: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, who is next, 

please?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

James Aldean, who's representing himself. I think he's 

all connected.

MS. JEFFRIES: James, can you hear me?

MR. ALDEAN: I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Alright. You 

will have three minutes to address the committee with 

your comments. You will receive a 30-second reminder that 

your time is almost up.

MR. ALDEAN: Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: And with that, your time 

begins now.

MR. ALDEAN: Okay, thank you so much 

for allowing me to speak here today. To get a degree in 

college was never a dream of mine growing up. But I 

thought when I graduated high school, going to Catherine 

Gibbs School, formerly known as Sanford Brown, I thought 

that was my only path to getting a college education. 

Shortly after I graduated from Sanford Brown, I realized 

that the degree that I got was not valuable at all. So 

when I had to pay back the loans and stuff, I realized 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

that when I went to- on job interviews, I didn't really 

have the skillset that they promised me to do. So I had 

to enroll in Johnson and Wales University continuing 

education program. To do that, we had to refinance my 

house and pay off the debts from Sanford Brown. 

Throughout that time, I've received my Associate's degree 

through Johnson and Wales University. I've been trying to 

rectify the problem that I had with Sanford Brown. And

one of the remedies that I hope the committee will take 

into consideration is if you paid off your loans with a 

for-profit school that I wouldn't say- was very deceitful 

that they would consider approve- approving or relieving 

student debts for somebody who had, like, go to Johnson 

Wales or a different university for being deceived by the 

previous school. So, I've tried numerous tactics to go 

through the Borrower Defense Program, been denied. I 

didn't realize that Cardona vs Sweet was an option until 

later on when I tried to apply, it was denied. So I just 

hope that the situation can be rectified for myself and 

many other people who went to school thinking that they 

were going to receive an education because they didn't 

really get- have the great high school education or they 

have learning disabilities, and then they had to go back 

and to receive another education. So I'm pretty mucheven though we refinanced our home, I'm pretty much stuck 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

for $60,000 with the debt that we've incurred.

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remains.

MR. ALDEAN: So I'm going to- I just 

hope that my comments will draw a change and I appreciate 

everything that you guys do. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Brady? Next 

up?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Lisa 

Harle, who's here representing herself.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Lisa. Can you hear 

me?

MR. ROBERTS: Her audio and video are 

connected, so she should be able to hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Lisa, can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: Lisa, you are muted right 

now in case that's the reason.

MS. HARLE: I'm sorry.

MR. ROBERTS: It's okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Lisa. Hi. Youthanks for joining us this afternoon. You have three 

minutes to address the committee, and you will be given a 

30-second notice just before your time is to expire. So 

with that, your time begins now.

MS. HARLE: Okay. Thank you. Hi. My 

name is Lisa Harle. Thank you very much for taking the 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

time to hear me. I am a registered nurse and I attended 

Kaplan University and I also filed a BDTR on 9/10/2022. I 

also am an administrator of a Kaplan and Purdue Global 

Borrower's Defense Facebook group, where we are, you 

know, just a group that is joined together because we all 

have the same complaints about Kaplan, different 

experiences. I went- I attended Kaplan University from 

2011, at which time my son had passed away, previously, 

and for probably about a year, I really went through a 

really tough time, and I went to work and basically was 

nonexistent. And then I decided to go back to school. 

That was my goal because I had to keep my mind occupied. 

I was going through a lot at that time. So I wanted to go 

to an online program that offered me because I was a 

full-time working person and needed that for, you know, 

for me. So, I spoke to advisor who at the time was very 

empathetic to my needs, explain to him, you know, my 

situation and that, you know, I wanted to, you know, 

further my degree at that time, you needed to have a BSN 

to work in the hospitals, so I needed to get that anyway. 

And so the advisor that I spoke to, you know, assured me 

why I should choose Kaplan, and I remember his words like 

they were yesterday. Kaplan University has a great 

academic program. They- we have especially, very good 

connections with- for job placement. We offer that. 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

That's part of our career services. He gave me job 

placement rates of 94% allMR. WEATHERS: Lisa, 30 seconds 

remains.

MS. HARLE: Thank you. So with that, 

Kaplan was sold to Purdue for $1 in 2018. I went back 

into- in October 2017, finished my degree, and then I was 

hit with 90 thou- like, $80,000 plus interest in student 

loans. I- [time] Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you for sharing 

with us, Lisa. Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Cindy, I just 

admitted Representative Ayanna Pressley, who represents 

the 7th District of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hey. Representative 

Pressley, can you hear me?

REP. PRESSLEY: Yes. I can. Can you 

hear me? 

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Yes. Thank 

you. Welcome. You will have three minutes to address the 

committee. We will give you a 30-second reminder just 

before your time is to expire. So with that, your time 

begins now.

REP. PRESSLEY: Good afternoon. I'm 

congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. I represent the 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Massachusetts 7th, a vibrant, dynamic, and diverse 

congressional district that is also one of the most 

unequal. We're in a 3-mile radius from Cambridge to 

predominantly Black Roxbury. Median household income 

drops by $50,000 and life expectancy by 30 years. 

Addressing these in injustices brought me to Congress in 

much of the same way, addressing the injustice of student 

loan debt brought you all to this committee. I applaud 

the committee for its dedication to confronting the 

nearly $2,000,000,000,000 crisis that burdens 43,000,000 

people in the United States. Last week, I joined my 

colleagues in the House of Representatives and Senate in 

a comment letter urging that the current neg reg process 

result in providing the full-scale debt relief that low

and middle income borrowers urgently need. We detail 

concrete ways to draft the final rule that delivers for 

the American people, And I hope the committee gives our 

recommendations the close consideration they deserve. The 

76-year-old grandmother's still paying on student loans. 

The elementary school educators struggling to repay their 

student debt on a teacher's income, the ironworker who 

was losing a slice of their union paycheck to student 

loan repayment, and the young family balancing the 

skyrocketing cost of childcare, rent, and student loans. 

The people in my district and millions of others have 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

their eyes on this committee, and it is essential that 

they benefit from Student Loan Debt Relief. Last year, 

President Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student 

debt for borrowers, offered so much hope to people that 

believed they would never be able to start a family, open 

a business, or to achieve financial stability. The reach 

and impact of that historic plan should be the bare 

minimum of what the Department produces. Despite Supreme 

Court's cruel and callous obstruction, statutory 

authority of the Higher Education Act should embolden 

this committee to do all that it can to ensure everyone 

experiencing financial hardship receives relief, we must 

recognize the very need to take out student debt in order 

to attain a degree is in and of itself a financial 

hardship. In the United States, we refer to education as 

the great equalizer, but we place barriers in the ways of 

families accessing education. Black and Latinx students 

have to borrow at higher rates that take longer for them 

to pay, leaving communities of color holding a 

disproportionate share of the nation's student debt 

burden. Students with an unexpected family contribution 

of $0- 

MR. WEATHERS: Representative, 30 

seconds remain.

REP. PRESSLEY: Should not be punished 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

for doing the very thing our society encouraged them to 

do and pursue higher education. The $2,000,000,000,000 

burden of student debt is a national crisis that demands 

a bold transformative response. Like millions of others, 

I took out student loans to attend a college. It took me 

over 20 years to pay them off. I was a caregiver to my 

mother. I worked multiple jobs. And at one point, my own 

loans were in default. My story is not an anomaly, and 

far too many have experienced a similar struggle. 

Borrowers demand and deserve student debt cancellation. 

President Biden promised student debt cancellation [time] 

The Committee must deliver.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. Brady, next.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Kaylah Lightfoot, who is here on behalf of the University 

of Mary Washington Chapter of the NAACP.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Welcome, Kaylah. 

Can you hear me?

MS. LIGHTFOOT: Yes. I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. You will have 

three minutes to address the committee with a 30-second 

reminder that your time is almost up. So with that, your 

time begins now.

MS. LIGHTFOOT: Good evening, everyone. 

My name is Kaylah Lightfoot. I am the Secretary of the 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

NAACP College Chapter of University of Mary Washington. 

And on the behalf of this case, I wanted to remind that 

this is, like, my personal story. I understand that this 

impacts quite a few people in my family, if not the 

entire generation to come. But for starters, I am 

currently a Pell Grant recipient while also being an outof-state student. Due to those matters, it's important to 

address that, like, the FAFSA was not enough in my, 

ability to, like, fully afford school. So it's important 

to address that when it comes to Student Debt Relief, it 

would be great to have that alleviated in the process. In 

doing so, I think it's great to address that through this 

alleviation that the student debt has a huge impact on my 

life as it pertains. I do have future aspirations for law 

school. And as it continues on, that a burden of student 

debt has impacted not only myself, but also my family who 

also has a plethora of other children, who also have this 

prospect to go to college as well. That's, like, my 

personal story. I think it's also important to haveunderstand that the impact of my life is about the 

ability to afford a car, owning a house, but even just 

having the fundamental necessities after college, and 

deciding how to make important decisions and possibly 

living with my own family instead of having the luxury of 

being able to independently live on my own and 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

understanding that the rate of me being an out-of-state 

student is completely different than being an in-state 

student and currently going through that process, I think 

it's important to address that out of state students are 

significantly disenfranchised in this process of student 

loans, everything else, in the process. And understanding 

that the significant background of, like, Pell Grants, 

being a Pell Grant recipient has made it very difficult 

in doing so. So I just want to say thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Kaylah. 

Brady, who is next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Barbara Davis, who is here representing herself. It looks 

like we're waiting for her to turn her audio on. There we 

go.

MS. DAVIS: Hi.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Barbara. Can you 

hear me?

MS. DAVIS: Yes. I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Well, thank 

you for joining the committee this afternoon. You will 

have three minutes to address them with your comments. 

You will receive a 30-second notice of your time almost 

expiring. So with that, you can go ahead and start now.

MS. DAVIS: Okay. My name is Barbara 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Davis. I'm a licensed clinical social worker. I first 

consolidated my student loans in 1989. It was a little 

over $10,000 at that time. I had Sallie Mae for several 

years who had a fixed rate, which was kind of high. I did 

have some forbearances. So by 2013, I was trying to get 

away from Sallie Mae, and I managed to reconsolidate. 

I've been Income Driven the entire time. So now it's 

2023, so it's been 34 years later, and I now owe over 

$19,000 when I initially only borrowed $10,000. And for 

whatever reason, the system is only showing that it was

dispersed in 2013 because that's when I reconsolidated to 

get away from Sallie Mae, who, by the way, I was given 

right back to Sallie Mae at a lower interest rate, but 

then, of course, it's been sold several times since then. 

So it's been way over 25 years of Income Driven, but I'm 

kind of stuck. People keep telling me, well, you 

reconsolidated in 2013. So, you know, you started from 

scratch, and I owe almost twice as much as I initially 

borrowed. Just kind of a little frustrated. Can't seem to 

jump to the loopholes of whatever I need to do, But 

that's where I'm at right now.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Barbara. We appreciate you addressing the committee with 

your concerns.

MS. DAVIS: Okay. Alright, thank you.
74

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. JEFFRIES: You're welcome. Have a 

nice day. Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted, 

Steven Manicastri, who's here representing himself.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Steven, can you 

hear me?

MR. MANICASTRI: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Oh, wonderful. Okay. You 

will have three minutes to address the committee this 

afternoon, and they appreciate you being here. You will 

receive a 30-second notice prior to your time expiring. 

So with that, your time will begin now. Thank you.

MR. MANICASTRI: Thank you. My name is 

Dr. Steven Manicastri, and I'm sharing my family's story. 

When Federal Student Loan payments were paused in 2020, 

my wife and I could finally plan for a future. We saved 

up money to purchase our first starter home in February 

of 2022 and gave birth to our daughter that September. 

When President Biden announced his plan for Student Debt 

Relief, my wife and I applied, were approved, and would 

have saved a total of $30,000 on our Federal Student 

Loans. The plan wouldn't have wiped out our Federal 

Student Loan debt, but it would have happened. My wife 

and I relied on President Biden's cancellation plan and 

the life changing impact it would have made. We planned 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

around it with my wife leaving her job to bond with our 

daughter until she turned one. Unfortunately, because of 

the Supreme Court's partisan decision to find this debt 

relief program unconstitutional, my wife had to return to 

work sooner than anticipated, and we now both work fulltime, relying on our families to help plug in the holes 

and coverage with our daughter. With the resumption of 

payments and no student debt forgiveness insight, we now 

spend about $1500 a month on both private and Federal 

Student Loans. When you factor in a mortgage, medical 

bills, food, and unpredictable expenses with a new baby, 

it doesn't leave much room for error. And I say this 

knowing how lucky we've gotten to have even been able to 

afford to own a small condo and to have a baby. So many 

of our friends have not been as lucky, but that's the 

problem. Student loan debt is a systemic issue that 

strangleholds millions of us. Having the outside insight 

perspective of a naturalized citizen, we are one of the 

few countries on earth that don't offer services like 

universal healthcare and free higher education. It's 

beyond deplorable to witness our taxes fund imperialist 

projects such as Israel's genocidal campaign on 

Palestinians instead of providing basic services to our 

people. I made all the right moves to keep my debt low 

while getting an education. I went to a community college 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

and a public university on a scholarship to obtain my 

bachelor's. I worked full-time and committed to keep 

costs down. I went to grad school at a public university 

to get my doctorate and made starvation wages as a 

teaching assistant until we formed our graduate employee 

union, UAW Local 6950. I accumulated my Federal Student 

Loan debt in grad school prior to our first union 

contract because it was impossible to live in Connecticut 

on $15,000 a year before taxes. Both my wife and I have 

been penalized for pursuing a higher education. We both 

chose careers of service. She's a registered nurse, and I 

work for a labor union representing public sector 

employees who are all eligible to apply for the Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness Program. The irony is not lost 

on me that while the members that I dedicate my time 

fighting for on the job can apply for this program, I'm 

carved out of it because I work for a labor union. It 

would have given us the opportunity- this debt relief 

program would have given us the opportunityMR. WEATHERS: Steven, 30 seconds 

remains.

MR. MANICASTRI: Thank you. It would 

have given us the opportunity to raise our daughter 

without the same level of financial stress and anxiety we 

both grew up in. Instead, we are now poorer than our 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

parents. The Biden Administration has the legal authority 

to effectuate a no means testing- a no means testing debt 

relief program that is immediate for all those who hold 

Federal Student Loans. This administration has an 

obligation to all of us to uphold their promise 

immediately. Thank you and cease fire in Gaza now. I 

yield the rest of my time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. We appreciate 

your time. Before- you can let the next person in, Brady, 

but I want to remind people to please log in about 15 

minutes before your scheduled time. And those who are on 

the waiting list, please, go ahead and log in close to 

the 3:45 time mark, or a little before would be great. 

Also, please, when you log in, make sure your name 

matches what you signed up and registered under. If we 

can't identify people, we can't let them in. So, please, 

go in and change your name so that we can clearly 

identify you. Who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Cindy, I believe I just 

admitted Senator Elizabeth Warren, who serves as the 

Senior Senator of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Senator Warren, 

can you hear me? Senator Warren?

MR. ROBERTS: I see her in the list, 

but she is on mute in case that's the issue.
78

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Senator Warren. I 

believe you are on mute. If you could unmute yourself.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, they just messaged 

that they're having a technical hiccup, and they'll be 

ready to in a few minutes. Would you like me to admit the 

next speaker?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes, please.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I'm admitting, 

LeeAndra Bridgewaters, who's here speaking on behalf of 

the NAACP.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. LeeAndra, can you 

hear me? She's connecting to audio. LeeAndra, can you 

hear me?

MS. BRIDGEWATERS: Yes, ma'am. I can 

hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Thanks for 

joining the committee this afternoon. You will have three 

minutes to address the committee with your comments. You 

will receive a 30-second notice that your time is about 

to expire. So with that, your time begins now. Thank you.

MS. BRIDGEWATERS: Good afternoon. I am 

LeeAndra Bridgewaters, a student loan borrower. Thank you 

all for your time and for listening to my comments as you 

all work diligently to establish a rule for modifying 

Federal Student Loans. As a first-generation college 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

student, my unwavering aspiration was to return to 

school. Motivated to gain knowledge, establish financial 

stability, and serve as a role model for my two children, 

I opted to return to college and acquire a bachelor's 

degree in psychology where I was a Pell Grant recipient. 

Having completed my bachelor's degree merely served as a 

foundational step. As a result, I felt obligated to 

further my education, so I pursued my master's degree in 

social work and became a mental health therapist. Due to 

the financial aid structure and limitations on grants and 

loan amounts, my two children did not receive enough 

student aid to cover the cost of their college education. 

As a concerned mother, I could not risk depriving them of 

a chance to obtain an education, so I took out a Parent 

PLUS Loan to assist my children. My daughter is now in 

her third year of medical school. She has generated over 

$180,000 in student loan thus far continuing the 

generational cycle of student loan debt for Black- for 

the Black community. I'm currently enrolled in my final 

semester of doctoral studies while continuing to pursue a 

sustainable career and obtain financial stability. I owe 

around $130,000 in student loan and a graduate loan that 

I had to take out this past summer. This debt will 

prevent me from purchasing a home and other real estate, 

preventing my family from amassing wealth. In addition, I 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

anticipate an enormous monthly payment that I may not be 

able to afford when I complete my courses in 2024. The 

ramifications of student debt extend beyond the borrowers 

themselves, impeding one's capacity to participate in the 

labor market and prosper in today's market. Acquiring 

education is a paramount concern for African Americans, 

but the burden of student loan debt has emerged as a 

significant obstacle to their economic advancement. 

Counseling student loan debt for up to $50,000 would 

benefit the Black community by an overwhelming margin, 

especially Black women. In addition, I want to emphasize 

that while we welcome the saving on value [inaudible]- 

MR. WEATHERS: LeeAndra, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. BRIDGEWATERS: -repayment plan, it 

is critical that the Biden Administration must not leave 

out borrowers who pursue graduate education or supported 

their children in assessing higher education like me. 

Ensuing adjustments to fix the student loan must include 

graduate and Parent PLUS borrows and benefit everyone 

equally from such adjustments. Again, thank you for your 

time and diligent work you are doing on the social 

justice concern.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you very much, 

LeeAndra, for addressing the committee this afternoon.
81

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. BRIDGEWATERS: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Brady, where are 

we now?

MR. ROBERTS: I just submitted, Arnold 

Sowell, who serves as the executive director of NextGen 

Policy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Good afternoon, Arnold. 

Can you hear me?

MR. SOWELL: I can hear you. Can you 

hear me, please?

MS. JEFFRIES: Yes. Yes. You will have 

three minutes to address the committee with a 30-second 

notice when your time is about to expire. So with that, 

your time begins now. And welcome, Senator Warren, you 

will be up next.

MR. SOWELL: Thank you so much, and 

good afternoon. My name is Arnie Sowell, and as was 

mentioned, I'm the executive director of NextGen 

California. And NextGen is a nonprofit organization 

that's based in California, and we advocate for 

progressive policy change across a range of areas, 

environmental, social, racial, and economic. And that 

includes advocating and fighting for college affordmaking college more affordable and ending the student 

debt crisis. And I just want to thank- thank you again 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

for taking the time to take public comment, particularly 

as you're about to finalize this rule as it relates to 

the modification or, waiver of, as it relates to Federal 

Student Loans. I just also note on a personal side that 

I'm the father of three children, and all my kids have 

graduated from college at this at this point, but we, as 

a family, had to take out student loan debt. And my kids 

are in various stages of repayment, either through the 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program or other Income 

Based Repayment programs. I would also just note that in 

my job, many of my colleagues have student loan debt, 

both here at the nonprofit I work for and also at- in the 

state legislature. And one of the things that we pride 

ourselves in here is that we've conducted a number of 

student loan workshops that try to assist thousands of 

Californians in terms of answering their questions about 

the student loan sort of landscape, and presenting the 

latest information on how they can receive technical 

assistance. Specifically, I would just note that 

President Biden's original plan to cancel student debt in 

the amounts of $10,000 and $20,000 for Pell Grant 

recipients should just be the start, not the ceiling for 

broad-based student debt cancellation. Canceling up to 

$50,000 in student debt would significantly reduce the 

racial wealth gap, secure economic mobility for 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

communities historically marginalized, and lift the 

burden of the student debt crisis for millions across 

America. In California, we know that the President's 

original plan would have eliminated almost 

$26,000,000,000 in debt for over 2,000,000 Californians. 

In a state like ours, where the cost of living is 

commonly high in many regions, this debt forgiveness 

would have been- [inaudible]

MR. WEATHERS: Arnold, 30 seconds 

remains. 

MR. SOWELL: -moment for many borrowers 

and families, especially as our lowest income communities 

are struggling with the- still to- in the aftermath of 

the COVID epidemic. And I just want to applaud you for 

all your work, and just would continue to urge you to fix 

the student loan system so that it includes graduate 

borrowers and Parent PLUS borrowers, And I thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Arnold. We 

appreciate your time today. Senator Warren, thank you for 

being patient. You have the three minutes as well with a 

30-second reminder. Thank you.

SEN. WARREN: Thank you very much. You 

know, I'm so glad to be here today because this committee 

has an extraordinary opportunity to reduce crushing 

student debt for tens of millions of Americans. Based on 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

the current draft rule as I read it, I believe we can and 

that we should do more. So I've got six recommendations 

to give the committee that I hope will help more 

borrowers who need it. First, I understand that you're 

trying to deal with problem with people who are upside 

down on their debt, that is they owe more now than they 

originally borrowed. But you're talking about capping how 

much help those people get. So here's my first 

recommendation. The rule should eliminate all debt that 

exceeds borrower's original principle. Capping relief 

from runaway interest at $10,000 or $20,000 ties the 

Secretary's hands unnecessarily. The Department should be 

able to give meaningful relief to the nurse or the 

teacher with an expensive degree, someone who's made 

steady loan payments, but who can't even afford to cover 

the interest and now owes more than she originally 

borrowed. Related to that, if you're taking on this 

question of excess interest, consider providing full 

cancellation of all of the excess interest for anyone who 

was paid back enough to cover their entire original loan 

amount and who is still in debt simply because of the 

interest. Third, let's go to a different area, and that 

is please eliminate the cliff that gives relief to 

borrowers who entered repayment by 2000 or 2005, but 

literally no relief to borrowers who started their 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

repayment even a day later. If a borrower has 20 years or 

25 years of repayment, give them help. And if they don't 

hit 25 years until next month, give them help next month 

or the next month on a rolling basis. Fourth, add a 

provision for financial hardship. Let people apply 

directly by showing hardship. They could do that based, 

for example, on a high debt to income ratio or the need 

to care for a severely disabled family member. The rule 

could name indicators of hardship that could [30 seconds] 

qualify for someone in relief. Thank you. And it should 

also include a catchall provision for other forms of 

hardship. Fifth, extend relief to borrowers who've been 

victims of misconduct by loan servicers. Students who are 

cheated by their schools got relief. The same should be 

true for borrowers cheated by their loan servicers. And 

last one, please make relief easy to access. As much as 

possible, base relief on information that the Department 

already has, like someone is a Pell Grant recipient or 

income data they can get. Thank you all for all you're 

trying to do, and thank you for letting me come and talk 

with you today.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Alright, 

Cindy. I just admitted, Katherine Craft, who is here on 

behalf of the spousal consolidation organization, Do Us 

Part. Looks like she's taking a seat right now.
86

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

SEN. WARREN: Like someone is a Pell 

grant recipient.

MR. ROBERTS: Katherine, would you mind 

turning off the other line? 

MS. CRAFT: I'm not leaving that. Yeah.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

MS. JEFFRIES: And it would help if I 

was not on mute myself. Catherine, can you hear me?

MS. CRAFT: Yes, I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Great. Well, 

welcome to the public comment. You have three minutes to 

address the committee this afternoon. You will receive a 

30-second notice that your time is about to expire. So 

with that, your three minutes begins now.

MS. CRAFT: Okay. Thank you for your 

time today. I represent the Spousal Consolidation Loans 

Do Us Part organization. We are calling on the Secretary 

to use his authority granted in HEA 432 (a) to cancel the 

remaining joint consolidation loans. Public Law 117-200 

came to fruition in October 2022. After years of 

experiencing hardships under a dismantled loan program, 

we had hope, an emotion many of us are hesitant to 

believe in. Once again, our hope dwindles. I'm a first 

gen college student that saw education out of- as a way 

out of poverty stricken abusive environment and was 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

completely on my own. I worked 35 to 40 hours per week 

and qualified for the Pell, but still needed to rely on 

loans to fully pay for my education and avoid 

homelessness. When we consolidated our loans at the 

advisement of the servicer, I brought the largest 

portion. Since 2009, I have worked in public service at a 

community college. While this work is rewarding, I 

sacrifice earning potential in my field. The inability to 

separate despite the law continues to cause undue 

hardship on my family. As we raise two children and look 

toward retirement, these loans continue to keep us living 

paycheck to paycheck, and we are not alone. Nearly twothirds of the JCL borrowers have been in IDR payment for 

more than 10 years. Over half of them continue to see 

negative amortization. Additionally, two-thirds have paid 

more than the original balance of their loans. 30% have 

paid more than a 150% of that original balance, and half 

of the members still owe more than their original loan 

balance. We range from ages 40 to 70 with nearly half 

between 50 to 70 years old. But that's not all. Our 

members continue to be locked out of options available to 

others. 91% have dedicated their lives to public service 

but cannot access PSLF even though 83% have greater than 

10 years of qualifying payments. My husband and I still 

owe nearly our entire balance. This is an atrocity. The 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

statistics above show a dysfunctional and criminal 

situation in which hardworking, tax-paying people are 

shackled relentlessly to a debt loan program consistently 

forgotten even with a recent law. This group wholly falls 

under undue hardship. Again, we are calling on the 

Secretary to use his authority to cancel the remaining 

joint consolidation loans. Discharging these loans will 

save the Department the administrative costs and burden 

tied to disentangling a very nuanced- [30 seconds] a very 

nuanced set of loans that make separation complex and 

nearly impossible. We've been misled, forgotten, and 

pushed to the side long enough. It's time to do the right 

thing. No other loan granting agency could get away with 

this type of neglectful administration of loans. And with 

that, I yield my time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Katherine. We 

appreciate your time this afternoon. We do have three 

people who have signed in via a phone number. If we can't 

confirm the phone number, we're unable to let you in. So 

if you are listening on the live broadcast, please email 

the- to confirm your phone numbers so that we can 

identify who you are. Thank you. Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Siobhan Murray, who is a Master of Fine Arts candidate at 

ASU.
89

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Good afternoon and 

welcome. You have-. 

MS. MURRAY: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: You're so welcome. You 

have three minutes to address the committee this 

afternoon with a 30-second notice that your time is about 

to expire. So with that, your three minutes begin now.

MS. MURRAY: Hello, everyone. My name 

is Siobhan Murray, and I'm a student loan borrower. I 

want to first thank the Department for taking the time to 

listen to my testimony. I graduated from Salisbury 

University on the Eastern Shore of Maryland this year 

with my bachelor's. I'm from Maryland, so I selected 

Salisbury University because it was an in-state school 

where I could receive Pell Grants every year, as well as 

assistance from the MDCAPS Program. For the first two 

years, my father paid for my college education. During my 

junior and senior years, I worked during the summers as a 

server and as a running tutor during the semester. 

Despite my father's help and many hours spent working to 

pay my tuition, and receiving over $15,000 in Pell 

Grants, I graduated with around $12,000 in student loans. 

If I were to attend an out-of-state school, I can't begin 

to imagine the cost of my loans. My sister attended 

Howard University, which was out of state and graduated 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

with around $45,000 in student loans. Now that I've 

graduated, I moved to Arizona State University to work as 

a teaching assistant and earn my Master of Fine Arts. I 

have received a tuition waiver and a stipend because I'm 

a teaching assistant. Despite this, my stipend is roughly 

half of what the cost of living in Arizona is. Although I 

have a driver's license, I'm unable to afford a car. 

Arizona has some public transportation, but it is far 

from walkable. And I have faced many challenges from 

relying on public transportation from sexual harassment 

to missing networking opportunities. I have $100 in my 

checking account right now. So if I were to have an 

emergency, I would have nothing. I will have to pay 

thousands of dollars from my undergraduate years once I 

earn my master's. When the Pell Grant program was in 

1972, it was created to give students without financial 

resources the same means to pay for college as those with 

financial resources to pay for college. My story 

represents many low-income students who are faced with 

the rising cost of education at universities, both in and 

out of state that can no longer compensate for these 

inequities. A long-term Student Loan Forgiveness Plan 

would allow me to save money for my future and buy a car. 

An equitable path to education should account for 

students like me, Black and Brown students from low-
91

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

income families to close the racial wealth gap. Thank 

you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you. We appreciate 

your time this afternoon. Brady, and who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Danielle Pierce, who is here representing herself, who's 

joining us by phone.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Danielle? Can you 

hear me?

MS. PIERCE: Yes, I'm here. Good 

[inaudible]. Yes. I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. You will have 

three minutes to address the committee and with a 30-

second reminder that your time is about up. So with that, 

your time begins now.

MS. PIERCE: Okay. Good afternoon. My 

name is Danielle Pierce. I graduated in 2018 with a 

Bachelor's degree in animal science. My graduation 

celebration was short-lived when I received notice of 

having to make my first payment immediately after 

graduation. That sent me into panic mode. I didn't have a 

job at the time, and my first payment was due. I wasn't 

sure how I was going to pay the money back then or now. 

Student loans have hindered me from having what many call 

the American dream. I have a desire to get my Master's so 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

I can fulfill my dreams of becoming a veterinarian, but 

I'm unable to do so. The degree I have, I can't even get 

a well-paying job unless I get at least a Master's 

degree. And vet techs are often underpaid while minimum 

wage is still $7.25 an hour in South Carolina since 2008, 

which isn't enough to pay off my loan. Most scholarships 

are catered toward undergrad students and high school 

seniors, so getting a scholarship to go to grad school is 

far and few between. I currently live at home with my 

parents because I have to make a choice of having a roof 

over my head and food on the table or have that sense of 

independence and move out while being on the brink of 

homelessness, having bad credit, and/or missing a meal 

while trying to pay off student loans. I don't have rich 

parents, and I'm not a lawmaker's daughter or 

granddaughter, where I don't have to worry about student 

loans hanging over my head. I have a total of $100,000 in 

student loans. $32,000 of that are Federal and the rest 

are private. There are 43,600,000 people in the US with 

student loans. In layman's terms, that's 1 in 5 adults. 

Over 50% are African Americans. My parents help me as 

much as they can, but they shouldn't have to, especially 

being that my parents are almost 70. They shouldn't have 

to carry that burden nor watch their child suffer. I make 

payments as best as I can taking most of my paycheck, but 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

it's still not enough to make a dent in my loan. I'm very 

swamped, overwhelmed, and feel buried by loans much like 

the rest of the US. The lawmakers who don't care are only 

worried about themselves and not the 43,600,000 people 

who suffer daily, while their children and grandchildren 

won't have to worry about ever seeing a student loan or 

feeling burdened by it. At least 22 countries have made 

college free, but yet the US is behind when it comes to 

that, and instead have adults drowning in student loan 

debt. When taking this decision into consideration, think 

about how different your life would be if the shoe was on 

the other foot. And think about if you had student loans, 

would you barely be making ends meet? Think of the 43- 

[30 seconds] you could change by forgiving student loans. 

I'm finished.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you, 

Danielle. Brady, who's next?

MS. PIERCE: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: You're welcome.

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Brenda 

Humphrey, who is here speaking on behalf of herself.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Brenda, can you 

hear me? Oh, connecting. Brenda, can you hear me?

MS. HUMPHREY: Yes.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Wonderful. Thanks 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

for joining the committee this afternoon. You will have 

three minutes to address them with your comments with a 

30-second reminder that your time is about to expire. So 

with that, your time begins now.

MS. HUMPHREY: Thank you. Okay. I am 

the graduate student loan borrower who has been retired 

from education for 7 years now. I feel like I am- this 

committee could impact a lot of folks. There's- there 

have to be other people out there like me, who just 

barely missed the arbitrary date that was set for the 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program of 2006. I have 

24 years of teaching altogether, but the problem is I 

retired in 2016 and the year only counted from 2007 when 

the guidelines were relaxed a few years ago. I went ahead 

and applied for it, got my certification from my last 

employer, and they gave me 9 years, but that- that's not 

enough because you had to have the 10. I feel like if a 

small adjustment could be made in that date, that it 

would pick up lots of people like me. I entered the 

teaching profession when I was 35, so I got a Master's 

and a specialist degree to help my retirement level. And 

I got those, you know, mid-career and later. So, I- that 

arbitrary date has hindered my Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness. My daughter, who is a District Attorney, an 

ADA, has already got her law school loans, marked off, 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

which is just awesome. She has the 10 years, but yet, I 

have 24 but- of years of public service, but I cannot get 

my loans marked off because of that date. I- you know, I 

implore the committee to please try to look at that. I 

know it is a law and the adjustments may not be easy to 

make, but I feel like that would impact and help without 

having to come up with a lot of other new guidelines. I 

appreciate you listening. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, thank you, Brenda. 

Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Amari Fennoy, who is the training and programs manager at 

the NAACP.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Amari, can you 

hear me?

MS. FENNOY: Yes. I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Wonderful. You 

will have three minutes to address the committee with a 

30-second notice that your time is about to expire. So 

with that, your time begins now.

MS. FENNOY: Good afternoon. My name is 

Amari Fennoy, and I serve as a training and programs 

manager for the NAACP Youth and College. I'm also a 

student loan borrower myself. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share my thoughts with the Department
96

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Negotiation Rulemaking Committee, And I thank you for 

your dedicating your time to hear my comment and to work 

to establish new rules. I continue- I come from East 

Saint Louis, Illinois, a small town where the median 

household income ranges between $17,000 and $26,000 

annually. I earned my bachelor's degree from Spelman 

College and a master's from the University of Missouri. 

Today, I am burdened with over $64,000 in student loan 

debt. Additionally, my mother, has a Parent PLUS Loan of 

$140,000, which has accumulated $30,000 in interest, 

bringing our combined student loan debt to a staggering 

$234,000. During my time in Spelman, historically Black 

college, I witnessed many of my peers leave school due to 

financial restraints. HBCUs, like Spelman, often receive 

less funding compared to predominantly white 

institutions. My ability to continue my education was 

only possible due to my mother's sacrifices. Currently, I 

am facing a monthly student loan payment of $500 under 

the SAVE Program in addition to living expenses, car 

payments, and the concerns of my mother's $1,200-dollar 

monthly repayment for my education. It's overwhelming to 

see a single mother who has dedicated nearly three 

decades to Federal service and raise me to be a 

responsible adult, struggle under these immense financial 

burdens. Unfortunately, the program like SAVE offer 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

little support to parents who go through great lengths to 

protect their children from predatory loans. I grew up 

believing that education was a pathway out of poverty. 

However, this belief has not materialized for many in the 

Black community, especially Black women. And we currently 

hold two-thirds of the 1,000,000,000,000 in student loan 

debt. It's crucial that we ensure that Black communities 

are not trapped in a cycle of debt. African Americans 

often require loans for education, but face challenges 

repaying them due to the economic disparities postgraduation. Student loan debt forgiveness is not just a 

relief. It's a necessary step towards enabling 

homeownership, entrepreneurship, and accumulation of 

assets and investments for the Black community. I 

sincerely thank you for your attention and earnestly hope 

for a resolution that supports over 40,000,000 borrowers 

overwhelmed with student loan debt. And that's my time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Amari. We 

appreciate your time. Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Thera Blasio, who, is here on behalf of the Spousal 

Consolidation Organization, Do Us Part.

MS. JEFFRIES: Hi, Thera. Can you hear 

me?

MS. BLASIO: Good afternoon. It's 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Thera. Yes, I can.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thera? Okay. Wonderful. 

So you will have three minutes to address the committee 

with a 30-second notice that your time is about to 

expire. So with that, you can go ahead and begin now.

MS. BLASIO: Good afternoon and thank 

you for the opportunity to speak today. I am representing 

borrowers in joint spousal consolidation loans and I'm a 

proud member of Spousal Consolidation Do Us Part. With 

every day that passes witnessing the stalled 

implementation of Public Law 117-200, borrowers like me 

are reminded that our identity and autonomy were wiped 

away in 2006 when Congress started the precarious joint 

[inaudible] program yet provided no pathway out for the 

young married professionals already ensnared in it, many 

of whom are steered to sign the paperwork by their 

servicers. Consolidation of loan enforcement is 

merciless. There's no way out. Not with legal separation, 

divorce, chronic illness, disability, marital neglect, 

orders of protection, or domestic violence, not even in 

the death of one of the spouses. For divorce borrowers 

like me, the pain from that tether never leaves. My story 

is that my loan nearly defaulted as my marriage devolved 

due to emotional abuse and neglect. My signed- my ex 

signed the agreement, refused to pay, and refuses still. 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

He will not reply to messages. And yet, post-divorce, I, 

a single parent, have paid back more than double of what 

I borrowed. Because I'm a co-payer, the thick- because 

I'm a co-pamer- co-payer, excuse me, the thank-you-foryour-payment emails get sent to his inbox. The only way 

to save myself was to save him too. In fact, 37% of JCL 

borrowers remain shackled to abusive or uncooperative 

spouses only through these loans. Continuing servicing of 

these loans sustains economic abuse is defined under the 

Violence Against Women's Act reauthorization of 2022. 

Abusers can still exert control. There's no true safety. 

There's no true freedom. It is psychologically draining 

and, at times, dangerous. Further, because 82% of these 

borrowers have FFEL loans, we have faithfully paid for 

decades, locked out of any relief for Federal benefits 

including payment pause, 0% interest, Fresh Start for 

default, PSLF, or IDR Forgiveness. During the pandemic 

pause, these borrowers on average paid $15,431. We are 

still barred from reconsolidating today. A recent survey 

of a sample of 53 borrowers had collectively made 

$861,703 in payments over the course of the pause, But 

the combined balance for the group dropped $3,237. 

Average monthly payments were less than interest 

accumulation. The runaway effect continues. A startling 

30% of our group have paid 150% of the original balances 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

already. We are hardworking, tax-paying, older borrowers, 

nearly half 50 to 70 years old. 91% of us are public 

service. [Inaudible]

MR. WEATHERS: Thera, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. BLASIO: -as we lose the race 

against time to save for retirement. I am here to say 

that we have suffered for far too long. We are calling on 

the Secretary to use his authority granted in HEA section 

432 (a), which relates to the waiver of Federal Student 

Loans cancel the remaining joint loans. Discharge of 

these loans will save the Government the administrative 

and cost burden necessary to disentangle these complex 

and highly nuanced loans. It's time to give all joint 

spousal loan holders our peace of mind back, our rights 

to make our own financial decisions back, and our hope 

back. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Thera. We 

appreciate your time and comments. Brady, who's next?

MR. ROBERTS: Cindy, I just admitted 

Foluke Akinkunmi, who's here on behalf of the University 

of Connecticut chapter of the NAACP.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Wonderful. Foluke, 

can you hear me? 

MS. AKINKUNMI: Yes, I can.
101

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. JEFFRIES: Wonderful. Welcome this 

afternoon, and you will have three minutes to address the 

committee with a 30-second reminder that your time is 

about to expire. So with that, your time begins now.

MS. AKINKUNMI: Thank you. Good 

afternoon, everyone. My name is Foluke Akinkunmi, and I'm 

currently a junior at the University of Connecticut 

majoring in political science. I wanted to first start 

off by thanking the Department Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee for providing me with the space to speak with 

you all. Today, I wanted to share a personal story about 

the profound impact that student debt had on my life. 

Although I was born in the United States, I was raised in 

Canada, and I've always been drawn to the abundant 

opportunities available in this country. As the daughter 

of Nigerian immigrants, my parents had instilled in me 

the importance of education. Unfortunately, we were aware 

that they would not be able to support me financially 

even though they wanted to as they continue to pay off 

their student loan debts well into their fifties. When I 

received my acceptance into the university, I was 

fortunate enough to receive a full tuition scholarship 

for four years. However, the scholarship did not cover my 

full cost of attendance as an out-of-state student. The 

dream of attending college seemed impossible, especially 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

since my parents, not living in the US, were unable to 

secure a Parent PLUS Loan on my behalf. Luckily, a family 

member agreed to cosign a private loan through Sallie 

Mae, making it possible for me to pursue my education. 

Throughout each semester, I faced the uncertainty of 

whether I would be able to afford to come back each next 

semester. The weight of student loan debt constantly hung 

over me, limiting my freedom to fully explore my 

interest. The first four semesters, I worked tirelessly 

to secure scholarships and grants and to avoid taking 

extra loans. I am now grateful to find myself in a 

position where I've received full funding for my next few 

years at the- for my undergraduate education. And I share 

my story this way to shed light that despite the 

sacrifices my family and I have made, despite the Pell 

grants and full tuition scholarships I received, despite 

the fact that I've worked to finance the final two years 

of my undergraduate education, I currently owe $78,682.79 

in private loans alone and $12,000 in Federal Loans. I 

also want to share with you that coming to university has 

allowed me to find my passion in law and that now I have 

aspirations to advocate for the Black community and Black 

medical malpractice cases pertaining to maternity and 

birth injuries. However, as I plan for my future, I'm 

faced with a paralyzing decision of whether it's worth it 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

to endure three more years of student loan debt to pursue 

my career goals in law school. Black people in the United 

States have endured centuries of oppression, yet we have 

exhibited remarkable resilienceMR. WEATHERS: Foluke, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. AKINKUNMI: -and building a 

community of strength and wisdom. We started the race 400 

years behind our white counterparts, yet we continually 

find ourselves at the finish line. Student loan debt 

presents a significant barrier by targeting the one thing 

that no one can take away from us, our minds. We have the 

right to access education. We have the right to liberate 

ourselves mentally. Student loan debt is the violation of 

these rights and disproportionately impacts Black and 

Brown people in the United States. If the US genuinely 

aspires for a future free from the current systemic 

racism, what America has been built on, it starts with 

our access to education. It starts with freedom from 

student loan debt. Thank you for your time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Foluke. Have 

a nice afternoon. Bray, we have time for one more.

MR. ROBERTS: Yep. I just admitted our 

final speaker for this negotiated rulemaking, Jenaya 

Moore, who's here representing the NAACP and is a 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Virginia Youth and College co-adviser.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Jenaya, can you 

hear me?

MS. MOORE: Yes, I can hear you.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Wonderful. You 

will have three minutes to address the committee this 

afternoon with a 30-second reminder that your time is 

about to expire. So having said that, your time begins 

now. Thank you.

MS. MOORE: Thank you. Alright. Good

afternoon, everyone. Hope everybody's doing well. Before 

I start, I would like to thank the Department of 

Education Negotiated Ruling Committee for taking the time 

to listen to my story. I know that you guys are all 

working very diligently to establish something related to 

the compromise of Federal Student Loans. Again, my name 

is Jenaya Moore, and I'm honored to speak before you 

today as a representative of the NAACP, serving as a coadviser of the Virginia State Conference. Additionally, I 

am a proud member of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority 

Incorporated. And currently, I am a proud HBCU law 

student attending the University of District of Columbia, 

David A. Clark School of Law. And like many others, I am 

a student loan borrower. Growing up in a home where 

education was not just valued but considered a top 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

priority, I understand the transformative power that it 

does hold. As a first-generation college student and a 

second-generation citizen to Jamaican immigrants, my 

family has made many sacrifices to establish themselves 

in America still to date. Unfortunately, they never had 

the financial means to provide for much, if any, of my 

college education. During my undergrad years, I was a 

Pell Grant recipient. My mother did take out Parent PLUS 

Loans to support me. However, due to her own financial 

barriers, she couldn't take out more loans to cover my 

schooling, which then left me with the full financial 

burden of taking out additional loans to complete my 

education. Upon graduation, I was able to secure a job, 

but with low pay, and then also repayment plans starting 

back up with my student loans, coupled with other 

financial responsibilities and bills, it fortunately did 

lead me to take on a second job. Despite my aspirations 

to further my own education, financial constraints did 

force me to defer on my loans when I ended up returning 

to school to complete my master's degree. After 

completing my master's degree, I am actually now happy to 

say again that I'm finally pursuing my dream of becoming 

an attorney, for that actually, the first attorney and 

first doctor in my family. The return on investment for 

my education has been more than rewarding for me, my 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

family, and my community. However, now living in DC, the 

high cost of living thatMR. WEATHERS: Jenaya, you have 30 

seconds left.

MS. MOORE: Okay. The cost of living 

that does come with that, does present some additional 

challenges that I am concerned about. I do commend the 

efforts made with helping us figure out ways to make our 

payments, particularly the SAVE Repayment Plan, but it 

has provided financially challenging barriers for me 

still making loan payments now with that starting back 

up, and I must express my concern about that feasibility 

for myself and I know many others that may have the same 

concern. In conclusion, I do urge this esteemed committee 

to continue to consider the real-world implications that 

student loan does have on individuals like myself and 

others. So thank you for your time and your 

consideration.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Jenaya. Have 

a great afternoon.

MS. MOORE: Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: So with that, that 

concludes the public speaking time that we have today. We 

want to thank everyone who was able participate today and 

took the time to join the committee. So with that, we 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning when we will 

start back in for the final day.

 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee – Session 3, Day 1, Afternoon, December 

12, 2023

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors 

may be present.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Jalil starting at table for grad borrowers

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

I agree with Kyra that sometimes the vote might night go far 

enough.

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 limiting cancella..." with ���

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Agreed— I think it is important that we discuss 30.83 today

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 on 30.83

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on 30.83" with ���

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

Yes, it feels like there isn’t enough time if pushed. Unless 

there is the possibility of an extension of this committee.

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

Will you similarly press the Department to provide information 

about hardship?

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Will you similarly p..." with ���

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

Reacted to "Will you similarly p..." with ���

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

A good faith mediator will often call all parties out for 

insufficient forthrightness

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "A good faith mediato..." with ��

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

Would 30.86 be broad enough to cover some situations in which the 

loss of Title IV is due to loss of accreditation, to the extent that 

the loss of accreditation was due to factors that would otherwise fall 

within the regulation?

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

In the cases of small colleges, what criteria is the DOE using to 

determine that the student has not received sufficient financial value 

when a college closes for financial reasons?

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 re: providing relief even if an appeal occurs

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

Removed a ��� reaction from "Will you similarly p..."
109

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM) refers to a level of oversight 

by the U.S. Department of Education placed on institutions 

participating in federal student aid programs due to specific 

financial or compliance issues. When institutions face sanctions or 

issues that result in their participation being terminated or denied 

recertification for Title IV, Higher Education Act (HEA) programs, the 

Secretary of Education or authorized Department officials may issue a 

waiver that exempts affected students from repaying certain loans 

associated with attending these institutions or programs.

 

The waiver outlined in § 30.86 allows for the Secretary to waive 

the entire outstanding balance of loans related to attendance at an 

institution or program that no longer qualifies for Title IV, HEA 

program participation due to various reasons, such as failing to meet 

accountability standards based on student outcomes or delivering 

insufficient financial value to students, including misconduct or 

misrepresentations.

12:28:39 From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Reacted to "Heightened Cash Moni..." with ���

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 agreed that this is a great addition and thank you to the 

Department

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

Completely understandable that the Department cannot comment on 

language which it is just seeing. Hopefully that understanding will be 

extended to negotiators

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sarah Butts is taking over as primary

From Cynthia Jeffries - FMCS Facilitator to Everyone:

Replying to "Sarah Butts is takin..."

 

Thank you

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

That’s helpful— thank you

From P - Scott Buchanan - FFEL, Servicers, GAs to Everyone:

Benjamin Lee is stepping to table.

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Agreed that it would be better to replace “not have reliable 

data”

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

To clarify, I think 30.88(a)(3) should be "For ANY period in 

which the borrower received loans for enrollment in the program" 

rather than "For the period..."

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

I’m going to +1 on Jalil

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 on what Jalil suggested

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Replying to "Heightened Cash Moni..."
110

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

 

Accreditation sanctions could also result from compliance 

failures, such as failing to meet educational quality standards or 

engaging in unethical practices. While accreditation and HCM are 

separate processes, compliance issues leading to accreditation 

sanctions might trigger the Department of Education to implement HCM 

to monitor the institution more closely.

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Replying to "Heightened Cash Moni..."

 

Institutions that are under review for accreditation status 

changes may also be placed under HCM. This serves as a precautionary 

measure to ensure proper financial management until the accreditation 

decision is finalized.

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Replying to "Heightened Cash Moni..."

 

Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM) intersects with § 30.86 

regulation when issues related to an institution's financial 

management or compliance lead to the termination of participation in 

Title IV, HEA programs or render the institution ineligible for 

student aid. For instance: Heightened Cash Monitoring could be an 

early indicator or step preceding the termination decision based on 

financial mismanagement. Also, Heightened Cash Monitoring could be a 

measure taken by the Department of Education to ensure closer 

oversight when compliance issues arise, which eventually result in 

Title IV eligibility termination or denial.

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

India Heckstall stepping to the table in lieu of Wisdom

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica - really support forgiveness for old loans. Also 

think it’s critical to avoid an arbitrary cliff. +1 to Jalil 

supporting ‘rolling relief’

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil supporting rolling relief

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jessica - real..." with ���

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jalil supporti..." with ���

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to shortening timeline for smaller loans like in SAVE

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Happy to email that language to the Department

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

+1 to rolling relief and shorter timeline.

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jessica - real..." with ���

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:
111

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

+1 to Jalil for shortening the timeline for distressed borrowers 

and taking into consideration the proposals and remedies which have 

been proposed by negotiators

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

I agree with John, there should not be those worthy and those who 

are not by a day.

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree with John, t..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone: 

To recap, the Dept already said under SAVE distressed borrowers 

(with $12k or less debt) deserve quicker cancellation. Expand that 

relief to other distressed borrowers.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to John: last person in and first person out look the same; 

arbitrary winners and losers undermines trust in the system

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to John: last per..." with ���

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

From the Department’s SAVE final rule: “the $12,000 threshold not 

only is better targeted in terms of

incomes, it also aligns with the borrowing level at which we 

witness higher levels of adverse student loan outcomes. As previously 

mentioned in the IDR NPRM, 63 percent of borrowers in default borrowed 

$12,000 or less

originally, while the share of borrowers in default with debts 

originally between $12,000 and $19,000 is just 15

percent.”

From Brady Roberts- FMCS Facilitator to Waiting Room Participants:

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for registering for public 

comment. Please ensure your name matches the name you registered 

under. Feel free to email me at broberts@fmcs.gov with any questions.

From A-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sherrie Gammage will return as primary

From Brady Roberts- FMCS Facilitator to Waiting Room Participants:

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for registering for public 

comment. Please ensure your name matches the name you registered 

under. Feel free to email me at broberts@fmcs.gov with any questions.

From Tamy Abernathy - Director, Policy Coordination Group, ED to 

Everyone:

Here is a link you may provide borrowers who wish to submit a 

complaint https://studentaid.gov/feedback-center/

From Brady Roberts- FMCS Facilitator to Waiting Room Participants:

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for registering for public 

comment. Please ensure your name matches the name you registered 

under. Feel free to email me at broberts@fmcs.gov with any questions.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 everything Sen. Warren is proposing. We can do more!

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Sen. W..." with ���

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Sen. W..." with ���

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:
112

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

+1 to Senator Warren's proposals

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to everything Se Warren suggests

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Sen. W..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Senator Warren's proposals

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Sen. W..." with ���

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 everything Sen. W..." with ���

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone: 

+1 in support of Rich’s proposal to cancel joint consolidation 

loans

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 in support of Ric..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 in support of Ric..." with ���

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

Absolutely, everything Senator Warren Proposed.

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 in support of Ric..." with ���

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

I look forward to hearing the department’s response to the 

proposal we submitted to FINALLY provide joint consolidation borrowers 

the relief they need