Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC

ELIGIBILITY COMMITTEE

SESSION 3, DAY 4, AFTERNOON

March 17, 2022

On the 17th day of March, 2022, the following 

meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in the state of 

New Jersey. 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 2 

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 MR. ROBERTS: Welcome back to everyone. Hope you 

3 enjoyed the lunch hour. My name is Brady Roberts. I'll be 

4 facilitating this afternoon. We have a lot more discussion to 

5 get to, so let's jump right into it. I think the last hand we 

6 had up was Jessica and then Debbie on certification. And so, I 

7 would welcome, Jessica, if you wouldn't mind, turn on your on 

8 camera, take it away. Oh, and Will Durden is in on behalf of 

9 two-year public institutions for the remainder of the 

10 afternoon, so welcome, Will.

11 MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I was just hoping the 

12 Department could respond to a question I put in the chat, 

13 which is just on this licensure issue, are there any other 

14 circumstances in which the Department allows Title IV for 

15 part, but not all of a program's published length? I can't 

16 think of one, and I think that's what's being proposed here.

17 MR. MARTIN: Generally, no. We do have instances 

18 where sometimes, for instance, in a clock hour situation where 

19 you've got a given number of clock hours and a given number of 

20 weeks in a program and the way clock hours works, it is 

21 possible for students to accelerate and finish their clock 

22 hours in a shorter period of time. And we are aware of that 

23 and understand that. We sometimes will look at an institution 

24 where if there's a preponderance of students finishing early 

25 all of the time that calls into question the number of hours 

26 the number of weeks, we will say that the program really isn't 

27 that, that it really isn't that length, but that really isn't 

28 anything that's regulatory. I don't think we have anything. I 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 3 

1 will, I'll just, we have some people monitoring this. I'll get 

2 in my, I'll ask my colleagues back at the Department to 

3 confirm that. But you are correct. We don't have anything 

4 currently in regulations that would where we would fund where 

5 a student would be partially funded, if that's what you're 

6 asking.

7 MS. RANUCCI: Right.

8 MR. MARTIN: Funded for a certain number of hours.

9 MS. RANUCCI: I just want to reiterate; I think 

10 that's a real problematic thing. And I'm glad that we don't 

11 have any. And I hope that you decide not to add it here.

12 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

13 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Brad, I see your hand, but I 

14 want to make sure we give Debbie a chance to get to what she 

15 was going to get to before lunch. So, Debbie, go ahead.

16 MS. COCHRANE: Thanks, Brady. I have a question and a 

17 comment related to how this intersects with satisfactory 

18 academic progress standards. So those standards typically 

19 allow for some amount of wiggle room in terms of eligibility 

20 for students who don't pass all their programs, usually 150 

21 percent. So, if, my question is whether limiting the HEA 

22 eligibility for the program to the minimum number of hours 

23 required for training, if that still allows for kind of that 

24 SAP buffer or whether it would not. And then my comment 

25 related to SAP is, you know, kind of related to Jessica's 

26 question. Are there places where students do kind of get cut 

27 off from Federal Aid currently? I would say that might 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 4 

1 actually be an interesting place to look for precedent there. 

2 There is some research that shows that SAP policies can 

3 negatively impact students' ability to complete because 

4 precisely they are cut off from aid midstream. So, again, 

5 that's a comment for consideration. I would love a response to 

6 the question.

7 MR. MARTIN: Oh, sure. So, it was just confirmed by 

8 my colleagues that there are no other areas where we limit the 

9 amount of a program that can be covered by Title IV Aid. I 

10 want to be careful about using the phrase cutting a student 

11 off of aid. It wouldn't be that. It would be limiting the 

12 portion of the program that can be funded by Title IV Aid. 

13 Some people might argue that's semantics, but I think it's an 

14 important distinction. Are there any other areas where we cut 

15 students off of Title IV Aid? Obviously, students can lose 

16 eligibility for a number of reasons, right? That would have 

17 the effect of cutting them off. They could go into default, 

18 things like that. The other thing would be as far as SAP goes, 

19 yes, it's possible for a student to lose eligibility for aid 

20 if they've run afoul of the institution's SAP policy. That has 

21 to be constructed within our guidelines. That's, and of 

22 course, you know, I want to point out that there are appeal 

23 procedures there involved. We have, you know, warnings, 

24 probation, things like that to mitigate that. But I don't 

25 think you could draw a distinction between SAP and this. Now, 

26 is it the question of how would SAP work in conjunction with 

27 this? That's a very legitimate question. And as you know, SAP 

28 is structured on, in your example, the 150 percent completion 

29 is 150 percent of program length. And what would that and I 

30 guess your question would be, what that program length be? We 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 5 

1 would be considering it the total length of the program the 

2 school has? Or would it be that would it be based on the 

3 number of hours for which the student is eligible for Title IV 

4 Aid? I hesitate to go too far. It's certainly something the 

5 Department would have to look at in terms of its policy. I 

6 think right now, the way SAP rules are written, they are 

7 written to program length. And we're not, in this rule, 

8 proposing to limit the length of a program. So, our program 

9 would still be the number of hours that it is. So, I would 

10 imagine, I'm just I'm kind of going off on speculation here 

11 that it would be based on, it would still be based on program 

12 length. But it's something the Department would have to look 

13 at. And I don't know if Steve's back with us. Steve, do you 

14 have any comments on that? Steve's an old SAP warrior from way 

15 back. So, I'll, not too far back, Steve, but I'll ask if he 

16 wants to comment.

17 MR. FINLEY: Actually, I think that's Greg's polite 

18 way of calling me a sap, but that's okay. And there's some 

19 similarity here. But as Greg notes, satisfactory academic 

20 progress is based on a student not making an acceptable rate 

21 of progress over based on the length of the program. So, if 

22 the suggestion is we would have to look at the interplay there 

23 to see if that's one way this could be worked out, I think we 

24 would just have to look at it. It's not clear how they would 

25 overlay one another.

26 MS. COCHRANE: Okay. So just a clarifying question. 

27 So, you're not necessarily intending, if we have 1000-hour 

28 program, to strictly to basically eliminate that kind of SAP 

29 or SAP flexibility for the students in the thousand-hour 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 6 

1 program? Basically, they have a strict, they must meet a 

2 stricter rate of progress.

3 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Steve.

4 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, it's interesting because SAP only 

5 comes into play if the student is not progressing at the 

6 normal rate of the expected rate of completion within the 

7 programs. Right? So that's what happens, all of a sudden, you 

8 start talking about 150 percent of the program length and 

9 whether the student is going to be able to complete it with a 

10 satisfactory grade level during that period. So, it's just not 

11 clear how the two are going to work out right now. I mean, the 

12 proposal here is, is that for students making normal progress 

13 in the program, they would be capped before they reach the 

14 enlarged program hours that would be established by the 

15 measurement under this proposed regulation.

16 MR. MARTIN: Now, I should point out, too, with SAP 

17 that we are talking about Gainful Employment programs here and 

18 while, certainly this doesn't apply to every Gainful 

19 Employment program. But I do want to point out that for 

20 Gainful, for programs that are met that are, if they're non21 term in nature, and that would be a lot of these programs, 

22 that there is no pace requirement anymore related to SAP for 

23 those programs. Remember, that a student cannot be paid in a 

24 program such as that in a program structured in that way. And 

25 until, unless they've completed one-half the weeks and hours 

26 in the academic year. So, a pace requirement for SAP is 

27 redundant. So, the only, the only thing you would have would 

28 be the GPA requirement, which wouldn't be affected by this. 

29 And, and there would still be a maximum there'll still be a 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 7 

1 maximum timeframe as measured in calendar time. So, it 

2 probably wouldn't be as have as big an effect on most of these 

3 types of programs as you might think. But that is not to say 

4 that we don't we wouldn't have some thinking to do about 

5 exactly how the interplay would work, as Steve points out.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Brad, you're up. 

7 MR. ADAMS: In this comment, does it lend- again, I'm 

8 still not supporting as written, but I just want to point out 

9 if we truly want to get the states involved, you know, most 

10 legislative calendars are already finishing, at least in the 

11 states where I operate, and some states operate on an every12 other-year basis. So, I would think you need at least a two to 

13 three year from effective date language in here if you want 

14 the states to have any chance at all to try to comply with 

15 whatever you're trying to do.

16 MR. ROBERTS: Adam.

17 MR. WELLE: Yeah. I was just going to say, I do agree 

18 with Jessica's concerns. I think having the student not be 

19 able to finish the program if it reaches the cap would be 

20 harsh and kind of place the risk and the harm on the student 

21 as opposed to the institution. It might even be better if the 

22 program, and I think Jessica maybe suggested this as the 

23 alternative, but if the program just wasn't available or 

24 eligible for aid altogether, if it didn't meet the requirement 

25 or if it was longer than the maximum, and at the very least, I 

26 would think there should be some sort of disclosure 

27 requirement at the outset so that the student is aware that 

28 they don't have Title IV funding to bring them to the end of 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 8 

1 the program so that they can be fully aware of that and can be 

2 packaged in some other way to be able to complete it.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

4 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

5 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Jessica.

6 MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. And just to piggyback on what 

7 Adam said, I believe that the language in the session two 

8 issue paper accomplished precisely that. I understand when 

9 Greg spoke that the reason that the language was changed was 

10 to allow these programs to continue to operate for non-Title 

11 IV purposes. I don't have a problem with that. If people want 

12 to do the whole program wholly funded not by Title IV, I think 

13 that's completely fine. And I think you could write out an 

14 exception. I think the problem is that the way that that 

15 problem was solved creates this huge new problem.

16 MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you, Jessica. Johnson.

17 MR. TYLER: Sorry. I'm jumping in really at the spur 

18 here. But, you know, if you're not going to fully fund the 

19 education, you're just perpetuating transcript withholding 

20 because it happens all the time. Students are excited about 

21 going to school. They have the funding and then there's some 

22 bill at the end that they can't afford to pay that they never 

23 budgeted for. And it's very confusing and a lot of students 

24 are just going to walk away without their completing or 

25 stranding all those credits, and they're going to end up with 

26 a debt and they're never go back to school until they pay off 

27 the debt. So, I think it's, you, know it's really you've got 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 9 

1 to address this somehow because you're just creating a huge 

2 problem here.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Johnson. Greg, not seeing 

4 any additional comments on this section. Would you like to 

5 move us to the next piece of the issue paper?

6 MR. MARTIN: Yes. So, we'll be discussing 32. And one 

7 of the reasons which I think are probably fairly obvious, I 

8 will look at 32. No. Yeah. So, we'll. Okay, yeah. Let's just 

9 let's just start with 32. So, I'll discuss what I wanted to 

10 say later. So, here under 32 we have, we've clarified the 

11 provision at the suggestion of negotiators that institutions 

12 must comply with consumer protection laws. So, let's review 

13 that in each state in which the institution is located or in 

14 which the student in which students enrolled by the 

15 institution are located. The institution must ensure that, if 

16 we go down to let's go down to romanette three, ensure that it 

17 complies with all state consumer protection laws, including 

18 both generally applicable state laws and those specific to 

19 educational institutions, except where state requirements for 

20 obtaining authorization are or inapplicable pursuant to state 

21 authorization or reciprocity agreements. So, because, we get 

22 into transcripts in the next one. Why don't I just, I know I 

23 don't usually stop, but let's just stop here at 32 before we 

24 get into transcripts and then and clear this, any discussion 

25 here first, if you don't mind just bearing with me there. So, 

26 I'm going to open it up for discussion on 32 by itself.

27 MR. ROBERTS: Comments and questions for the 

28 Department on 32 alone. Just want to welcome Laura to the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 10

1 table on behalf of the credit agencies. Welcome, Dr. King. 

2 Barmak, I see your hand first.

3 MR. NASSIRIAN: So, I think all of the negotiators 

4 and the public are fully aware of how controversial these 

5 provisions are. I was going to suggest that we take this 

6 section in two distinct components, one of them having to do 

7 with current romanette one and two. Let's work that out if we 

8 can, because I think we do have a compromise solution for 

9 that. And then address three, which I know is the subject of 

10 much consternation and email traffic, and apropos romanettes 

11 one and two, and I do this with permission from the folks that 

12 I'm calling out, but Carolyn Fast and I, because we were 

13 originally involved in submitting some language on this, have 

14 been working since the end of the last session with colleagues 

15 at WCET and WICHE who have taken the lead in attempting to 

16 improve this language together with us to address our mutual 

17 concerns. And we did a draft language with them that satisfies 

18 both our concerns and theirs. So, I have their permission to 

19 say this. We have submitted that. And I think Cindy just 

20 recirculated the language with a header. We believe that 

21 language accomplishes everything the Department wants to do 

22 here at the same time as it addresses some of the operational 

23 concerns that our colleagues on the institutional side would 

24 have with the current draft. So, if you'd like to I don't know 

25 whether folks want to look at that language or do, how do we 

26 want to proceed? But that's the effort we engaged in to 

27 attempt to come back to the committee with something that the 

28 various sides might find agreeable.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 11

1 MS. JEFFRIES: Barmak, just to be clear, I didn't 

2 recirculate it with the header because the language had stayed 

3 the same. I certainly can if the committee would like to have 

4 it with the header on it.

5 MR. NASSIRIAN: Well, the header just references the 

6 section of the draft it would go in, which is section 32. What 

7 it does is it would add a romanette three to the current 

8 subsection and I could go through the provisions one at a 

9 time, if you like, or however the committee wishes to proceed.

10 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Barmak. You can walk us 

11 through it. What, you said it adds, I just to be clear it adds 

12 so we have romanette one, two and three. Does this does 

13 replace one of the, it still retains that that structure? 

14 MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes, it would have. Should I share my 

15 screen so people can see the language?

16 MR. ROBERTS: If you wouldn't mind, Barmak.

17 MR. MARTIN: I don't have problem with that.

18 MR. NASSIRIAN: Can I do that? 

19 MR. MARTIN: Yeah, go ahead, Barmak. Yeah.

20 MR. NASSIRIAN: Okay. So hopefully you're seeing, 

21 unfortunately, I couldn't track changes because of the PDF to 

22 Word conversion, but the construct here is intended to address 

23 multiple concerns that we heard from our colleagues on the 

24 institutional side, one of which has to do again with pegging 

25 the requirements for licensure to the location of the of the 

26 student. And I want to emphasize here and the Department was 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 12

1 kind enough to take an edit from me with regard to high school 

2 diplomas in the same vein, that any mandates or requirements 

3 should be pegged to the location of the student. I want to be 

4 very clear and I hope the Department, should it accept this 

5 language, clearly states this in the preamble that by location 

6 we don't mean the residence of the student, we mean where the 

7 student actually encounters the educational experience. So, 

8 it's because the goal here is to address both physical as well 

9 as distance ed modalities so that a student who crosses 

10 jurisdictions and attends a school physically, say, in another 

11 jurisdiction in another state would be located in that second 

12 state. We want to make sure physical institutions don't have 

13 to go through a requirement to satisfy a 50-state licensure 

14 mandate. So, one of the changes that we made was to change the 

15 location definition, to tie it to where the student begins 

16 their participation. And then the language is the programmatic 

17 accreditation, if it is required by the state or federal 

18 agency. Romanette two addresses a concern they had about the 

19 institution being required to assure that the program 

20 necessarily meets the criteria for each state, mainly because 

21 they explain that in some states that may not be easily 

22 available or available at all. So, we want to make sure that 

23 to the extent that such prerequisites are knowable, that the 

24 institution has to satisfy them. And then the third romanette 

25 is intended to address those cases, because we are not tying 

26 it to licensure and pre- and other prerequisites associated 

27 with location of the student. We wanted to make sure that we 

28 accommodate any individuals who, say, plan to go to another 

29 state but are preparing to do so through an online program 

30 that may not satisfy the prerequisites for where they are, but 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 13

1 that would satisfy the prerequisites for another venue as long 

2 as that's done on a case-by-case basis with prior with prior 

3 consent. So, those are the modifications we made in response 

4 to the concerns we heard from our colleagues who are quite 

5 expert in these matters and sort of educated us about how the 

6 language could be modified. Thank you.

7 MR. MARTIN: And Barmak, just to confirm, I saw 

8 something pop up in the chat that said the current romanette 

9 three would be romanette four. Is that correct?

10 MR. NASSIRIAN: Yes, we would. Again, the current 

11 romanette three is a whole other ball of wax that we're going 

12 to have to discuss. But should the committee accept these 

13 changes, the conforming change would be to renumber and 

14 include current romanette three as now romanette four.

15 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you.

16 MR. NASSIRIAN: I'm going to stop sharing if I know 

17 how.

18 MR. MARTIN: Yes.

19 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Barmak. I'm going to presume 

20 the Department needs some time to think on that. So, if it's 

21 okay with you, I'll move back to the queue, and Laura, I have 

22 your hand next.

23 DR. KING: Thanks, Barmak. I'd like to offer a 

24 friendly amendment based on what we had talked about at the 

25 last, at session two. I was surprised to see that pre26 accreditation was not added in after our discussion in session 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 14

1 two. So, in the spirit of focusing comments on what might 

2 affect a consensus vote, I want to talk about that again. So, 

3 the suggested language is programmatically accredited or pre4 accredited if such accreditation is required. So just adding 

5 those two words, and I'm not sure if it was an oversight or a 

6 decision, but I did want to talk about what it means. So, 

7 602.16 which is the, those are the accreditation regulations. 

8 Accreditor is recognized by the Secretary specifically have 

9 pre-accreditation in their scope and it has very specific 

10 requirements that are that are assessed when accreditors go 

11 through their recognition process. It addresses curriculum, 

12 faculty, fiscal viability, all of those things that you would 

13 expect. And there's a federally regulated limit on how long a 

14 program or institution can stay in pre-accreditation. Also, 

15 pre-accreditation status is a pretty there's a lot of scrutiny 

16 that goes into it. Oftentimes programs in particular, I'll 

17 speak for programs, go through multiple site visits, multiple 

18 reporting requirements during that period of time. So, it's 

19 actually a time of pretty intense working with the accreditor 

20 and pretty intense scrutiny. There's also an obligation for 

21 institutions in pre-accreditation status now. This was 

22 negotiated in 2019 for the 2020 regs to have a teach out plan 

23 in place if they're in pre-accreditation. So, this isn't you 

24 know something that is just sort of given willy nilly. I mean, 

25 it fits here. And finally, licensing agencies and professions 

26 that have pre-accreditation as part of their accreditation 

27 process accept students from pre-accredited program to sit for 

28 the licensing exam. So, it's not putting students at any 

29 disadvantage. So, I'm again, I'm curious about why it wasn't 

30 added in here in this draft three.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 15

1 MR. NASSIRIAN: Unintended oversight. I agree with 

2 you.

3 DR. KING: And my comment was, my question was really 

4 to the Department, not to Barmak, because I know that Barmak 

5 agrees with me. I just didn't know if there was some reason 

6 that that was the case.

7 MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. Could you restate that, if 

8 it's directed to us?

9 DR. KING: Yeah. What, why was after the conversation 

10 in session two, why was pre-accreditation not added in here.

11 MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, could you reference the exact 

12 part of the where you're where you are in the in 32, please?

13 DR. KING: Sure. It's 32 romanette one.

14 MR. MARTIN: Okay. So, in each state, the institution 

15 is located where in which students enrolled by the institution 

16 are located. The institution must ensure that it is 

17 programmatically, oh, programmatically accredited. And you 

18 wanted to know.

19 DR. KING: Or pre-accredited is what20 MR. MARTIN: Or pre-accredited. I'm, we had concerns 

21 about pre-accreditation status and making certain that the 

22 program is actually is actually accredited. So [interposing] 

23 that language.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 16

1 DR. KING: Right. But I just what I just said in my, 

2 what I just said in my comments actually explained why it 

3 should be there. It doesn't seem like you heard it or4 MR. MARTIN: We did5 DR. KING: I'm just it is a category of accreditation 

6 and without it, it really puts programs, accreditors, students 

7 between a rock and a hard place. It's addressed in 602.16. 

8 It's specific. I'm at a loss to understand. I just want to 

9 hear a cogent argument why.

10 MR. MARTIN: Well, you know, we have with pre11 accreditation, we have concerns about the prospect of Title IV 

12 Aid floating programs, and you know taxpayer money being used 

13 to float programs which have yet to receive accreditation. The 

14 potential for them not to be accredited is still there.

15 DR. KING: But that's not how it works. And, if, so, 

16 let's say that we just go with accreditation and an agency has 

17 to give accreditation and not go through the pre-accreditation 

18 process, so they get their accreditation withdrawn. I mean, 

19 it's the same, they actually get more scrutiny in the pre20 accreditation process. I just think there's a lack of 

21 understanding and I strongly recommend that that gets added 

22 back in because it makes no sense.

23 MR. MARTIN: I'll take it back.

24 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Debbie. 

25 MS. COCHRANE: So, I have some questions. I'm kind of 

26 I'm looking at the proposed amended language. And I think that 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 17

1 there are some really good steps in here that I appreciate 

2 particularly saying that's clarifying that the location is 

3 where the student begins their participation. I know I've 

4 heard that concern of students can move across state lines. 

5 And, you know, I don't think that's what the Department's 

6 trying to get here. I also appreciate the kind of case-by-case 

7 exceptions to enroll students and how institutions could 

8 handle that. I, I have spent my question is really around this 

9 question is the proposed from Barmak and Carolyn 32 romanette 

10 two around if you know making sure that it satisfies the, you 

11 know, applicable standards if they are available and can be 

12 obtained from the state. And my question, I guess I have I 

13 have spent a chunk of time trying to understand the concerns 

14 in this issue. I've connected directly with about two dozen 

15 state licensing entities in California and in other states. I 

16 am not understanding the problem. So, it's not that I'm 

17 necessarily averse to a solution to it, but I would like to 

18 more clearly hear that problem articulated. What I do see is 

19 institutions consistently pointing to large online 

20 institutions, consistently pointing students to state 

21 licensing entities. So, I'm reading it from one website right 

22 now. This institution strongly encourages you, the student, to 

23 contact the State Licensing Board where you intend to seek 

24 licensure to ensure the program will meet the state's 

25 licensing requirements. Another one saying students should be 

26 assured by their institution that the program actually does 

27 meet the requirements of the state in which [audio] practice. 

28 So, I feel like even with the disclosures as they exist right 

29 now, where we see large institutions pointing students saying, 

30 you better go check yourself. You better make sure that the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 18

1 requirements are met. So, if students are supposed to make 

2 sure the requirements are met, it feels like that should be 

3 something institutions are doing before they enroll students 

4 across state lines. And then finally, I would just say so 

5 again, I'm not averse to a solution, but I'm having a hard 

6 time understanding what the problem is. And I would just 

7 finally say that you know we just heard about in the with 

8 regards to the hours, the maximum program hours is clearly an 

9 effort on the part of the Department to move states in what 

10 seems like a more consumer-friendly direction. And I would say 

11 that you know I think that the language where states need, or 

12 institutions need to confirm that that programs are meeting 

13 the requirements could actually have the same impact. If it is 

14 true, and this would be horrifying, if it is true that there 

15 are some state licensing entities that will not let a student 

16 or an institution know what they need to do in their 

17 educational program to ultimately gain licensure [30 seconds] 

18 that is a huge problem. Like I don't know how students are 

19 supposed to navigate this. So, part of these rules are the 

20 Department's approach in this paper in particular, is to move 

21 states towards a better, clearer, more consumer friendly 

22 direction. This, to me, seems like a good opportunity to do 

23 so. So again, all that to say, I would love to hear examples 

24 of you know Michigan Accounting Board, whatever doesn't tell 

25 people or what like just what specifically is the problem 

26 here.

27 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Debbie. Not seeing an 

28 immediate response. I'm going to go to Brad.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 19

1 MR. ADAMS: I'd like to second Laura's position on 32 

2 romanette one. I'm really struggling and I'll give you a 

3 perfect example, Greg. Our pharmacy school was accredited. We 

4 were seeking accreditation. Students had to sign a 

5 certification knowing the program wasn't fully accredited. But 

6 the program cannot be fully accredited until you actually 

7 graduate students and produce outcomes. Students are aware of 

8 that. They sign a disclosure certification, understanding 

9 that. How in the world could you ever start a new healthcare 

10 program, at least at the graduate level, if you have to be 

11 fully accredited when you can't be fully accredited till you 

12 graduate somebody. It's the chicken before the egg. I don't 

13 get why the Department is so strongly against putting some 

14 language in there about pre-accreditation or seeking 

15 accreditation, because that's not the way programmatic 

16 accreditation works. And I just, I'm not sure, I'm still 

17 struggling like Laura. Why is that an issue?

18 MR. MARTIN: Well, as I said before, I mean, I 

19 understand the process, but pre-accreditation is not 

20 accreditation or else there wouldn't be the delineation so the 

21 pre-accreditation to get from pre-accreditation to 

22 accreditation as you just pointed out that the program has to 

23 meet certain thresholds and standards in order for that to in 

24 order for that to occur.

25 MR. ADAMS: Would that mean funding would not be 

26 available until you reach that? Is that what that means?

27 MR. MARTIN: That is correct. A student would not be 

28 Title- there would not be Title IV eligible until the program 

29 is accredited.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 20

1 MR. ADAMS: Then you've essentially shut down all new 

2 healthcare programs from this point forward if you do that 

3 because this isn't just for-profits, this is for all schools. 

4 So, I want to make sure the publics and the non-profits hear 

5 this, too. You cannot get accreditation in many healthcare 

6 programs until you have outcomes and graduate students. And 

7 what he just said means you will never be able to start a new 

8 program again because that can't happen in this scenario right 

9 here. Thank you.

10 MR. MARTIN: I want to for the record state that, 

11 we're not saying that you can't start a new program. That's 

12 what we said is that it would not13 MR. ADAMS: It would not get funding.

14 MR. MARTIN: It wouldn't be eligible until such time 

15 as it was accredited.

16 MR. ADAMS: But you killed all new healthcare 

17 programs under that.

18 MR. ROBERTS: Barmak, I see your hand, but I just 

19 want to note that Emmanual is at the table for private 

20 nonprofits [inaudible]. Barmak, please.

21 MR. NASSIRIAN: I just I'll do my very best to 

22 respond to Debbie's concerns. It is my understanding that in a 

23 number of states, the final judgment is rendered only after an 

24 individual evaluation of, say, transcripts and so in teaching, 

25 for example, and nursing in some states, so that it becomes 

26 somewhat of a Catch-22 and a real problem for an institution 

27 to make representations on the front end about an assessment 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 21

1 that is post facto. And this was what the additional sort of 

2 flexibility and the language we drafted was supposed to 

3 address. I agree with you that it is a really an abominable 

4 practice for a state not to be able to articulate a priori 

5 what it takes to qualify for a particular licensure exam or 

6 for a particular type of license. But to whatever extent that 

7 is true, and that's you know that's to be determined after 

8 these regs go into effect. To whatever extent it's true, it 

9 would not make sense to hold institutions accountable for that 

10 kind of practice. And furthermore, to the extent that the 

11 criteria are clear in advance, this does mandate that 

12 institutions, unlike what you are, you and I are both 

13 concerned about the idea of just simply shrugging your 

14 shoulders and telling the student to go figure it out. To the 

15 extent that the criteria are knowable, I think that mandate 

16 would be on the institution to know them, not on the student. 

17 So that's the best I can do in explaining why some variability 

18 in state licensure practices may justify a little bit of 

19 flexibility here.

20 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Barmak. Laura.

21 DR. KING: I wanted to again try to explain and 

22 clarify because I feel like we're not having a meeting of the 

23 minds here. Programmatic accreditors are not Title IV 

24 gatekeepers. We don't have, we are not where the Title IV link 

25 happens unless it is an institutional accreditor that 

26 accredits single purpose programs. But that's not what we're 

27 talking about. So, if you think about all of the healthcare 

28 professions, those are all located within larger institutions 

29 with institutional accreditation that serves as their Title IV 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 22

1 gatekeeper. So, are you saying, Greg, then, that if a program 

2 is new that you and in a larger institution that has 

3 institutional accreditation, that a program would not, that 

4 students in that new program would not be able to receive 

5 Title IV funding if they're not accredited by the programmatic 

6 accreditor? Is that it? And if that's the case, then are you 

7 somehow making programmatic accreditors into Title IV 

8 gatekeepers?

9 MR. MARTIN: No, we're not making the programmatic 

10 accreditor into a Title IV gatekeeper. And in an instance 

11 where an institution is accredited, say, by a regional 

12 accreditor, yes, I fully understand that that is the 

13 accreditor and for Title IV gatekeeping purposes. Here, we're 

14 saying that in each state where the institution must ensure 

15 that each program that is programmatically accredited is 

16 programmatically accredited, these are programs not 

17 institutions as programmatically accredited if such 

18 accreditation is required by the state so or a federal agency. 

19 So, in this case, we're talking about where that program is 

20 required to be accredited at a programmatic level so that it 

21 actually so that it actually is accredited.

22 DR. KING: Okay. Right. But how would a new program 

23 start then? Because basically what pre-accreditation does is 

24 it protects the first class of students going through. How 

25 would a new program start?

26 MR. MARTIN: Well, as I said, I don't I can't speak 

27 to how it would start. It would not be, as the rule is 

28 written, would preclude Title IV funding.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 23

1 DR. KING: In an institutionally accredited in an 

2 institution that is accredited?

3 MR. MARTIN: Because the program is required to be 

4 accredited in this case, which is not which is not our 

5 [interposing]

6 DR. KING: So, the institution7 MR. MARTIN: It's not our requirement. It's in most 

8 cases, a state requirement that the program be accredited.

9 DR. KING: Okay. But here's what I'm saying, is that

10 pre-accreditation is recognized by licensing agencies and 

11 states. So. So, it is accredited. So again, I feel like we're 

12 not connecting on the words here. This is an important issue.

13 MR. MARTIN: I entirely get that it's important and I 

14 understand your concerns, but I've tried to elucidate our 

15 concerns as well about the fact that even though you know, 

16 that, when you talk about the pre-accreditation status, it is 

17 it is not actual accreditation. Otherwise, it would be 

18 accredited at the outset.

19 DR. KING: No, it wouldn't, because it doesn't have, 

20 programs have to start. They have to develop. And then they 

21 have to recruit students and they have to have students going 

22 through the program.

23 MR. MARTIN: I understand that. And we have a concern 

24 about the students in that developmental portion before that 

25 program is fully accredited. I will take it back for 

26 discussion, but I don't think there's anything else I could 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 24

1 say about it now. Unless Steve wants to add anything to my 

2 comments.

3 MR. FINLEY: Yeah. We'll take this back and come back 

4 either with a clarifying response or you know, a restatement 

5 of our position on this issue.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Emmanual.

7 MR. GUILLORY: So, I wanted to share that I support 

8 what Laura is saying. I understand what she's saying. And I 

9 think it is also an issue that the Department should 

10 definitely take a closer look at before, ideally before a 

11 consensus vote is taken, because it's something that needs to 

12 be addressed. But I wanted to talk about this particular 

13 section, because we've heard from a number of our members 

14 regarding their concerns around the language that the 

15 Department has proposed here. And just with the language as 

16 written, trying to follow a student where students are going 

17 to go and making sure they're complying with state licensing 

18 requirements in all 50 states obviously is nearly impossible 

19 to do, especially when states are often changing their state 

20 licensing requirements and institutions are having to make 

21 sure their programs are still meeting those state licensing 

22 requirements. But aside from that, there is an example of the 

23 state of Louisiana, to be exact. And in this particular state, 

24 as it relates to their nursing licensure program, it's very 

25 vague text on what it means to actually meet the state 

26 licensing requirements for this particular program. And they 

27 use the words nursing, which programs meet or exceeds the 

28 educational standards for nursing education programs in 

29 Louisiana. And that's me not reading the entire thing, but 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 25

1 I've picked out just the sentence that's actually very 

2 confusing. And when one particular institution reached out to 

3 the state of Louisiana to ask clarification on the educational 

4 standards that need to be met, the answer from the board was 

5 that they review each application individually. And so it's 

6 like, okay, so we will send in our application and you will 

7 just review it and get back to us and let us know something at 

8 some point in time, instead of you having it spelled out 

9 exactly what the state licensing requirements are for this 

10 particular program. So it could be that other states have 

11 outlined licensing requirements for certain programs. It's 

12 very clear to understand. It's like, okay, this makes sense. 

13 We either meet that or we don't meet that, but not for every 

14 single program as it's actually happened, which sometimes 

15 leads institutions to then have to say, well, we can't 

16 determine whether or not we meet those state licensing 

17 requirements, because it's not clear we've reached out. We 

18 haven't gotten a clear answer. We don't know when we will get 

19 a clear answer. So, we are kind of left in the dark, which is 

20 why currently in regulatory text there is that not to be 

21 determined aspect, but I know the Department is proposing to 

22 get rid of that. But even aside from that here with the 

23 language that Barmak and Carolyn have proposed24 MR. WAGNER: Emmanual, 30 seconds.

25 MR. GUILLORY: -this language is much better than and 

26 it addresses a lot of the issues that we have been hearing 

27 from a number of our member institutions regarding this. So, I 

28 will stop there.

29 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Emmanual. Jessica, please.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 26

1 MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I just want to speak on the 

2 pre-accreditation issue. I'm no expert, but I think the real 

3 consumer protection issue that I would be very concerned about 

4 is if, in fact, under the circumstance where pre-accreditation 

5 is not accepted by the state. Right? And so, I think we're 

6 talking about two different universes, right? Where the 

7 licensing authority, either state or federal, does accept pre8 accreditation for licensure or does not accept pre9 accreditation for licensure. And if we're in the camp where it 

10 does not accept pre-accreditation for licensure, I think the 

11 concerns that the Department has are very real. And I'm not 

12 I'm not an expert. I don't know how to deal with it. But as I 

13 understand, Laura is not talking about that group. I think 

14 Laura is talking about the group where, in fact, pre15 accreditation is accepted by the state for licensure. And so, 

16 these students will be eligible for licensure in the 

17 occupation. And I think that that presents fewer consumer 

18 protection concerns. And so, I guess I just thought maybe it 

19 would be helpful to clarify those two groups. And maybe, 

20 Laura, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in that 

21 group, I think I would be curious to know, it just sounds like 

22 the Department's concerns are not withstanding full 

23 institutional accreditation, that somehow programmatic pre24 accreditation, even if accepted for state licensure, is 

25 somehow insufficient. And I, that's fine, but it doesn't 

26 really make sense here because this is attached to the state 

27 licensure requirements. So, I don't really understand what the 

28 point is.

29 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. Barmak.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 27

1 MR. NASSIRIAN: Yeah. I was going to raise the same 

2 issue as Jessica just addressed. I certainly think to the 

3 extent that pre-accreditation does satisfy the licensure 

4 requirement, the Department should be quite comfortable 

5 accepting it. Because if you look at romanette two, the 

6 rationale for all of this now, it doesn't it's not clearly not 

7 applicable to romanette one, but the idea is so that a student 

8 who completes the program can actually get a job in the field. 

9 And if pre-accreditation satisfies that, I really don't see 

10 any reason why the Department would want to exclude it. I also 

11 want to address Emmanual's concerns. Those are very much the 

12 same concerns that we had heard. And that was the purpose, 

13 again, partially addressing Debbie's concern about why the 

14 latitude. That was the motivation to ensure that where you 

15 really couldn't get a clear answer from the State as to what 

16 the requirements are a priori that you could still offer the 

17 program because you had done your best and hopefully the State 

18 would get its act together. But until then, the institution 

19 would be in a no-win position trying to ascertain things that 

20 the State refuses to disclose. By the way, we also lock [ph] 

21 Emmanual mentioned the problem of chasing students across 

22 state lines. Our proposal is really pegged to the initiation 

23 of the program as long as the student remains continuously 

24 enrolled, because that's the bulletin year that should 

25 articulate the terms and conditions for grant granting the 

26 degree so that just the fact of a student moving from one 

27 state to another would not suddenly put the institution in the 

28 position of having to secure an additional set of approvals. 

29 Thank you.

30 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Marvin. 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 28

1 MR. SMITH: I just also want to go on record that 

2 large four-year publics are expressing the same concerns. And 

3 I want to thank Barmak and Carolyn for really negotiating with 

4 a lot of different stakeholders and have put together, I 

5 think, a proposal that I urge the Department to consider.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Greg, do you want to move to 

7 the next section? I don't see any new hands.

8 MR. MARTIN: Yeah, what I'd like to do is move on to 

9 a discussion of romanette three as well. As it stands now and 

10 then, if I may call for a break so I can take some of this 

11 back to my colleagues at the Department. But I want to do 32 

12 in its entirety. So, if there are any comments about, let's 

13 yeah, Vanessa's pulling back that back up again so we're 

14 talking about 32 romanette three and that, just to restate, 

15 complies with all state consumer protection laws, including 

16 both generally applicable state laws and those specific to 

17 educational institutions, except where state requirements for 

18 obtaining authorization are inapplicable pursuant to a state 

19 authorization reciprocity agreement. So why don't we continue 

20 the discussion there? Going back to what Barmak had asked that 

21 we split those up, so I'll take romanette three now.

22 MR. ROBERTS: Comments for romanette three as the 

23 Department's written it. Carolyn.

24 MS. FAST: I wanted to offer my strong support for 

25 this addition language here. I think it's really important, 

26 and it also addresses some of the concerns about how this 

27 could affect states that are part of the reciprocity 

28 agreement, which is, you know, obviously right now all states 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 29

1 except for California. And you know I think it's meant to 

2 address this by saying that that that schools really need to 

3 be following consumer protection laws wherever they're 

4 operating. And the reciprocity agreement you know can preserve 

5 its core function of permitting states to operate in multiple 

6 states with only having to fill out one application and pay 

7 one fee because of the language that the Department has 

8 adopted in this provision. So, I think it's a really good 

9 addition that will really help consumers in you know in each 

10 state and also be good for states and to make sure that they 

11 can protect students the way that they want to do.

12 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Barmak.

13 MR. NASSIRIAN: So I also would like to voice my 

14 strong support for this language with a proviso, and that 

15 proviso is that I am certainly aware of the somewhat alarmist 

16 concerns that have really escalated over the course of the 

17 past few days about this language and the suggestion that 

18 somehow the inclusion of this provision will end distance 

19 education or subject institutions to absolutely untenable 

20 requirements, none of which sort of pans out when you consider 

21 the fact that the state of California has opted out and the 

22 sky has not fallen in California. I would say that the 

23 disagreement that seems to divide some of the consumer 

24 advocates from some of the institutional folks has to do with 

25 the fact that the institutions, for completely understandable 

26 reasons, I don't ascribe any moral failure here, it's mostly 

27 an epistemological one. You see the world from your point of 

28 view, and it makes perfect sense to me that institutions got 

29 together and attempted to construct an arrangement for their 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 30

1 maximum convenience without fully grasping the impact of the 

2 arrangement and the potential ways in which it could be abused 

3 so that we now have a reciprocity arrangement which was 

4 supposed to address authorization. It was never intended to 

5 address consumer protection. It did not include consumer 

6 protection experts. Most of the participants to this 

7 arrangement would not have had authority within their own 

8 states to argue for what they managed to do together 

9 nationally. And that at this at the moment, the reciprocity 

10 that dominates is really kind of a textbook example of 

11 regulatory capture by the regulated entities. The entities 

12 that are being regulated are telling not only the states, but 

13 also the Federal Government whose wallet is on the table, how 

14 it's going to be. Now, having said all this, we have made a 

15 commitment to work with our colleagues on the other side of 

16 this proposition to come to some agreement. But I do I do 

17 believe that the Federal Government has a compelling interest 

18 in making sure that the local cops are on the beat and that 

19 they have jurisdiction to protect their residents. So, I want 

20 to support this with the understanding that if by some miracle 

21 we don't end up with consensus on this language, that we are 

22 committed to working with folks who have legitimate concerns 

23 to attempt to come back with a constructive alternative at the 

24 comments and at the notice and comment period. Thank you.

25 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Barmak. I just want to note 

26 Emmanual's returning to the table on behalf of private 

27 nonprofits. And Jamie is back to the table on behalf of the 

28 accrediting agencies. So, Jessica, please.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 31

1 MS. RANUCCI: Thanks. I really want to say I agree, I 

2 echo what other people have said. I strongly support this 

3 language is the kind of language that will go a long way 

4 towards putting me out of a job in a good way. It allows other 

5 people to do their job so people don't have to come to me 

6 later. I think that you know some of us at this table were at 

7 a different table back in 2019 when the world looked pretty 

8 different. And in similar language, I believe was I don't want 

9 to say noncontroversial, but relatively non-controversial. And 

10 I believe got through, someone correct me, Greg, you were 

11 there. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the subcommittee and 

12 the main committee on consensus, including from all sectors of 

13 institutions and I guess I would just say that you know if we 

14 look at how the world has changed since we were in person in 

15 that room in 2019, I think the need for this is even more 

16 critical. There's no question the distance that is here to say 

17 that it's going to be a large portion of students, a large 

18 portion of institutions. And I think it would be a real shame 

19 to not have seat protections. I understand from the 

20 institution perspective that there is tremendous value in the 

21 Interstate Compact in the initial state authorization piece. 

22 You know, that's obviously something I don't see in my 

23 practice. It's pretty invisible to the students and legal aid. 

24 But I heard from you that it's important and I think that this 

25 language does a good job of balancing that concern with the 

26 concern on the back end of making sure that people are treated 

27 fairly. So, I just I appreciate the Department including it. I 

28 want to speak in support.

29 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jessica. Adam. 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 32

1 MR. WELLE: Thank you. So, this seems to me like a 

2 very obvious quality control measure that simply just requires 

3 that institutions aren't violating state laws. From the 

4 perspective of AGs, I have to say it is not unusual. It is 

5 typical for a business that markets and sells its products 

6 online or across state lines to comply with the laws of the 

7 state where the consumer lives. That's where the transaction 

8 is taking place. That is the state in which that has the 

9 highest regulatory interest. So, you know the ability to 

10 protect consumers, I would say, is, if anything, at its 

11 height, when we're talking about one of the most important 

12 decisions, a person, consumer decisions a person makes in 

13 their life, and that the decision to make an investment in 

14 higher education. So if a state believes that there's a 

15 necessary consumer protection, for example, that schools have 

16 to make certain disclosures or you know a topic that we've 

17 talked about a lot, if the state decides it's an unfair debt 

18 collection practices practice to withhold transcripts, you 

19 know, it really shouldn't be controversial that the state be 

20 able to protect its own consumers and enforce those laws. And 

21 those are important policy questions that state legislatures 

22 can consider and maybe states can decide to exempt those laws 

23 when a school is operating under a reciprocity agreement. 

24 That's actually what we have in Minnesota to a large degree. 

25 And that states subject to the reciprocity agreements can be 

26 exempt from those from those statutes. But that's the 

27 prerogative of the state. And if they think that and it's 

28 their prerogative if they think the consumers are adequately 

29 protected under the reciprocity agreements, and you know there 

30 are very significant concerns with a lack of consumer 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 33

1 protection for schools operating online. And those are 

2 detailed in the letters that I circulated last night that come 

3 from a bipartisan group of 25 state AGs, where we lay out the 

4 concerns, we've had for several years now with a lack of 

5 consumer protection for students who are subject to distance 

6 learning. So, I think that without this provision, there's a 

7 huge risk of impunity for schools that potentially engage in 

8 fraud and abuse. And I think it makes complete sense for the 

9 Department to make sure that this provision is in there to 

10 ensure that programs are complying with state law. Thank you.

11 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Emmanual.

12 MR. GUILLORY: I wanted to share that I agree and 

13 respect the comments of my colleagues regarding strong 

14 consumer protections for students. I wanted to share kind of 

15 what we've been hearing back from our member institutions in 

16 our sector, which are who are all very, very concerned about 

17 this language because it would pretty much upend the SARA 

18 agreement that they are a part of. Reason being is the states 

19 basically, often by legislative initiative, agreed to be a 

20 part of NC-SARA and it's a, it's a choice the state makes to 

21 be a part of that the institution then because the state' a 

22 part of NC-SARA then if they want to offer this education 

23 programs in other states, then they're able to do so without 

24 having to meet 50 different state authorization requirements 

25 in order to participate. Now, there are cases where in the 

26 memo that was sent by my colleagues that it does create a two27 tiered approach where those states that are not a part of NC28 SARA, a state could have stronger consumer protections than 

29 what's actually in NC-SARA, but I think what we're also not 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 34

1 talking about is that there are other states that have weaker 

2 consumer protections that actually have to rise up to the 

3 minimum standards of consumer protection standards within NC4 SARA too, as well. And from what I'm hearing, that's around 30 

5 to 40 states or so that don't have the strongest consumer 

6 protection laws that have stronger consumer protection laws 

7 because of their participation within NC-SARA. So, I think the 

8 conversation more would be about how could increase consumer 

9 protections happen within the reciprocity agreement versus 

10 upending the reciprocity agreement due to this. We and I am 

11 articulating all of the many concerns that I'm hearing from 

12 our members about this issue and so that seems to be the 

13 biggest one. We definitely don't want to have a situation 

14 where institutions that are a part of the that are a part of 

15 NC-SARA, all of a sudden, there is no reciprocity if you 

16 didn't have to comply with many different other state rules 

17 and laws and regulations that why are you a part of the 

18 reciprocity agreement? It just doesn't even exist really 

19 anymore, so.

20 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Emmanual. Brad.

21 MR. ADAMS: I'm going to second what Emmanual just 

22 said. I mean, there's no requirement for states to participate 

23 into this reciprocity arrangement, and California is a perfect 

24 example. They didn't think that, I'm assuming it's because 

25 they didn't think the consumer protection laws were strong 

26 enough so they've dropped out and you have to get separate 

27 approval in that state. So, any of the states at this table 

28 represented at this table could do the same thing. And so, I 

29 really struggle with all the finger pointing about SARA's 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 35

1 consumer protection laws. I mean, there's no requirement for a 

2 state to participate in SARA. It's a complete choice on their 

3 behalf. And so, any state can drop out and do what California 

4 did, if that's what they choose to do. I do think if that were 

5 to happen, it'd be a problem for students. It would be less 

6 opportunity for programs to be offered in their state because 

7 of the onerous process to get approved in every single state. 

8 But again, the Department of Education and states do not have 

9 to join SARA. They can do whatever they choose to do. And SARA 

10 is a good thing for students because it provides more 

11 opportunities for programs to be offered in their states than 

12 they would have if we did not have that arrangement. Thank 

13 you. 

14 MR. ROBERTS: Carolyn.

15 MS. FAST: I just wanted to respond that I think that 

16 it's a little bit overblown to consider the language that's 

17 been proposed to cause sort of the collapse of SARA. I mean, I 

18 think that's a little bit of I don't know, not accurate 

19 characterization of what this is doing, because the language 

20 is specifically carving out those state laws that relate to 

21 obtaining authorization. So, in other words, the application, 

22 the licensing fee, those sort of state laws would be 

23 preserved. And I think it's important to keep that in mind 

24 when we're assessing whether this, you know what is the impact 

25 of this of this provision.

26 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Carolyn. Debbie.

27 MS. COCHRANE: So, I also am very strongly supportive 

28 of this provision. You know, just a minor, potentially minor, 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 36

1 clarifying point. California actually was never part of the 

2 agreement. It has declined to join. You know, it's not because 

3 there haven't been a lot of conversations about it within the 

4 state. There's been very significant conversations. Perhaps 

5 most notably, I would say there is a state regulatory agency 

6 called the California Law Revision Commission that kind of 

7 tried to take up the issue a couple of years ago to really 

8 look, it's kind of a neutral entity providing guidance to the 

9 legislature on where laws might need to change. They looked at 

10 this issue for SARA and said, you know, should we look at 

11 changing the laws in California to allow the state to join the 

12 reciprocity agreement? They ultimately set it aside. But I 

13 want to read just a very short excerpt of their paper on this, 

14 which is, SARA sets a regulatory ceiling above which member 

15 states cannot go. In other words, member states appear to cede 

16 their regulatory control to an external policymaking body. So, 

17 I think that that's kind of it just in terms of in a nutshell 

18 of why California hasn't joined the agreement, I think that 

19 that's a relevant argument to put forth. I also do think that, 

20 you know, obviously there's a lot of people with a lot of 

21 prerogatives in here. There are states who can join. I 

22 appreciated Adam's example of how there are state consumer 

23 protection laws and the legislature can leave them for certain 

24 for certain institutions within the reciprocity agreement. But 

25 similar again to the licensure point, it's also the 

26 prerogative of the Federal Government to figure out where 

27 federal taxpayer dollars should be spent and what types of 

28 consumer protections should be available in there. I don't, 

29 you know, I don't think anyone looked at the last language 

30 with respect to hours associated with various licensure 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 37

1 programs, saying, now we're going to eliminate all licensure 

2 programs. Right? We said, we looked at those and we said, I 

3 think this would force an evolution in these programs at the 

4 state level. And it's an evolution that we all understand why, 

5 what the goal is there. And it's an evolution that the 

6 Department wanted to use its position to try to try to move 

7 forward. And I see this at the same thing. I don't see this as 

8 I don't see this as undercutting a reciprocity agreement. I 

9 see it as furthering the evolution of it in a more consumer 

10 protection direction.

11 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Debbie. Adam.

12 MR. WELLE: Yes, just wanted to add to push back on 

13 you know the I do think it's hyperbole to say that this would 

14 upend NC-SARA. This would allow schools to obtain 

15 authorization licensing through their portal entity and have 

16 it recognized through a reciprocity arrangement. What we're 

17 talking about here are substantive consumer protections in the 

18 states, and that is what would apply and that is what 

19 institutions would have to do. They would have to make sure 

20 that they're complying with those substantive consumer 

21 protections in those states. I just want to add, I think at 

22 bottom, this is a problem of incentives. If only the 

23 institutions, the home states as consumer protection laws 

24 apply, which is how NC-SARA currently operates, schools will 

25 inevitably flock to the states with the lowest level of 

26 regulation and the lowest level of resources to be able to 

27 enforce those laws and have the least amount of interest in 

28 protecting consumers out of that state. If this provision is 

29 in there, it's going to change those incentives. It will 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 38

1 incentivize NC-SARA to boost potentially their consumer 

2 protections and maybe that will lead states to say, well, the 

3 consumer protections in NC-SARA, are adequate and sufficient 

4 and are protecting our consumers. So maybe we would exempt our 

5 laws, those state specific education laws in our state if we 

6 think those consumer protections are sufficient. So, I just 

7 think this is very much necessary to preserve to change those 

8 incentives and really preserve the integrity of these programs 

9 ultimately, which is what this is about. Thanks.

10 MR. ROBERTS: Thanks. Greg. I see your hand up. Did 

11 you want to weigh in?

12 MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I appreciate all the conversation 

13 on this, certainly. I think we have hit all the relevant 

14 points. And I want to say for the record, the Department's 

15 position on this, we have considered this. We did have some 

16 conversations about it last night and this morning. And what 

17 it comes down to is our position here does not in any way 

18 prejudice the merits of NC-SARA and what it's attempting to

19 do. And in looking at what is in romanette three, noting that 

20 except where the state requirements for obtaining 

21 authorization are inapplicable pursuant to state authorization 

22 reciprocity. So, we're keeping intact everything dealing with 

23 reciprocity with authorization. And we feel that that's a 

24 very, very noble, noble pursuit there. What we're talking 

25 about here mostly is the protection for students and that 

26 these institutions who are involved in SARA as any as are any 

27 institutions, any entity that provides basically a service to 

28 consumers that needs to comply with the state consumer 

29 protection laws, that's a basic protection for students who 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 39

1 participate in these programs and who benefit from Title IV 

2 and who in many cases are taking out loans, obligating 

3 themselves to repayment for these programs, that we do not see 

4 that requiring an institution to adhere to applicable state 

5 consumer laws in any way prejudices SARA or makes a judgment 

6 on that or it's quite the opposite it's simply there to 

7 protect students and I just want to reiterate that's where we 

8 stand. I think if people still have some relevant comments 

9 where we haven't gone yet, I'm fine with that. We do need to 

10 move on at a certain point because I'd like to get through the 

11 paper. Thank you, all.

12 MR. ROBERTS: Any new discussion on this that Jamie 

13 or Kelli you'd like to add?

14 MS. STUDLEY: I would, and I can be very brief. Go 

15 ahead?

16 MR. ROBERTS: Go ahead.

17 MS. STUDLEY: Okay. I've spent more time thinking 

18 about the ramifications of this particular issue than any 

19 other provision and about the theory of change. Greg kind of 

20 stole some of my points so I can collapse them. California 

21 institutions, including both publics and small nonprofits, 

22 eagerly seek the benefits of a strong reciprocity agreement. 

23 This provision could help move reciprocity in the direction of 

24 achieving its potential. And like Barmak and some others 

25 who've mentioned it, I stand ready to participate in 

26 discussions about constructive strategies that can get the 

27 boat the best of the advantages of reciprocity while 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 40

1 satisfying these consumer protection requirements. So, I, I 

2 support that position all around.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jamie. Kelli, would you like 

4 to add anything?

5 MS. PERRY: Yeah, I'll be very brief because I'm 

6 clearly not an expert in this and have learned a lot about it 

7 in the last few days and talking with everyone that we've 

8 talked to as far as our constituency. But the thing that I've 

9 kind of come to after listening to all of this and listening 

10 to what we heard was that you know there are a lot of states 

11 out there that have consumer protection laws that would 

12 benefit students tremendously. But as evidenced and I think 

13 Adam's, I think it was Adam who submitted a letter where 25 of 

14 the state AGs signed it, but there's 25 states that didn't. 

15 And my understanding is that there's, you know, 25 plus states 

16 out there whose consumer protection laws either don't exist or 

17 are much less than what SARA has in place currently. So it 

18 seems to me if we're trying to protect students, which is 

19 obviously the ultimate goal here, that, you know, maybe the 

20 course of action is to, you know, work with SARA in order to 

21 come up with consumer protection that would apply to all 

22 states so that students are being protected equally across all 

23 states, as opposed to some being protected more because their 

24 states have consumer protection laws where there's other 

25 states out there that don't have them and those students are 

26 not are not benefiting from this language.

27 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Kelli and the rest of the 

28 committee. Greg, do you want to do want to move to the next 

29 section?
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 41

1 MR. MARTIN: Yes, I think we need to move on. I thank 

2 everybody for the very robust discussion and it was very 

3 informative. We are moving on to 33. Just make sure I'm where 

4 I want to be. Yes, I am where I want to be. So, let's see. 

5 Yes, so we are in 33 and at negotiators' urging, we have added 

6 a PPA requirement here that the institutions may not withhold 

7 transcripts if those holds were caused by the institution's 

8 error in Title IV HEA calculations. Please note we've also 

9 expanded the provisional conditions in E related transcript 

10 withholding on the next page and I'll read that section. So, 

11 the new 33 would read it will not withhold transcripts or take 

12 any other negative action against the student related to a 

13 balance owed by the student that resulted from an error in the 

14 institution's administration of a Title IV HEA programs or any 

15 fraud or misconduct by the institution or its personnel, 

16 unless the error was a result of fraud on the part of the 

17 institution. And I'll also read 34 and then I'll stop there 

18 for comment. In 34, we have proposed a PPA condition that 

19 addresses the problem in which institutions sometimes act to 

20 foreclose the federal funds, aid to which students are 

21 entitled to through various inducements, incentives, or 

22 coercive tactics. We believe that it's critical that students 

23 be able to access all of the aid they need, including to 

24 ensure they're able to afford basic necessities like food and 

25 housing. This language will allow the Department to ensure it 

26 can do so. We have added an exception related to institutional 

27 scholarships that at least make up for the difference in 

28 student loans, which ensures that the college can be more 

29 affordable for those students and leave them less indebted at 

30 graduation. So I'll read 34. It will not maintain policies and 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 42

1 procedures or condition institutional aid or other student 

2 benefits in a manner that induces the student to limit the 

3 amount of Federal Student Aid, including Federal Loan funds 

4 that the student receives, except that the institution may 

5 provide a scholarship on the condition that a student forgo 

6 borrowing if the amount of the scholarship provided is equal 

7 to or greater than the amount of Federal Loan funds that the 

8 student agrees not to borrow. So, with that, I'll open it up 

9 the floor up. And what I would like to do is do it 

10 sequentially. So, let's start with all comments related to 33 

11 first, and then move on to 34.

12 MR. ROBERTS: And Johnson, I just want to note that 

13 Johnson's at the table for legal aid and I'm going to ask the 

14 committee, try to hold their speaking time to two questions 

15 for the Department or concerns that they'd like to surface. 

16 So, with that, Amanda.

17 MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Sorry. I was misunderstanding. 

18 You only want us to ask questions?

19 MR. ROBERTS: Rather than using speaking time to 

20 indicate support for the provision. If just in the interest of 

21 moving to the document, if you've got questions or concerns 

22 for the Department.

23 MS. AMANDA MARTINEZ: Okay. Sorry, I just, I thought 

24 you said only questions. Well, for 33, I would like to express 

25 my disappointment with the Department's attempt at trying to 

26 address the concerns brought by negotiators on this committee. 

27 And also, you were lucky to hear from students themselves. You 

28 know, a lot of folks on this committee like to say that we're 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 43

1 here for students. But I think the best advocates for students 

2 are when you actually hear their own words and their own 

3 stories. And we were able to hear actually we were privileged 

4 to hear students come forward in public comment very quickly 

5 to tell their story. For instance, on March 15th of this week, 

6 we heard from Kristy and she talked about how transcript 

7 withholding ultimately upended her higher education goals. 

8 She, I'll quote her and her words are better than mine. She 

9 says, "In consequence of this holding, I was unable to finish 

10 my educational journey and was set back years of progress. 

11 Transcript withholding ultimately delayed in my education, and 

12 because of this withholding, I missed out on opportunities 

13 that would have presented themselves to me if I had remained 

14 on track towards her own personal goals." So, she was 

15 derailed. She was unable, she still continues to try to 

16 achieve that feat, which is admirable for her. But would've 

17 ultimately been able to accomplish it if it wasn't for 

18 institutions and the Federal Government not being able to 

19 solve this problem for her, which they should have. 

20 Institutions should work for students, not against them. And 

21 specifically, the Federal Government should also play a part 

22 as a separate, larger institution governing other 

23 institutions. Also protect students' rights in this in this 

24 context. So, we would while this is a great attempt, this is a 

25 very specific and limiting scenario, it does not cover what 

26 you actually hear from students' stories and personal 

27 experiences with this issue. So, we recommend strongly 

28 recommend that you take up actually banning withholdings and 

29 not slowly attempt and try to make not necessarily a 

30 meaningful change here. It's a large problem. So, with large 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 44

1 problems, you have to put forward good substantive policy 

2 solutions. And this is not that.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Amanda. Johnson.

4 MR. TYLER: Yeah. You know, I'm disappointed, but I'm 

5 you know I'm not surprised, given the way the conversation is 

6 going that we haven't really got anything meaningful here. But 

7 I would say I think this is really actually counterproductive. 

8 And, you know, I've been litigating with a large institution, 

9 a public institution, over their failure to help my client get 

10 aid and now they're suing him and administrations are not 

11 likely to admit they made a mistake and then give you your 

12 transcript. I think that's a useless and, you know, 

13 farfetched, especially if, you know, you have to really know 

14 your stuff to show where someone made a mistake. And I just 

15 don't think that's going to happen. It's not realistic. I'm 

16 very concerned that this is the first regulation that would be 

17 out there where the Secretary's actually discussing about 

18 transcript withholding. And it's essentially saying that the 

19 practice you know is acceptable if it wasn't at the fault of 

20 the school or the school has that that ability to do this. I'm 

21 worried that that's going to discourage the efforts that are 

22 going on in my state and in other states to ban transcript 

23 withholding that they will somehow be perceived as preempting 

24 this field. And you know, if we can't be heard on this I 

25 would, I mean I would ask you know that there be some 

26 rulemaking on this issue and that it not be addressed in 33, 

27 that the language be scrapped. But if the Secretary is going 

28 to go forward with it, that they have to say something about 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 45

1 this not preempting a state's right to ban the practice. Thank 

2 you.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Johnson. Ernest, you are 

4 next.

5 MR. EZEUGO: Thank you. Yeah, I [inaudible] myself 

6 with Amanda's and Johnson's comments here, you know I can 

7 acknowledge that in many ways, 33 is, if anything, kind of a 

8 tacit acknowledgment that the Department realizes that this is 

9 a problem and can act on it. I have to say that the scope of 

10 issues related to transcript withholdings covered by the 

11 current language is itself de minimis. I just don't think and 

12 I would echo again Johnson's concerns about the likelihood 

13 that you know institutions kind of stumble over themselves to

14 report their own errors in this in this extent. But also, I 

15 think it is clear both from the comments, the public comments 

16 we received on this, I even have one to share from a student 

17 who reached out to me directly that was waitlisted, that this 

18 is just not, the text, what the text I think tries to address 

19 in 33 is just not where the concern of the issue is, 

20 especially related to students from low income backgrounds. 

21 You know, Amanda is right that this is this is a policy 

22 practice that has had disparate impact on [inaudible] low23 income backgrounds, on black and Latino students. And it 

24 requires fixes that go far beyond the scope of what we're 

25 seeing here. I don't even think if in just in full disclosure 

26 and respect that what we see in 33 here necessarily even

27 covers comments that the Secretary and the CFPB have made on 

28 their concern about this issue. I would really, really, really 

29 like to see the Department go a little bit harder, to be 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 46

1 honest on this and the [inaudible] and I will I'll get back in 

2 line. And I'm sure other folks have things to say about this, 

3 but I just wanted to add to the course there as a student.

4 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ernest. Adam.

5 MR. WELLE: Thanks. I won't repeat our position on 

6 the transcript withholding issue that's been discussed in 

7 previous sessions. I think, you know we think it's an 

8 important consumer protection that should be in place. Just to 

9 add to Johnson's comment, you know, as state AGs, we often 

10 face arguments, you know often frivolous and incorrect 

11 arguments that state laws are preempted. You know, I've faced 

12 arguments that the Higher Education Act preempts certain state 

13 consumer protections. I wouldn't want any institution to try 

14 to claim that here as a way to you know avoid compliance with 

15 a state requirement on a transcript withholding. So, you know 

16 it might be helpful, just perhaps some sort of clarifying 

17 language in the regulation and the preamble wherever, just 

18 making it abundantly clear if it wasn't already that the 

19 provision doesn't do anything to disrupt a state's efforts to 

20 protect consumers and debt collection around transcript 

21 withholding.

22 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Adam. Greg, would the 

23 Department care to move to the next section?

24 MR. MARTIN: Yes, remember I did ask for a discussion 

25 on 34 if there is one. If not, we'll move on, but I want to26 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I would like to address something 

27 on 33, Greg, before we move on, if there are no other comments 

28 on it.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 47

1 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Steve.

2 MR. FINLEY: So, there's a couple of issues here. I 

3 mean, basically, the Department oversees the administration of 

4 the Federal Student Aid programs, making sure that the 

5 institution is meeting its obligations to determine, 

6 administer, and properly return unearned Title IV funds on 

7 behalf of the student. Separate from that is the student's 

8 agreement with the institutions. And that agreement in many in 

9 most cases determines the amount of funds the institution is 

10 able to charge the students. And that's separate from the 

11 Title IV requirements. What we're proposing here are actually 

12 touching the areas where we think there is some connection 

13 enough connection with the Title IV programs to change that 

14 relationship in the contract with between the student and the 

15 institutions. Specifically, you might not realize it, but in 

16 33, the Department has seen a number of instances where 

17 schools awarded too much aid to students through their own 

18 improper calculations and determinations of aid and then when 

19 they corrected that procedure later in return, the Federal 

20 Student Aid funds back to the Department, they billed the 

21 student for those amounts. And what we're doing here is to say 

22 they can't at least take other actions against the student to 

23 withhold a transcript or other negative actions when it's the 

24 institution that's made those errors. And those are the cases 

25 where the Department hears about this, right? This is brought 

26 to Department staff attention sometimes by the students. And 

27 in the past, we've had to say you know we don't regulate the 

28 charges the institution is able to assess you when they've had 

29 to return Federal Student Aid funds, even if they were the 

30 ones that improperly overestimated the amount you were 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 48

1 entitled to receive. So, this is an area where we're trying to 

2 put a little more balance back in favor of the students 

3 because there is a Title IV connection. And I would say the 

4 same goes for where the Department is determining there's some 

5 risk of closure by the institution. Right? There's and so 

6 that's why you see what you see here. And I understand and we 

7 understand it doesn't go as far as you want it to, but we are 

8 concerned that we need a Title IV connection to try to 

9 regulate in this area and the proposals in front of you try to 

10 strike that balance.

11 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Steve. Johnson.

12 MR. TYLER: No, I appreciate that. I see there's a

13 disconnect between the reality of the students and the 

14 obligation of the Department of Education to protect 

15 taxpayers. I completely get that. But I think it's all the 

16 more reason we actually need a meaningful negotiated 

17 rulemaking on this issue. Six million people, some studies 

18 say, are affected by this. And, you know, my experience in the 

19 statistics are that there are low income people, and many of 

20 them involve Pell recipients who no fault of their own, they 

21 cannot continue, they drop out at the wrong time. If they 

22 dropped out 60 days into the semester, they wouldn't have this 

23 problem. I think that's the number. But they drop out three 

24 weeks in and then they're on the hook for lots of money. I 

25 just think this is not what this is not what the Pell Grant 

26 was designed to do. It was supposed to open doors, not close 

27 doors, and it's having that effect. So, I really, you know I 

28 hear what you're saying, Steve, but I think it's all the more 

29 reason we have to have some discussion to figure this out. And 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 49

1 you know I understand that it wasn't on the agenda and you're 

2 only hearing the harm it's causing and the racial impact that 

3 it's having. But I think you know there's some way we've got 

4 to get together on this. So, thank you.

5 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, Adam.

6 MR. WELLE: Thanks. Just quickly to, just to respond 

7 to Steve. I guess, you know, Counsel, I think I just disagree 

8 on the on the basis for saying that there's no authority to 

9 make this kind of regulation. It seems that the Department has 

10 a direct interest in making sure that when it is distributing 

11 financial aid and it invests in a student, it should be able 

12 to tell the institution that receives that aid that it has to 

13 provide proof of that you know that education that was 

14 invested in to employers, other schools, etc. If the student 

15 can't obtain the transcript, the investment that the 

16 Department has made in the student for that past financial aid 

17 is lost. It's meaningless. So, I feel there is a direct 

18 connection and I think there’s, so I think there's plenty of 

19 basis for the Department to act here. But I respect that 

20 that's the Department's position right now.

21 MR. ROBERTS: Barmak.

22 MR. NASSIRIAN: I want to emphasize that I appreciate 

23 the technical nexus that the Department is seeking to apply 

24 whatever protections it offers. But I have to tell you, to the 

25 extent that the vast majority of unpaid receivables are from 

26 low-income people who, as Johnson pointed out, could never 

27 have afforded to pay a dime on the front end, were fully 

28 packaged because they're so poor that they would not have an 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 50

1 expected family contribution. We expose those people to the 

2 risk to risks, which, by the way, they're much, much at much 

3 greater exposure to. Because when you're poor, there are many 

4 different ways in which your education could get disrupted. 

5 Right? You could get sick, your mom could get sick, your car 

6 breaks down, etc., etc. So, so we're exposing those, we're 

7 essentially checkmating those aid recipients who because they 

8 were so poor that there were zero [inaudible] fully packaged, 

9 who then drop out for various reasons to essentially a 

10 complete cessation of any opportunity until they can offer 

11 blood from a turnip. I think there is a Federal interest here 

12 to the extent that the purpose of these programs is to elevate 

13 folks to enable economic mobility. At the very least, even if 

14 you don't want to ban transcript withholding across the board 

15 it ought to be prohibited for Pell recipients who for whom the 

16 balance is a function of having dropped out. Because, 

17 remember, some of us are old enough to remember the refund 

18 rule in HEA, which was then replaced with Return of Title IV 

19 Fund. That bifurcation, when the Federal Government decided it 

20 was only going to manage its own refunds and not worry about 

21 students, that's at the root of this problem. And I think that 

22 the Department of Education has every legal right to assert 

23 some jurisdiction with regard to at least that population. 

24 Because talk about disparate impact, talk about racial justice 

25 and really unequal application of risk. That is the population

26 these programs were designed to help and that is the 

27 population that is getting very disproportionately hurt by 

28 transcript withholding. We do not want to mitigate the right 

29 of institutions to collect. The Department is saying don't 

30 collect any debt, don't use the easy way out and hold 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 51

1 somebody's education hostage in perpetuity until they can 

2 cough up money they simply don't have. If their aid 

3 recipients, the Department has jurisdiction.

4 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Barmak. I see Ernest and 

5 Debbie's hand, hands. And I think we'll take those two 

6 comments and then Greg, does Department need a short break?

7 MR. MARTIN: Yes, after that I would, I do want to, 

8 but let's take the two comments we have in the in the queue 

9 and then I want to, and any that pertain to 34.

10 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Okay. So, Ernest and Debbie, 

11 please.

12 MR. EZEUGO: I can't emphasize or appreciate Adam's 

13 or Barmak's comments enough here on this [inaudible] and I 

14 want to touch in particular about something that Adam was 

15 alluding to here about kind of the Department's consideration 

16 of past investments nullified and these agreements, right? And 

17 I want to preface by saying, you know, maybe I shouldn't have 

18 used de minimis. I can own that. I appreciate and respect, and 

19 Steve, I appreciate your kind of clarification on where the 

20 Department's thoughts on this are. I appreciate that there's 

21 thought in this and again, that kind of tacit acknowledgment. 

22 But I do wonder if the Department doesn't have the authority 

23 to think about, consider in this process and in this paper in 

24 particular, what happens to their investment in students 

25 because, I mean, you know, say what facts are about 

26 transcripts. Most students who have issues with transcripts 

27 withholding, their balances are held usually on account of a 

28 semester's work [ph], occurrence or class [ph] who knows what 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 52

1 kind of recent charges and their entire transcripts are 100 

2 percent of their transcripts are held as a result of that. So 

3 I would then wonder, you know, in combination with the 

4 comments that Barmak made just about the Department's broad 

5 authority and quite frankly, historical you know perspective 

6 on standing up for students, particularly from for these 

7 subgroups, I would wonder then if that doesn't also come into 

8 play, this idea that, you know, it would be one thing entirely 

9 if we were talking about partial you know locking, you know 

10 locking behind transcripts or partial you know parts of the 

11 transcripts under debts owed. But it's I don't know; I'm 

12 struck by that. And I really I have a hard time accepting that 

13 you know under these circumstances you know where students you 

14 know can't get these transcripts or, in the worst case, the 

15 worst instances, you know their entire degrees and proof that 

16 they completed college because of balances held and can't use 

17 those transcripts to go and transfer out to other institutions 

18 to continue their education or apply for jobs in many cases. I 

19 just kind of wondered then if there's not additional steps the 

20 Department can take on this. And in this part, in this section 

21 subsection, I'm sorry, in particular.

22 MR. ROBERTS: Debbie, and then we'll move on to 

23 section 34.

24 MS. COCHRANE: Thank you. I will be very brief. I 

25 think if I am understanding the Department's comments related 

26 to authority, it would seem to me like another way of 

27 approaching the issue would be to prohibit the withholding of 

28 transcripts for any student who had previously received Title 

29 IV regardless of what the debt was attributable to. Those seem 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 53

1 like those are the students that the Department has invested 

2 in and where the Department should be most concerned about 

3 that investment paying off.

4 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

5 MR. ROBERTS: Anything new for the Department's 

6 consideration on section 34? I know we had, yeah, Will, 

7 please.

8 MR. DURDEN: I want to just clarify in reading in 

9 this section that it's not the Department's intent to suggest 

10 that if an institution isn't participating in the loan 

11 program, that that itself constitutes a policy that induces 

12 the student to limit the amount of student aid that they 

13 receive. It doesn't seem like that would be the intent, but 

14 you could read that in that language.

15 MR. MARTIN: No, that's not the intent. As I say, we 

16 just want to be certain that there is the student that the 

17 institution not doing anything that will has any policies to 

18 limit the amount of Federal Student Aid, including Federal 

19 Loan Funds the student receives. And that includes practices 

20 such as limiting the amount of student can borrow, even if the 

21 reasons for that are in the view of the institution 

22 altruistic, such as controlling the amount of debt students 

23 receive, trying to have some type of a default management 

24 plan. Loan amounts under a Direct Loan program or statutory 

25 entitlement. So, any of those things where we've seen 

26 instances where institutions will make students fill out forms 

27 as to why they need that money, the only reason why they need 

28 it is cost of attendance, minus EFC, minus EFA provides a 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 54

1 number, and that is where you figure out where students are 

2 eligible for. So, we are just want to preclude all those all 

3 those types of all those types of practice and any anything 

4 else that would any other way a school might be inducing a 

5 student or coercing or any way not to take aid. Now, there's 

6 nothing wrong with an institution counseling a student saying, 

7 you know, you don't you don't have to borrow the full amount 

8 that you're eligible for. It may be wise or judicious to 

9 borrow less if you don't need to borrow more. We have no 

10 problem with that. But these are policies or other types of 

11 conditions on a student receiving aid that he or she is 

12 eligible for.

13 MR. DURDEN: Great. And that makes sense. And we 

14 assume that that's the intent. But just wouldn't want any 

15 suggestion that an institution somehow must participate in the 

16 Federal Student Loan Program.

17 MR. MARTIN: No. No, we don't require participation 

18 in the student loan program, no.

19 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Brad.

20 MR. ADAMS: Yeah, Greg, I think that mostly answered 

21 my question. I was more confused. I thought this was already a 

22 rule. So help me, is this just codifying something that 

23 already exists? I've always known that you can't limit a 

24 student's ability to take the Federal Aid that they're 

25 eligible for. And if you have your own loan program that may 

26 have a lower interest rate than the Feds, that's okay to 

27 present to the student as well. Like get a 0 percent loan, 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 55

1 maybe help me understand why we need 34 as a rule is if that's 

2 already in place somewhere else.

3 MR. MARTIN: Well, it's I you're absolutely right, 

4 Brad. It is in place in various other measures. And certainly 

5 it's implicit in the law itself. We just felt the need to make 

6 it clear here that, you know actually put it in a regulation 

7 so that we can cite to it. In my mindit's always gone without 

8 saying that you cannot limit the amount of loans a student 

9 might receive in an arbitrary way. But there are schools that 

10 do it, and I think a lot of them do it for purposes which they 

11 believe to be quite noble. I don't in a lot of cases it isn't 

12 done with any type of malice or anything like that. But it's 

13 not an acceptable practice. I'm not aware, it's pretty, as far 

14 as grants go, it's awfully hard to limit. I mean, the Pell 

15 Grant is what the Pell Grant is. We do allow students to turn 

16 down his or her Pell Grant due to lifetime eligibility limits 

17 if they want to. But I don't think that's so much of an issue. 

18 It mostly comes into play, I think with loans. But I don't 

19 disagree with you, Brad. I just think that it was necessary 

20 here to state this in an actual in an actual regulation.

21 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. I was unaware that 

22 that was even an issue. So, I guess if you need to state it, 

23 you can. I was just making sure there wasn't anything else I'm 

24 missing around- [interposing]

25 MR. MARTIN: No, I don't think it's26 MR. ADAMS: -anything like that.

27 MR. MARTIN: I would say this if institutions are 

28 packaging, if institutions are awarding aid in accordance with 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 56

1 existing rules and this shouldn't cause any change in what 

2 institutions are doing currently.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, Marvin. I just want to note that 

4 Jessica is back in for legal aid. But Marvin, take it away.

5 MR. SMITH: Greg, just an observation that, you know, 

6 in the GE session we were talking about Parent Loan debt and 

7 maybe some bad actors encouraging Parent Loans. And I just 

8 didn't know if you wanted to be even more specific on this 

9 with parent borrowing. I actually, yeah, so just a question or 

10 suggestion.

11 MR. MARTIN: Yeah. You know, that's a good question. 

12 And I think when it comes to Parent Loans, it's kind of a 

13 great thing because everybody knows that there are plenty of 

14 situations where a student would be eligible for, loans, but 

15 the parent steps in and says, you know, I want to I want to 

16 borrow I'll borrow that amount of money. That's perfectly 

17 acceptable. Where the boundary is between that and a school, I 

18 think coercion is the strong word. But inducing in some way or 

19 heavily suggesting that the burden be leveled on the parents 

20 as opposed to the student loan. That is potentially a problem. 

21 But I think it's difficult to determine where that occurs. I 

22 know that you know in my own situation, you know my own 

23 daughter was packaged for unsubsidized loans, which we chose 

24 not to borrow because I rightly or wrongly am paying for it. 

25 But I think a lot of us are probably in that situation. But 

26 I've just decided that I didn't want her to have any debt for 

27 undergraduate loans, but undergraduate education. But yeah, I 

28 take your point, Marvin. I think it's an interesting one, but 

29 I don't I'm not sure it can be addressed in the context of 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 57

1 this. This is more like there is that issue of shifting 

2 responsibility. But here I think we're dealing with cutting 

3 off or in a way precluding a student from borrowing. And that 

4 would be, if a school said the student shouldn't borrow this, 

5 a parent must borrow it because, you know, we're worried about 

6 our default rates that would be covered by this because the 

7 student the school would be in some way coercing or inducing a 

8 student not to borrow his or her full eligibility.

9 MR. ROBERTS: Greg, would you like to take us to the 

10 next section?

11 MR. MARTIN: Can I request a break, please?

12 MR. ROBERTS: Sure. What are you thinking?

13 MR. MARTIN: 15 minutes.

14 MR. ROBERTS: 15?

15 MR. MARTIN: Yes, 15 minutes.

16 MR. ROBERTS: It is 2:40. I'll ask folks to be back 

17 on at 2:55.

18 MR. MARTIN: Thank you, everyone.

19 MR. ROBERTS: Welcome back, everyone. We are about 35 

20 minutes away from public comments day and indeed our last 

21 public comment of this negotiated rulemaking as we will not be 

22 having it tomorrow. So, we do urge folks who do have an 

23 assigned speaking time to please log on a little bit early 

24 just so we can get you all set up and make sure we can 

25 transition to that period smoothly. But with that, Greg, I'll 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 58

1 turn it back over to you. Do you want to walk us through the 

2 next section?

3 MR. MARTIN: I'm going to do that. Before we start 

4 with that, though, I'm going to have Vanessa bring up 32 back 

5 onto the screen for a brief moment here. And here we have some 

6 changes we made. We did, I did take back all of the suggested 

7 changes for 32. What you see in front of you here is the only 

8 change that is the change that we were able to get approval to 

9 put in. We, regarding the suggested changes to romanettes one, 

10 two and three that were not associated with programmatic 

11 accreditation, the Department has some concerns about the 

12 potential for abuse given the case-by-case exception, so we 

13 were unable to move there. I will discuss what we did here in 

14 32, and you can see that we have made some change to the text 

15 in consideration of the discussion we had about programmatic 

16 accreditation. So just going back and reviewing each state 

17 where the institution is located in which students enrolled by 

18 the institution are located, the institution must ensure each 

19 program is eligible for Title IV HEA program funds, is 

20 programmatically accredited if such accreditation is required 

21 by the state or a federal agency, except that programmatic 

22 pre-accreditation is sufficient if acceptable according to the 

23 state or federal agency. So that was the change that we were 

24 able to make in in 32. Vanessa, would you bring up E, please? 

25 So, we're going back to 14E. We are on page eight at the very 

26 top. The original document. Here we go. Thank you very much. 

27 So, in E we're just starting from the stem [ph] there. If an 

28 institution is provisionally certified and if an institution 

29 is provisionally certified, the Secretary may apply such 

30 conditions as are determined to be appropriate to the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 59

1 institution including. And if we move down to two, at the 

2 negotiators' urging we have added an additional cases in which 

3 transcript withholding may be prohibited. So, we are just 

4 incorporating that language and that's if the institution is 

5 at risk of closure, if the institution is teaching out its 

6 students, whether itself or through a teach out or transfer 

7 agreement with another institution, if the institution is not 

8 financially responsible or if the institution is not 

9 administratively capable. We believe that this will have a 

10 real, meaningful impact on students' access to their 

11 educational records and cover a wider swath. Again, I don't 

12 want to reopen debate. I think we've already explored all of 

13 the of the relevant opinion on that topic of transcripts. So, 

14 I don't want to open that up. And then I'll move on to, I want 

15 to make sure I get this right here. So, we are in E. I'm 

16 sorry, we're moving to F. And just to read the stem there for 

17 proprietary institution. If a proprietary institution seeks to 

18 convert to nonprofit status following a change in ownership, 

19 the following conditions will apply to the institution 

20 following the change in ownership in addition to any other 

21 conditions that the Secretary may deem appropriate. And we 

22 have, no, I thought there was a change there, but there is 

23 not. I'm sorry. I was wrong. We have there's no change there. 

24 The next change I see is to G. So, let's roll down to G, 

25 Vanessa. My apologies for squandering your time there. There 

26 were no changes. I thought there were, but there are none. So, 

27 G, we do have a change. This is if an institution that's 

28 initially certified as a nonprofit institution or has 

29 undergone a change of ownership and seeks to convert to 

30 nonprofit status, the following conditions will apply to the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 60

1 institution upon certification or following the change of 

2 ownership in addition to any other conditions that the 

3 Secretary may deem appropriate. And we've added some 

4 clarifying edits here to this language, including that 

5 institutions must submit reports on state accreditor actions 

6 and new servicing agreements, both within ten days of 

7 receiving the notice of an action or of entering into entering 

8 into an agreement. And that is reflected there in G1. The 

9 institution that the institution must submit reports to an 

10 accreditor and state authorization agency, must submit 

11 reports, rather, on accreditor and state authorization agency 

12 actions and any new servicing agreements within ten business 

13 days of receipt of the notice of an action or of entering into 

14 the agreement as applicable until the Department has accepted, 

15 reviewed, and approved the institution's financial statements 

16 and compliance audits that cover two consecutive fiscal years 

17 following the initial certification, or two complete fiscal 

18 years after a change of ownership, or until the Department 

19 approves the institution's request to convert to nonprofit 

20 status, whichever is later. And let's makes certain that, and 

21 then we have a change in, nope that is everything that we have 

22 for E. So, sorry, everything we have for F. So, I'll open the 

23 floor to any comments on what is in what is in F.

24 MR. ROBERTS: New comments and suggestions for the 

25 Department on what was just outlined. Yael, who I will note 

26 who is sitting in on behalf of state attorneys general, 

27 please.

28 MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry. I meant E and F, I'm going to 

29 correct myself.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 61

1 MR. ROBERTS: Right, right. E, section E beginning 

2 subsection two and below, inclusive of that.

3 MS. SHAVIT: Thanks. And Greg, I took your comment 

4 about wanting to move on from transcripts. I do have one 

5 comment that I think isn't wasn't covered before and I don't 

6 think will invite responses but I wanted to just put it on the 

7 record, if that's okay with you, and that I hope would be 

8 helpful.

9 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead.

10 MS. SHAVIT: You noted, or Steve noted, the view that 

11 the Department may lack the authority to place conditions on 

12 the debt collection methods of institutions. And I want to 

13 note, you know I think this may be inconsistent with positions 

14 the Department has taken in the past. And just as support for 

15 the notion that the Department does have this type of 

16 authority, I wanted to you know point in the direction of the 

17 Department's arguments in its summary judgment briefing and 

18 the CAPS [ph] litigation that were that prevailed, but I think 

19 are relevant. There, the Department argued, you know, and I'm 

20 quoting here, but I'll do this very briefly, you know, the 

21 Department stated, "Congress has granted the Department 

22 authority to include in its PPAs with institutions such 

23 provisions as the Secretary determines are necessary to 

24 protect the interest of the United States and to promote the 

25 purposes of the Direct Loan program." And in that context, 

26 I've made a point of noting that you know Congress can 

27 delegate to the executive branch agencies the authority to 

28 attach conditions on funding. And while there's a nexus that 

29 needs to be met with respect to those conditions in the Title 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 62

1 IV program, the relatedness showing that's relevant there is 

2 not only this is the Department's language, it's not a 

3 difficult hurdle. And in fact, it requires only some 

4 relationship between spending conditions and the purpose of 

5 the Federal spending. You know, Debbie made the comment here 

6 that the Department could put conditions on transcript 

7 withholding specifically as to those students who did take out 

8 any Federal funds. I think that would more than satisfy the 

9 nexus requirement, as the Department has itself previously 

10 stated it, and I think you know would certainly go a long way 

11 and as the Department noted, protecting the interests of the 

12 United States and promoting the purposes of the Direct Loan 

13 program. I think in fact it would promote the interest of 

14 taxpayers and students. So, I appreciate that you're being 

15 thoughtful about this. And I just want to point you in the 

16 direction of those previous comments.

17 MR. MARTIN: Thank you. 

18 MR. ROBERTS: Kelli.

19 MS. PERRY: I just have a clarifying question about 

20 the, and I apologize, it's the one with the transcript 

21 question, but it says that an institution not financially 

22 responsible. I just want to make sure that, so if an 

23 institution falls into a situation where they fail a composite 

24 score, but they do post the 50 percent letter of credit which 

25 deems them financially responsible, that they wouldn't be 

26 subject to this. I think that's the case. But I just wanted to 

27 confirm.

28 MR. MARTIN: Steve, do you want to address that?
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 63

1 MR. FINLEY: I would agree with that, Kelli.

2 MR. MARTIN: I would as well.

3 MS. PERRY: Thanks.

4 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Brad, I see your hand.

5 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I also had a question on E2 on 

6 the risk of closure. And I wanted to find out if this is 

7 referencing the six-digit CIP or would this also include any 

8 branch campus that was being taught out at the eight-digit 

9 OPEID? I think I said CIP, but I meant OPEID if I did. I just, 

10 curious, is this at an institutional level, is this also 

11 include any teaching out at a branch location, Greg?

12 MR. MARTIN: We've not, I would interpret, I'll ask 

13 Steve to step in here if, I would look at this as being any 

14 entity that would be subject that would be at risk of closure, 

15 whether it's the main institution itself or any additional 

16 location. Because the key the key here would be if the student 

17 is attending an additional location of an institution that's 

18 at risk of closure for any reason that that it that it gives 

19 those transcripts to the students there.

20 MR. ADAMS: I'm more referencing- [interposing]

21 MR. MARTIN: Irrespective if the main is, I'm saying 

22 if the main would remain open but that additional location 

23 would be closing that it would be applicable to that location.

24 MR. ADAMS: So, you believe if you're teaching out at 

25 a branch location that you would do you would release all 

26 student holds. And this is clarifying for me, I'm, you know, 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 64

1 not that I'm saying I agree or disagree on the approach. I 

2 read it at the institutional level, is why I'm asking.

3 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Steve.

4 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, Brad. Now, I think we would look 

5 at that on a location-by-location basis. Would that be your 

6 suggestion?

7 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. Well, my question is, is truly 

8 like, I read this, this is an institutional rule. But if 

9 you're teaching out a location for good reason, do you have to 

10 then release all transcript holds from that teach out even if 

11 the school itself is financially capable and administratively 

12 capable and all the other things associated with what we've 

13 been discussing over the past week?

14 MR. MARTIN: If that location is at risk of closing, 

15 I think what this is about getting the transcripts to students 

16 wherever they are. So, if the question is being phrased, I 

17 hope I get it right. We've determined the additional locations 

18 at risk of closure for any reason then we would expect the 

19 transcripts to be released at that level, even if the main 

20 institution was not in danger of closing.

21 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, let me just ask another question. 

22 I certainly think it would facially apply if there's a 

23 precipitous closure. Right? Even with a teach out, because 

24 there's certainly an opportunity for students to apply for 

25 closed school loan discharges. Are you trying to describe 

26 situations where there's just a planned closure that's 

27 provided for you know well in advance and it's an orderly 

28 closure? We'd have to look at that. But- 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 65

1 MR. ADAMS: That's my question.

2 MR. FINLEY: -that seems different from what we're 

3 trying to reach here.

4 MR. ADAMS: Right, and that's my question. And it's 

5 not, I mean, the transcripts would be available to those 

6 students if needed, you know, so, at the main campus. So yeah, 

7 that was my question, Steve. Good orderly closure, is that 

8 implicated here on the release of student transcripts?

9 MR. FINLEY: And if you've got students doing a teach 

10 out and transferring, it seems like you would, there would 

11 have, you would have to be providing the transcripts for those 

12 students, right, without limitation? 

13 MR. ADAMS: Yeah. So, I'm just really asking is do 

14 you have to release the holds on the student transcripts if 

15 you go through an orderly teach out and the main is still in 

16 operation and good financial condition and everything else.

17 MR. FINLEY: Well, we'll take that back and clarify 

18 it for you.

19 MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

20 MR. FINLEY: And for ourselves.

21 MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

22 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Jessica, I see your hand.

23 MS. RANUCCI: Brad, my read on this is that it's just 

24 preserved as discretion for provisionally certified 

25 institutions to imply that condition, which I think is 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 66

1 appropriate, because I think it really would depend on the 

2 circumstances of the programmatic teach out. And so, to me 

3 that makes sense. Maybe I'm misreading it.

4 MR. ADAMS: That's helpful. I actually missed that 

5 this is only for provisionally certified institutions. I did 

6 miss that. Thank you, Jessica.

7 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. Greg, I think I'm not 

8 seeing any other hands. Do you want to walk us through the 

9 last section, which I believe is 668.43?

10 MR. MARTIN: Yes. We're going to move on to 43. And 

11 this is institutional and programmatic information. And if I 

12 can just make certain here. Wehave a change here in A5, 

13 romanette five. It's the only one we have. We've just revised 

14 the language here to hopefully clarify the intent of the 

15 disclosure required here under 668.43. So, in 5, if an 

16 educational program is designed to meet educational 

17 requirements for a specific professional license or 

18 certification that is required for employment in an occupation 

19 or is advertised as meeting such requirements, a list of all 

20 states where the institution offers the program and where the 

21 program does and does not meet such requirements. That is the 

22 only, that is the only change that we have in 668.43, so.

23 MR. ROBERTS: Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind bringing 

24 down the document. Thank you, Jamie, I see your hand first.

25 MS. STUDLEY: Is the institution able to have 

26 essentially a third category, that it has made no 

27 determination or it makes no claim that it does need, but it 

28 hasn't checked. Is that an option for-? [interposing]
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 67

1 MR. MARTIN: Not in this rule. The school, the 

2 institution, would have to make a determination in all states 

3 where the institution offers the program.

4 MS. STUDLEY: So, it's limited to states where they 

5 offer the program6 MR. MARTIN: Right.

7 MS. STUDLEY: -and then they have to make one or the 

8 other of those determinations?

9 MR. MARTIN: Correct.

10 MS. STUDLEY: If there's a state where they say this, 

11 this is not being offered in X and we don't know whether it 

12 would meet those.

13 MR. MARTIN: Right if it's not being, if it's not 

14 being offered in that state, then it would not be required.

15 MS. STUDLEY: Okay.

16 MR. ROBERTS: Greg, I'm not seeing any hands up for 

17 this. Oh, Will, sorry, I spoke too soon.

18 MR. DURDEN: Sorry. I just want to clarify, make 

19 sure, it seems like this romanette five at the end here, if 

20 32, if paragraph 32 romanette two goes through, isn't this 

21 superfluous? Or am I missing something in that?

22 MR. MARTIN: You know, it's funny you should ask 

23 that. That was going through my head, sort of. I was thinking 

24 about whether that does make this superfluous, if the 

25 institution is required to meet the licensure requirements in 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 68

1 the state in which they're offering the program, would this be 

2 would this be superfluous or redundant? I think it's an 

3 excellent question. I can take, Steve, do you have any 

4 thoughts on that?

5 MR. FINLEY: Not off the top of my head, sorry.

6 MR. MARTIN: I don't really either, so I think I 

7 think that's an excellent point. I don't think it8 MS. FAST: Would it be okay for me to respond?

9 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead. Sure.

10 MS. FAST: I was thinking that the reason that that 

11 was left in was to address the issue that sometimes students 

12 are living somewhere but plan to move somewhere else and we 

13 don't need to, this wouldn't create an additional burden on a 

14 school because the school would already have to have done the 

15 work to figure out whether they meet requirements each state. 

16 But this would just make sure that students could find out if 

17 they were planning to move where whether they could, you know 

18 whether this, you know, I'm in Connecticut, I'm planning to 

19 move to New York, whether the program would meet the 

20 requirements.

21 MR. MARTIN: You know what? Thank you, Carolyn. 

22 That's an excellent point, because I think if you're looking 

23 at it from a, I think we have to look at it from not a program 

24 eligibility standpoint, but from a strictly consumer 

25 information standpoint because this is in 43. So, it's 

26 [inaudible] programmatic information just announcing to, you 

27 know, or disclosing which states it meets the requirements and 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 69

1 which states that does not. Of course, it wouldn't be able to 

2 offer the program where it does not. But since it would be 

3 known already, it would not list additional burden. So, that's 

4 an excellent point. So, I think that does address it. Thank 

5 you very much.

6 MR. ROBERTS: I do see Dave, our esteemed advisor, do 

7 you want to add anything?

8 MR. MARTIN: Go ahead, Dave.

9 MR. MCCLINTOCK: I just have a question; I don't know 

10 if I'm being dense. I feel like when I read this wording, it's 

11 different than the response that Jamie got to her question. It 

12 says, if you offer any program designed to meet educational 

13 requirements. So I'm a school in central PA offering programs 

14 to a geographic area and I'm representing that you are meeting 

15 licensing that I am meeting number one, then I have to provide 

16 a list of all states where the institution offers the program, 

17 it seems like it needs to designate that you're providing the 

18 program in those other states because that school would have a 

19 difficult time knowing what the requirements are in all 50 

20 states. They're not operating in that capacity.

21 MR. MARTIN: You're referencing 43 again, Dave?

22 MR. MCCLINTOCK: Yeah.

23 MR. MARTIN: So, yeah. So if an educational program 

24 is designed to meet the educational requirements for a 

25 specific professional license or certification that is 

26 required for employment in an occupation or is advertised as 

27 meeting such requirements, a list of all states where the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 70

1 institution offers so it's only the list of states clarifies 

2 that there where the institution offers the program and where 

3 the program does and does not meet such requirements. So, it's 

4 only of those states where it offers a program. But again, it 

5 seems that if the school is offering the program in those 

6 states7 MR. MCCLINTOCK: Maybe adding the wording8 MR. MARTIN: -it would have to meet the requirement. 

9 But10 MR. MCCLINTOCK: If you add wording about in those 

11 states or something at the end, as far as what needs to be 

12 listed, I think that would clarify some of that.

13 MR. MARTIN: Right. I think that's maybe the language 

14 there could use a little bit of, I mean, the intention 

15 obviously is as a disclosure to it, to disclose all these you 

16 know all these areas. But I do think that if you're listing 

17 the states where the, so the school offers the program, it 

18 cannot offer the program to students, Title IV for those 

19 programs unless it meets those requirements in the state. So, 

20 it's only where they offer the programs. And it would then 

21 necessarily, I'm not sure that they would be, where it does 

22 not meet the requirements, it seems to me it wouldn't be 

23 offering the program, but that's24 MR. MCCLINTOCK: What you're describing is intended. 

25 I understand that. I think it makes sense. I just have trouble 

26 connecting the wording as it is to what you are- 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 71

1 MR. MARTIN: Yeah, I agree. It is a little awkward, 

2 but that certainly is the intent.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Steve, did you want to, did you want to 

4 add to this?

5 MR. FINLEY: I just wanted to ask if people thought 

6 it would be clearer to put back in the language at the end of 

7 that sentence that was struck.

8 MR. MARTIN: That might be clearer because it just 

9 says a list of all states where it does not meet such 

10 requirements. But again, they wouldn't be offering the program 

11 there and in those states. So, if it's, I think this. I mean, 

12 I absolutely can convey the intent here, which is as a 

13 disclosure because what we're trying to because this is 

14 different from the [inaudible] this is actually where the 

15 institution's required to disclose this information. So, if 

16 they're disclosing where they offer the program, then, they 

17 are in, the program is required to meet, must meet those 

18 licensure requirements in the state then they wouldn't be 

19 offering any states where they don't meet the requirements. 

20 And I see the language might be a little awkward as stated.

21 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, Barmak.

22 MR. NASSIRIAN: In a world where the way section 32 

23 would read after the changes that the Department has made, I'm 

24 not sure the example that Emmanual gave of a program in 

25 Louisiana that can only be opposed post facto on the basis of 

26 a transcript review, I'm not sure what the what the 

27 institution would do. Would, the institution could certainly 

28 not claim that it meets the requirements because those 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 72

1 requirements can only be established by the state after the 

2 fact on a case-by-case basis. And it would be prohibited from 

3 offering it otherwise, it seems to me, because the language is 

4 so strict. But leaving that aside, it seems to me that Greg's 

5 comment is correct. If you keep that language the way it is so 

6 tightly mandatory, then I think what 43 should say is just a 

7 list of where the program is offered, because by definition, 

8 the program could only be offered where it meets those 

9 requirements.

10 MR. MARTIN: I agree with you, Barmak. I think that's 

11 just one of those things where it wasn't precisely aligned. 

12 SoI would be willing to go ahead and make that, I'm just going 

13 to ask my, my colleagues to make any comment to me regarding 

14 that. But I think I'm I think I'm correct on that.

15 MR. ROBERTS: Kelli, go ahead.

16 MS. PERRY: To me, I agree with Steve's comment or 

17 what was struck should in essence be put back in. Because to 

18 me, in listening to this, if schools are required to obtain 

19 state licensure in the states that they're offering the 

20 program, based on what's in 32, then what you would want to be 

21 disclosing to students is where the state doesn't meet those 

22 requirements. Right? So, if the student were to, say the 

23 student were to get their degree or whatever and they were 

24 going to move and they were moving to a state that they 

25 weren't going to have licensure in and the school doesn't 

26 offer that licensure program in, that's what I think that they 

27 would want to know.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 73

1 MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I would think it would be easy 

2 enough for the school to list. I mean if they don't, it would 

3 seem to me to be somewhat redundant to have to list something 

4 about a state. If you give a list, if you provide a list of 

5 states you don't offer the program in, that might be more 

6 instructive. I mean, it seems to me, my apologies for thinking 

7 through this as we're going through it, but there can only be 

8 two scenarios here. A, the school offers the program in a 

9 state, and if they offer the program in a state, then it 

10 necessarily meets the licensing requirements of those states 

11 for 32, right? It could be no other way. Or they don't offer 

12 the program in the state, in which case it makes no difference 

13 what any requirements are because they just don't offer the 

14 program, a student can't take the program in that state. So, I 

15 would probably structure it that way. I don't, if adding a 

16 list of states that does not meet requirements, that would get 

17 us there, I guess, because we'd basically be saying the school 

18 that's tacitly saying the school simply doesn't offer them it 

19 doesn't offer it in those states. So, we could I think by 

20 adding that back would get there if that would be acceptable 

21 to people.

22 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I see a few hands. We'll go 

23 Carolyn first. But I do want to just ask the negotiators if 

24 they can keep comments brief so we can finish the day with 

25 asking the Department how they'd like to proceed on this 

26 issue. Carolyn, go ahead.

27 MS. FAST: Just very briefly that, just want to make 

28 sure that it doesn't get lost that we don't want to just have 

29 a disclosure be where the program is offered because the more 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 74

1 important part is for the student from the student's 

2 perspective, is where they're going to be able to get 

3 licensure. So just to make sure that doesn't get lost in 

4 whatever rewrite happens.

5 MR. MARTIN: Right. Well, they will I think according 

6 to our rules, it has to be they can't offer it unless there's 

7 licensure. But I think you're right, that should be disclosed. 

8 As a student knows, they will be licensed. What I can do is, 

9 entertaining more comments we have, so we're coming up on 

10 3:25. So if we want to, I could, I don't know if I can feel 

11 this on my feet right now because as close to the end of the 

12 day as we are. But I can work on the lang- we can work on the 

13 language overnight and come back tomorrow morning and just 

14 take the consensus for it based on the new unrevised language, 

15 hopefully would be a little more instructive here, but I don't 

16 think any of us are in disagreement where we what we want it 

17 to say, it's just how we convey that. So, if you would allow 

18 me to wordsmith that overnight. And we can all sleep on it, 

19 well not sleep on it because we're going to change, we're 

20 going to make some changes here. But I think we could make 

21 some changes toward clarity in this in this disclosure. But I 

22 think we have to, you know, the intent is obviously different 

23 than what's in 32. This is a disclosure. This is a disclosure 

24 requirement in 668.43. But I think the language still needs to 

25 still needs to align.

26 MR. ROBERTS: That'll be how we start off tomorrow. 

27 But I do want to note Emmanual is coming to the table to ask a 

28 final question on behalf of private nonprofits. So go ahead, 

29 Emmanual.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 75

1 MR. GUILLORY: So, I'm happy the Department is 

2 willing to take another look at this and come back to the 

3 table tomorrow to look at it because with the unchanged 

4 proposals in 32, there's still going to be some major 

5 complications there. We did submit proposed language to the 

6 Department, you know looked at it and decided not to take. And 

7 that's, I respect that decision. But also, some of my other 

8 colleagues, Carolyn and Barmak had a proposal too as well that 

9 would remedy the situation. And I'm really disappointed that 

10 not even that proposal was taken into consideration, 

11 considering the support that was offered for that, because 

12 that proposal would have been much better for us than the 

13 current text that we have here. Requiring institutions to meet 

14 all state licensing requirements if they want to offer a 

15 program to students where they're located or where they are or 

16 where they may seek employment is very, very, very 

17 problematic. So, I hope that the Department will think about 

18 it once again and just really reconsider the proposed 

19 alternative language to 32 and how that relates to what we're 

20 talking about here in 5. Thank you.

21 MR. ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. We are coming up right 

22 on public comment as it is our last one of a negotiated 

23 rulemaking. I don't want to cut into that. So, the plan for 

24 tomorrow will be to pick up with certification and then move 

25 right into 90/10. And I understand, Johnson, you wanted to 

26 address the committee before we move to public comment. 

27 MR. TYLER: Yeah, hi. I- [interposing]

28 MS. JEFFRIES: Johnson, hang on one second. I just 

29 want to let the committee know, I [audio]- 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 76

1 MR. TYLER: You muted yourself. 

2 MR. ROBERTS: I think, Cindy, you're muted right now.

3 MS. JEFFRIES: I did it twice. I'm going to go ahead 

4 and admit Senator Tom Carper while Johnson addresses the 

5 committee because he was having some technical issues. And 

6 we're going to try to jump start that in case he does so, 

7 unless I hear any objections to that, I'm going to go ahead 

8 and admit him now.

9 MR. TYLER: Great, I'm preceding a senator. 

10 Excellent. I just wanted to thank everyone. I'm not going to 

11 be here tomorrow. And I want to be able to say my goodbyes and 

12 how much I've enjoyed working with everyone here, and 

13 particularly Greg and the other people, Steve from the 

14 Department of Education, Donna. I know you guys are career 

15 people and this is your mission and I really appreciate all 

16 the work you're doing. Everyone else here, I know we all have 

17 students in mind. But the last thing I just want to say, is 

18 you know, George Floyd, really, his murder showed so much 

19 inequity. And I think when we talk about the students, we 

20 really have to think also about racial justice. I think that 

21 is what education is, the method by which we can fix this 

22 problem. And we really have to make sure that these 

23 institutions remedy it rather than perpetuate racial inequity 

24 in the country. So anyway, thank you. Thanks for listening to 

25 me all this time and good luck tomorrow.

26 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Johnson, for your 

27 comments and for all your hard work and indeed the entire 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 77

1 committee's hard work throughout these last few months. Cindy, 

2 are we ready to proceed to public comment?

3 MS. JEFFRIES: We are, and it looks like Senator Tom 

4 Carper is on video if he, so he should be ready to go as soon 

5 as he unmutes himself.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Senator Carper. Can you 

7 hear me?

8 SEN. CARPER: I cannot hear you.

9 MR. ROBERTS: Cannot hear me. What about10 [interposing] There we go. Okay, great. You have three minutes 

11 for public comment beginning when you start speaking, and the 

12 floor is yours.

13 SEN. CARPER: Thanks. Well, good afternoon, everyone. 

14 I'm Tom Carper, United States Senator from Delaware, retired 

15 Navy Captain, last Vietnam veteran serving in the US Senate

16 and GI Bill recipient. I just want to thank the US Department 

17 of Education for giving me the opportunity to take a brief 

18 moment to talk a bit about the importance of protecting our 

19 nation's military and our veterans, and especially of veteran 

20 students, by closing the 90/10 loophole once and for all. One 

21 year ago, during floor debate of the American Rescue Plan, the 

22 United States Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan 

23 amendment. It was offered by Senator Jerry Moran, Republican 

24 of Kansas, close friend, and myself, to establish this 

25 negotiated rulemaking process. Our amendment for those who may 

26 not have heard, was a bipartisan promise, a promised to our 

27 nation's veterans to close the 90/10 loophole once and for 

28 all. And I'm grateful to the negotiators and to the Department 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 78

1 for making good on that promise. I'm also deeply grateful to 

2 the many veterans and veteran service organizations that who 

3 did the heavy lifting over the last year, not just over the 

4 last year, but the last decade, walking the halls of Congress, 

5 knocking on doors and stressing the importance of harnessing 

6 market forces and harnessing market forces to improve 

7 educational opportunities for our nation's military [audio] 

8 for too long, far too many bad actors in the for-profit 

9 college sector, including the now defunct Corinthian Colleges 

10 and along with ITT Tech were able to evade the bipartisan 

11 intent of Congress that for-profit schools should receive at 

12 least 10 percent of their revenues from non-Federal sources. 

13 This rulemaking, this rulemaking process restores the 

14 bipartisan intent of Congress, first established by 

15 legislation signed by into law by former President George 

16 Herbert Walker Bush, Navy veteran and a Republican, and 

17 reaffirmed during the amendment to the American Rescue Plan, 

18 which was signed into law by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. 

19 I want to make clear that not all for-profit schools, 

20 underline this, not all for-profit schools are bad actors. 

21 Many for-profit schools do a very fine job preparing our 

22 military and preparing our veteran students for civilian 

23 careers and we should acknowledge that. Closing, having said 

24 that, closing the 90/10 loopholes simply about making sure 

25 that our veterans get the most out of their hard-earned GI 

26 Bill benefits. For me, this is personal. My own father, a 

27 World War Two veteran, also served the times in the Korean War 

28 and the Vietnam War chief petty officer for over 30 years. He 

29 used the original GI Bill at a vocational school in Beckley, 

30 West Virginia, where he learned how to fix wrecked cars and 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 79

1 went to work at Burleson Oldsmobile, became a claims adjuster 

2 for Nationwide Insurance, and ended up teaching the Academy of 

3 Training Academy for all Nationwide Insurance claims adjusters 

4 and across the country. He did it thanks to the GI Bill. But 

5 for myself, after serving three tours of active duty in [30 

6 seconds] I used the GI Bill to attend the University of 

7 Delaware to earn a master's degree and to go on to be elected 

8 as the Treasurer of the State of Delaware and congressman and 

9 governor. My dad, as I said, went on to do extraordinary 

10 things in his own life. We don't always have time or the 

11 opportunity to make a huge change in the lives of people. But 

12 this is one instance where we can do that. And I just want to 

13 say to those who are involved in this process, I hope you will 

14 end up doing the right thing by virtue of our veterans and 

15 keep in mind the golden rule to treat other people the way we 

16 want to be treated and that's what our legislation does. And I 

17 would on that will sign off and say, good luck. God bless.

18 MR. ROBERTS: Same to you. Thank you very much for 

19 your comments, Senator Carper.

20 SEN. CARPER: Thank you so much.

21 MR. ROBERTS: [Audio] next, Cindy?

22 MS. JEFFRIES: Next, we have Malcolm Youngren from 

23 Pacific College.

24 MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Malcolm, can you hear 

25 me?

26 MR. YOUNGREN: This is Malcolm.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 80

1 MR. ROBERTS: Great. Your video and sound are coming 

2 in very clearly. So, you have three minutes for public comment 

3 beginning when you start speaking and you have the floor now.

4 MR. YOUNGREN: Okay, great. Thank you. My name is 

5 Malcolm Youngren. I'm the president and CEO of Pacific College 

6 of Health and Science, founded in 1986. Pacific College is 

7 regionally accredited by WASC and currently has 1900 students. 

8 Acupuncture is increasingly becoming part of the US healthcare 

9 system and is now recognized as safe and effective by the 

10 National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, 

11 Medicare, and the Veterans Administration. The CDC recently 

12 identified acupuncture as the first line of defense in the 

13 opioid crisis. We at Pacific College support an appropriate 

14 accountability framework, and Pacific College students are 

15 repaying their loans. Our credit default rate is 5.3 percent, 

16 and our 2011 repayment rate was 44 percent. The proposed GE 

17 ratios do not accurately indicate quality in the field of 

18 acupuncture for two reasons. Most acupuncturists seek a 

19 flexible work/life balance. The most recent American Society 

20 of Acupuncture survey showed over 50 percent of acupuncturists 

21 practice part time. Our average acupuncture student is a 

22 mature 36 years old and a quarter are married with spousal 

23 support. They enter this field for flexibility. Second, it 

24 takes five years for graduates to fully build a practice. 

25 Measure, measuring earnings in 18 to 36 months is not 

26 consistent with its occupation. 5 to 9 years out after 

27 graduation, over 60 percent earn more than $65,000 dollars and 

28 25 percent earn more than $100,000 dollars. Pacific College 

29 and other private acupuncture schools provide quality 

30 education, leading to higher satisfaction rate among 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 81

1 acupuncturists. 87 percent of our graduates become licensed, 

2 and 66 percent of all acupuncturists are satisfied with their 

3 lifestyle. The GE ratios do not indicate quality of 

4 acupuncture colleges. The pass rate on licensure exams are the 

5 same for both for-profit and nonprofit schools, and the price 

6 of the education is actually 12 percent lower for for-profit 

7 schools. The price is relatively consistent because the 

8 curriculum is dictated by the state. California requires 3000 

9 hours and Florida requires a four- year program. Schools 

10 cannot shorten the program and make them significantly less 

11 expensive. The proposed GE framework, if adopted, would 

12 devastate the acupuncture industry. All 24 colleges that are 

13 for-profit would go out of business and there are only 51 

14 colleges. There would be no acupuncture schools in cities like 

15 San Diego or Chicago or states such as Texas or Ohio. To avoid 

16 this disaster, only modest changes need to be made. Proposal 

17 one is for doctorate and master's leading to licensure to use 

18 a 35 percent repayment rate and a benchmark licensure pass 

19 rate of [30 seconds] number two is for an annual appeal 

20 process for small industries and there are only 6000 

21 acupuncturists in the country where alternative measures such 

22 as repayment rates could be used. This would allow small and 

23 unique industries to survive. Either measure would give a 

24 strong quality framework without injuring acupuncture, which 

25 is so needed at this point in the country's recovery from the 

26 pandemic and the opioid crisis. Thank you.

27 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much for your comment.

28 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay Brady, I am admitting Martin 

29 Gaiter who is Solution Wizard USBS.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 82

1 MR. ROBERTS: Alright, Martin, can you hear me? Good 

2 afternoon, Martin. Can you hear me?

3 MS. JEFFRIES: Let me go ahead and bring in Tanya 

4 Foose from the Ohio Business College while we figure out 

5 what's going on with Martin.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Sounds good. Thank you. Good afternoon, 

7 Tanya. Are you able to hear me?

8 MS. FOOSE: I can hear you.

9 MR. ROBERTS: Great. You have three minutes for 

10 public comment, beginning when you start speaking, and the 

11 floor is yours.

12 MS. FOOSE: Hi, my name is Tanya Foose, and I 

13 appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about the 

14 career college education sector and our value to the economy. 

15 I have worked for over 20 years at several for-profit 

16 colleges, and quite frankly, this is where I found my love for 

17 education and my passion for the career college sector. As the 

18 daughter of a college professor of a state university, I grew 

19 up at a college campus. I watched my father deal with the 

20 perils of publish or perish and the never-ending research he 

21 did for his tenured position. While publishing is great, it 

22 does not directly contribute to the local economy. In fact, 

23 most of his students had to leave their hometown to find work. 

24 Career colleges serve a very important part of our local 

25 economy. Having spent four years in career services and now 

26 campus director at Ohio Business College, I have been able to 

27 maintain over 70 percent placement for each of our programs in 

28 medical assisting, HVAC, electrical, and business. Not only do 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 83

1 we assist our graduates with resumes, interview skills and 

2 maintain weekly communication after graduation, we also work 

3 with local businesses to help address their hiring needs. 

4 This, along with our personal and accessible approach to 

5 admissions and financial aid, we are able to help students 

6 easily navigate the enrollment process. On a personal note, as 

7 the mother of a community college student, I can't tell you 

8 how difficult it was to enroll my son. No one at his school 

9 could answer questions about which program would fit him best. 

10 No one helped me with the FAFSA, and in fact, no one would 

11 even answer the phone. Having been so accustomed to the 

12 amazing customer service that we offer our students, I was 

13 shocked at how difficult it was to enroll at a public 

14 institution. Career colleges make the whole process easy. 

15 Students know what they're signing, and they understand their 

16 financial aid package when complete. I personally can't 

17 understand why public institutions don't mimic the level of 

18 service and assistance that we do for our students, because I 

19 would imagine they lose a lot of students who become 

20 frustrated due to the lack of help. Career colleges must 

21 remain a viable option for many students who are looking to 

22 level up their opportunities in the world by offering ease of 

23 admission, strong skills-based education, and assistance upon 

24 graduation. Thank you for your time. We do such amazing work 

25 for our students and local businesses and hope to continue to 

26 do so for now and years to come. Thank you.

27 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Tanya, for your comment.

28 MS. JEFFRIES: Brady, it looks like Martin Gaiter is 

29 up and running and with us.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 84

1 MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Good afternoon, Martin. Can 

2 you hear me?

3 MR. GAITER: I can.

4 MR. ROBERTS: Great. You have three minutes for 

5 public comment that begins when you start speaking.

6 MR. GAITER: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is 

7 Martin Gaiter. 20 years ago, I achieved my MBA in global 

8 management. I went on to start my PhD studies in 

9 organizational development and leadership. I'm also a US Air 

10 Force veteran. Today I serve as a catalyst for change. I 

11 respectfully ask for the Education Department to really 

12 examine why some people in this country who look like me 

13 struggle professionally after graduation with degrees they are 

14 encouraged to get. Yes, it's true, I am a graduate of the 

15 University of Phoenix. So many other universities copy the 

16 model that University of Phoenix has been using for decades. 

17 After article after article that I've read, University of 

18 Phoenix graduates outpace other university graduates careers 

19 advancements year after year. I do notice something is 

20 missing. The larger population of minority students is missing 

21 in those statistics. We are told consistently to just go out 

22 and get a little more educated and then it would be our 

23 chance, our turn to develop internally. I ask you to stop 

24 looking at the University of Phoenix and its structure for 

25 culpability and to investigate the businesses that continue to 

26 move the line, and do the minimum or check the box so they 

27 don't get flagged. I did not choose the wrong school. There is 

28 more to my story. I have founded my own consultancy business 

29 that focuses on providing equity and digital access to the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 85

1 largest minority group in our country, the disabled. I also am 

2 heavily involved in diversity equity issues in my home state 

3 of Oregon. Yes, I am an angry black man, but I'm equally mad 

4 for non-black and black friends and colleagues equally because 

5 we need to come together. I have seen people in your position 

6 turn these issues at stake to personal attacks and make it 

7 easier to attack the testimony, the University of Phoenix or 

8 even supporters of University of Phoenix. Employers must be 

9 held accountable to follow through on the promises. No more 

10 carrot and stick. I've made the collective choice in the past 

11 and chosen to use my GI Bill to try to advance my military 

12 police training and actually could not attend military police 

13 training after the military because I was at a for-profit 

14 program that didn't qualify. I used my GI Bill for my 

15 undergraduate BA Technical Speech, Communication and Conflict 

16 Management. These were skills that I developed for employers 

17 that no longer had a place for me in my degrees. Reach out to 

18 us. We want to tell our stories. I fight for being, I fight 

19 being marginalized. Now I have my own business. I respectfully 

20 request that you work with us to amplify our voices with the 

21 Education Department and other leaders in Washington. Our 

22 voices should be heard. Thank you.

23 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your comment.

24 MS. JEFFRIES: Hey, Brady, I am admitting Samer 

25 Hassan from the Young Invincibles next.

26 MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Samer, can you hear me? 

27 How about now? Can you hear me, Samer? 

28 MR. HASSAN: Hi. Yes, can you hear me?
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 86

1 MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Coming through quite clearly. You 

2 have three minutes for public comment that begins when you 

3 start addressing the committee.

4 MR. HASSAN: Please allow me to pull up the page, 

5 give me one second. Okay. Thank you to the Negotiated 

6 Rulemaking Committee for having me today. My name is Samer 

7 Hassan. Before I begin, I want to let you know how 

8 disappointed I am. I and millions of students are after 

9 learning about how institution negotiators voted on Gainful 

10 Employment yesterday. To us, your decision has taught us that 

11 you are gatekeepers and refuse to be held accountable. 

12 Students do not look at you as allies. Remember that. In 2014, 

13 I signed up for a career program that would allow me to earn 

14 my certificate as a certified nursing assistant. I grew up 

15 undocumented in this country, so I did not qualify for 

16 financial aid. I saved up every penny I could in order to 

17 begin the CNA program. My school had ads on busses, trains, 

18 park benches and the radio, all of which advertised the great 

19 help you could do for your community while earning a great 

20 salary to someone who was renting out a room in a three21 bedroom home filled with 12 other people. The CNA certificate 

22 represented my way out of poverty and, to be frank, a 

23 dangerous living situation. The first day of my program was 

24 the first day I had ever entered a college. The instructor 

25 told us that a CNA could earn $50,000 if we played our cards 

26 right. I passed all my exams, did every assignment, and took 

27 every chance I could in order to absorb knowledge. During the 

28 last half of the three-month full-time program, we were sent 

29 to nursing homes in order to fulfill our clinical hours. We 

30 essentially provided free labor to nursing homes that were 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 87

1 extremely understaffed and overworked. I remember bike riding 

2 five miles a day in order to get to those inaccessible 

3 locations, but we didn't have a choice as to where we could 

4 go. But I'm happy to say I passed with all As and glowing 

5 recommendations. After I received my CNA license, finding a 

6 job proved excruciatingly difficult and long, even though we 

7 were constantly told there was a high demand for CNAs all 

8 across the state. I had gotten my work permit, so being 

9 undocumented was no longer a barrier to employment but it 

10 still took me five months to get a job. I beat ten other folks 

11 in group interview for a position that paid me $9 an hour. I 

12 figured I was given low pay because of lack of experience, but 

13 what I found out just a few days later was that even the CNAs 

14 who had been at the nursing facility for 15 years only made 

15 $12 an hour. The way around that low pay, everyone was 

16 encouraged to work overtime as that ensured time and a half. 

17 Every single CNA at the nursing facility worked an extra 12 to 

18 36 hours on top of their full-time hours in order to make ends 

19 meet instead of20 MR. WAGNER: You have 30 seconds remaining.

21 MR. HASSAN: Thank you. Instead of a culture that 

22 pushed you until you could no longer get out of bed, we should 

23 never have been told that a CNA certificate could pay us the 

24 salaries we worked so hard to earn. My story illustrates why 

25 the Department of Education should write strong Gainful 

26 Employment rules that prioritize protecting students and hold 

27 programs accountable for poor outcomes. If programs falsely 

28 advertise post-graduation earnings, they should be held 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 88

1 accountable to that, right? Thank you so much for your time 

2 and hearing me speak today.

3 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your public comment.

4 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Brady, I am admitting Lisa Houck 

5 representing, she's actually a veteran.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Lisa, are you able to hear me?

7 MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, while I figure out what's going 

8 on with Lisa, I'm going to go ahead and admit Cody Hounanian 

9 from Student Debt Crisis Center. Oops.

10 MR. ROBERTS: Cody, are you able to hear me? Looks 

11 like he's connecting. Hi, Cody. Can you hear me?

12 MR. HOUNANIAN: Yeah, I can. Thank you.

13 MR. ROBERTS: Excellent. You have three minutes for 

14 public comment that begins when you start taking.

15 MR. HOUNANIAN: Alright. Thank you so much. Well, I 

16 appreciate the opportunity to comment. My name is Cody 

17 Hounanian. I am the executive director of the Student Debt 

18 Crisis Center. We echo the voices of 2 million supporters 

19 across the country, and you know our mission is to center 

20 their voices and their needs. And by doing so, I think we can 

21 impact public policy and end this crisis. And that's exactly 

22 what I'm here to do today. So, I want to share some comments 

23 and also an experience from a borrower of ours that has 

24 reached out. So, you know, each year we hear from thousands of 

25 student loan borrowers and most are reaching out because 

26 they're facing unprecedented distress. You know, these are 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 89

1 people that are unable to put food on the table, afford rent 

2 or cover healthcare costs. All of these issues have been 

3 exacerbated during the pandemic. In fact, we recently surveyed 

4 over 23,000 borrowers and found that one in three was skimping 

5 out on basic needs due to payments resuming in May and the 

6 fear of the burden of student loan debt. And you know all of 

7 this harm is caused by the basic fact that these people sought 

8 out the American dream, and they did so through higher 

9 education, which is a pathway to that dream. You know, we hear 

10 from women, black, and brown borrowers and others that see the 

11 burden of student debt exacerbated by systemic inequities in 

12 higher education. And these communities you know for the first 

13 time had access to this dream and higher education, but the 

14 prosperity that it was supposed to provide has been completely 

15 stripped away because of this debt. So, you know it's clear 

16 that our system is inherently immoral, but the level of harm 

17 caused by purposeful profiteering is especially shameful. 

18 Vulnerable students are targeted by for-profit colleges that 

19 overpromise and under-deliver. Students are left holding the 

20 bag for an overpriced, low-quality education that wastes 

21 taxpayer resources and leaves students worse off than when 

22 they started. So, reinstating the Gainful Employment rule will 

23 ensure that the Department protects students from taking on 

24 debt that they are unlikely to be able to repay due to 

25 deceptive programs and guarantees that for-profit programs are 

26 able to fully prepare students for Gainful Employment. And I 

27 want to share a story. Lori in Aurora, Colorado, is an older 

28 American who should be retired. Instead, she is forced to 

29 continue to work a difficult, exhausting and low-paying job in 

30 a field that was completely unrelated to her education. You 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 90

1 know, Lori went back to school to skill up. We hear from 

2 borrowers every day that, particularly during the Great 

3 Recession, thought that education was their way to increase 

4 the stability of their finances in the future. But5 MR. WAGNER: 30 seconds remaining.

6 MR. HOUNANIAN: Yes. Like many, Lori's goal to 

7 improve her job prospects and make her future more secure has 

8 resulted in the complete opposite. Instead, her future is less 

9 secure, and it's destroyed her ability to retire with dignity. 

10 So, you know I encourage you to continue with implementing the 

11 Gainful Employment rule again and protect students from these 

12 low-quality programs. Thank you.

13 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you for your public comment.

14 MR. HOUNANIAN: I appreciate the opportunity.

15 MR. ROBERTS: Lisa, I believe, can you hear me? You 

16 have to unmute, but you have three minutes for public comment 

17 that begins when you begin speaking, and the floor is yours.

18 MS. HOUCK: Okay. I'm just going to read my 

19 statement. My name is Lisa Houck, and I was once employed in 

20 the admissions Department at Hessar College, which was a for21 profit school owned by Kaplan that is no longer open. I worked 

22 there from 2004 to 2012, and I want to tell you what the 

23 school told the admission representatives to do to further the 

24 goal of recruiting as many students as possible. The most 

25 important thing to the school was numbers. The Admissions 

26 Department was completely numbers driven, and the more 

27 students we convinced to enroll, the better we were we were 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 91

1 graded. We were told to pressure students to enroll on the 

2 same day that they came into the school so basically, they 

3 couldn't think about it. If they wanted to go home and think 

4 about it, we were told to tell them that classes were starting 

5 right now and they would miss out. The school did not want 

6 admission reps to tell students that we had rolling 

7 admissions, which meant that they could really enroll up to a 

8 week after the start. So, we really pressured them to enroll 

9 as soon as we met them. When I first started, admission reps 

10 were under the pressure to promise students anything to get 

11 them to enroll, like promising that they would be able to get 

12 a job in the field. And that became problematic when the GAO 

13 investigated Kaplan for predatory lending and predatory 

14 admission practices, which we definitely had. For instance, in 

15 the medical assistant program, we were told to tell them they 

16 would be able to find a job, even though we knew the market 

17 was completely saturated and they probably wouldn't be able to 

18 find a job. The same with early childhood education. We knew 

19 that we were selling them a very expensive degree, that they 

20 would only be paid about 12 or $13 an hour for. So, we had to 

21 undergo retraining and basically were told not to promise 

22 those things. But that only lasted about a month before the 

23 company then were pressuring us again to get our numbers up. 

24 So, we got students to enroll by promising them absolutely 

25 anything. I saw instances where the school would fill out 

26 their financial aid forms for the student, like the FAFSA, 

27 instead of letting the student take their time and do it 

28 themselves. The financial process was also very rushed, with 

29 the goal of getting the students signed up as quickly as 

30 possible. I now work in a different university and it is much 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 92

1 better. I don't see these practices at all. So that's my 

2 statement. Do you have any questions?

3 MR. ROBERTS: I don't believe so, Lisa, but thank you 

4 for offering your comment for the public today.

5 MS. HOUCK: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. ROBERTS: Have a nice day.

7 MS. HOUCK: You too.

8 MR. ROBERTS: Who are we admitting next?

9 MS. MILLER: I am admitting Tiffany Horne, who is 

10 representing herself.

11 MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you, Roz. It looks like 

12 she's enabling audio. Hi, Tiffany. Can you hear me?

13 MS. HORNE: Yes, I can. Hello.

14 MR. ROBERTS: Hello, good afternoon. You have three 

15 minutes for public comment that's going to begin when you 

16 start speaking. 

17 MS. HORNE: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My 

18 name is Tiffany Horne. I'm a 26-year Army veteran and a first19 generation college student. I was a single parent of three 

20 children when I graduated from the University of Phoenix with 

21 a bachelor's degree in business. When I decided to go back to 

22 school to earn my bachelor's degree, I was an active-duty 

23 military soldier stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. I 

24 had young children at home, and other schools that I attended 

25 were not conducive nor realistic to the demands of my military 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 93

1 lifestyle. I was deployed constantly and I knew that earning a 

2 degree was going to be a challenge. I chose the University of 

3 Phoenix because it offered a flexible degree program that 

4 accommodated and provided the support I needed to meet the 

5 demands of my life at that particular time. This meant I could 

6 fulfill my duties in the field during the day and at night I 

7 could work on my degree and turn my assignments in when my 

8 unit came in to take showers, which is where I could get 

9 internet service. None of this was easy. The classes were 

10 hard. My instructors challenged me daily and I worked full11 time and was a full-time parent. But I was dedicated to my 

12 educational goals, focused, and I knew how beneficial it would 

13 be for my career if I earned this degree. I was able to 

14 succeed because of my work ethic and because I chose to attend 

15 a school that provided the resources and had the flexibility 

16 that would ensure my success. The University of Phoenix is 

17 test [ph] the standard when it comes to supporting the 

18 students, especially adult students. Obtaining my degree 

19 allowed me to set a powerful example for my children and for 

20 the other service soldiers that I served with. Upon completion 

21 of my degree, I was promoted to the next higher rank. Many of 

22 my military colleagues, they also followed in my footsteps 

23 once they saw that it was actually possible to complete their 

24 education while on active duty. I decided to pursue my 

25 educational endeavors elsewhere only because of the senseless, 

26 negative stigma surrounding the University of Phoenix and the 

27 value of its curriculum. I am currently pursuing my doctoral 

28 degree, but all roads began with the University of Phoenix. 

29 Aside from my doctorate course, the coursework was much more 

30 challenging in my opinion, and the academic advisers were much 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 94

1 more hands-on and geared me towards my goals. I continue to 

2 use a lot of the tools such as the team skills assessments and 

3 inventories, case study data, etc., all which I learned from 

4 the University of Phoenix in my current role. Working in teams 

5 is extremely challenging. However, the benefit of using the 

6 skills that everyone has in order to accomplish objectives is 

7 a skillset that continues to serve me well. Please consider my 

8 story and the stories of so many other military personnel who 

9 pursue a degree while they are actively in the military, for 

10 when we retire this uniform, just as I have, we still continue 

11 to serve our nation, but just in a different capacity. The 

12 military encourages and recognizes education13 MR. WAGNER: Tiffany, you have 30 seconds.

14 MS. HORNE: Mary Roach said, "Heroism doesn't always 

15 happen in a burst of glory. Sometimes small triumphs and large 

16 hearts change the course of history." I belong to several 

17 veteran organizations, and we work with delegates on the jill 

18 to bring about meaningful change. I hope that you all consider 

19 my story, and I hope that you hold all the universities 

20 accountable and the rules that they that you have set aside in 

21 order to benefit everyone, just keep everything fair. Thank 

22 you for your time.

23 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Tiffany, for your comment. 

24 Okay. Roz, I think we have time for one last speaker. Who are 

25 we admitting?

26 MS. MILLER: I'm admitting Brian Black, who's 

27 representing himself.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 95

1 MR. ROBERTS: It looks like he's admitted, but he 

2 might have stepped away from his computer. Do we want to move 

3 to the to the next speaker? Roz, would you mind admitting, I 

4 think I see Ethan5 MS. MILLER: Ethan Schlat- Schlatlecker, Schaltegger, 

6 sorry about that, who is representing Association of Young 

7 Americans.

8 MR. ROBERTS: Great. Ethan, are you able to hear me? 

9 Ethan, are you able to hear me or did he just leave the 

10 meeting? Oh, there he is. Ethan, can you hear me?

11 MR. SCHALTEGGER: I can hear you.

12 MR. ROBERTS: Great.

13 MR. SCHALTEGGER: Yeah.

14 MR. ROBERTS: Fantastic. You have three minutes for 

15 public comment, which begins when you start speaking.

16 MR. SCHALTEGGER: So first, just thank you for the 

17 opportunity to speak. It was 2018. I was taking my last class 

18 over a shortened summer semester, about to graduate with a 

19 double major in nutrition and kinesiology, ready to work 

20 towards my dream job of becoming a private coach, working with 

21 elite level athletes. Unfortunately, I had also accumulated 

22 $100,000 of student debt with an 11.5 percent interest rate 

23 after a lifetime of being taught to go to college no matter 

24 what. Debt is normal and this is just what you're supposed to 

25 do. I remember during that summer, the reality of what I had 

26 gotten myself into finally started to dawn. And I was 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 96

1 terrified. I was truly terrified. Two weeks before I was 

2 scheduled to officially graduate, my physical health started 

3 to aggressively decline. I was sent to the emergency room and 

4 diagnosed with type one diabetes, a chronic autoimmune disease 

5 without a cure, and a laundry list of daily demands, 

6 challenges, and symptoms. Not only was I about to graduate 

7 with this enormous financial burden, but I now had one of the 

8 most, if not the most expensive chronic health conditions in 

9 the United States. I have since given up on that dream job, 

10 and I'm currently working in corporate America, lucky to be 

11 paying my bills, lucky to even have stumbled into a job 

12 capable of scraping by. The amount of grief that I feel not 

13 only for myself but for my generation and the medical, the 

14 medically vulnerable is difficult to describe. The amount of 

15 greed, insanity, and dysfunctionality I see in our system is 

16 disgusting. And I share this story of mine with the hope and 

17 the prayer that the people on this call can recognize that 

18 your work has real meaningful power over the lives of others. 

19 I pray that the people on this call can feel beyond the 

20 statistics and can recognize that the future of this country 

21 is more than just a numbers game. I pray that the people on 

22 this call have the compassion to recognize that this corrupt 

23 system creates real casualties. And these casualties have real 

24 consequences individually and collectively for our country. 

25 And I pray that we can all take on the resolve to do what 

26 needs to be done.

27 MR. WAGNER: Ethan, you have 30 seconds.

28 MR. SCHALTEGGER: As far as tangible action, 

29 reinstating Gainful Employment is a good first step, in my 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 97

1 view, a step towards creating a larger systemic change. The 

2 Department taking responsibility for protecting students from 

3 higher education profiteering and protecting students from 

4 taking on aggressive debt they're unlikely to pay backand 

5 ensuring career programs are available for Gainful Employment 

6 is a necessary first step towards addressing this crisis, in 

7 my view. That's all I have to say. And thank you for your time 

8 and space.

9 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ethan, for your comment. We 

10 appreciate it. And thank you to all the members of the public 

11 who have taken the time to offer public comment to this 

12 committee throughout the last couple of months. Thank you to 

13 the committee for all your hard work today. We will pick up 

14 for our final day of negotiated rulemaking tomorrow at 10 a.m. 

15 Eastern. Thank you very much.

16 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 

17 Education

18 Zoom Chat Transcript

19 Institutional and Programmatic Eligibility Committee 

20 Session 3, Day 4, Afternoon, March 17, 2022

21 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

22 I've encountered situations where students have been 

23 enrolled in a program where they don't have enough eligible 

24 Title IV aid eligibility (because they are approaching the 

25 limit) and it is disastrous when they reach their limit and 

26 can't finish their program.
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 98

1 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

2 Everyone:

3 +1 Adam

4 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

5 Everyone:

6 +1 Jessica and Adam. Seems cutting off students 

7 Title IV mid program is setting them up for failure.

8 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

9 Borrowers to Everyone:

10 +1 Debbie's points on SAP, as well as Jessica and 

11 Adam's points.

12 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

13 Everyone:

14 +1 Carolyn, Jessica, and Adam. I do not like their 

15 aid is cutoff before they finish.

16 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

17 Everyone:

18 +1 Adam - disclosure is very important here.

19 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

20 +1 on idea that program should not be eligible if ED 

21 wants to go down this path

22 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

23 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 99

1 +1 Jessica

2 From Amanda Martinez (P) Civil Rights to Everyone:

3 +1 Jessica

4 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

5 Everyone:

6 +1 Johnson

7 From Yael Shavit to Everyone:

8 +1 to Jessica and Johnson

9 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

10 +1 to Johnson. And in that case the Dept's 

11 investment in the student is lost.

12 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

13 Everyone:

14 Laura Rasar King is in for Accrediting Agencies

15 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

16 she/her to Everyone:

17 Laura Raser King coming in for accrediting agencies 

18 here as noted

19 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

20 Everyone:

21 Note, current (32)(iii) would become (iv), not be 

22 replaced
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 100

1 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

2 Everyone:

3 +1 to Laura. (i) needs to have seeking accreditation 

4 and pre-accreditation added

5 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to 

6 Everyone:

7 +1 to Laura's edit

8 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to 

9 Everyone:

10 The omission was an oversight and unintended

11 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

12 I think it's important that ED ensure that programs 

13 meet licensure requirements in states in which they enroll 

14 students and I think Barmak's suggested edits accomplish that 

15 goal and I support them.

16 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to 

17 Everyone:

18 Emmanual is going to come to the table to address 

19 Debbie's comments

20 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

21 she/her to Everyone:

22 + Laura and Brad: the program has met quality 

23 requirements to achieve pre-accreditation. It has met 

24 standards. It has simply not yet graduated students yet. 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 101

1 Recall that this is within an institution that is accredited 

2 at the institutional level.

3 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

4 she/her to Everyone:

5 So if the state requirement is for pre-accreditation 

6 and accrdetation then would that control?

7 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

8 Everyone:

9 I support the idea of adding pre-accreditation 

10 language.

11 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

12 she/her to Everyone:

13 It IS recognized by ED as accreditation

14 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

15 Everyone:

16 UNDER 600.4, DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER 

17 EDUCATION, AND INSTITUTION CAN RECEIVE TITLE IV IT HAS 

18 INSTITUTIONAL PREACCREDITATION OR ACCREDITATION.

19 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

20 Everyone:

21 Pardon the caps - unintended

22 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

23 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 102

1 Thank you very much, Emmanual, for the specific 

2 example.

3 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

4 she/her to Everyone:

5 That's exactly the poit if the state accepts pre6 accreditation for licensure their judgment should control.

7 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

8 Everyone:

9 +1 Jessica - can we clarify the language to link it 

10 to acceptance by licensure agencies?

11 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

12 she/her to Everyone:

13 + Barmak -- purpose is to be sure student is 

14 eligible for state licensure

15 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

16 +1 Barmak

17 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

18 Everyone:

19 +1 Barmak

20 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

21 Everyone:

22 Strongly support this addition in (iii).
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 103

1 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

2 Borrowers to Everyone:

3 +1 Carolyn. I strongly support (iii) in this 

4 subpart. Additionally, support and resonate with the proposed 

5 text + Laura's addition of pre-accreditation to the text.

6 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to 

7 Everyone:

8 Emmanual will be coming to the able to address 

9 32(iii)

10 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

11 Everyone:

12 Jamie is back in for Accrediting Agencies

13 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

14 she/her to Everyone:

15 Jessica -- there will always be a role for you !

16 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

17 I hope so!

18 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

19 +1 to Adam and Carolyn— this language preserves the 

20 institutions’ ability to get authorization on the front end, 

21 while maintaining the states’ ability to address consumer 

22 protection issues

23 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to 

24 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 104

1 +1 on ED's position

2 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

3 Everyone:

4 +1 to ED

5 From Johnson Tyler (p) legal aid to Everyone:

6 +1 on Greg

7 From Yael Shavit to Everyone:

8 +1 to ED's position

9 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

10 Borrowers to Everyone:

11 +1 on ED's position here.

12 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

13 Everyone:

14 Agree with Jamie.

15 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

16 I agree with Kelli— but I think it’s not an 

17 either/or. I would love if our students in NY have both the 

18 protection of NY law and independent protections from a 

19 reciprocity agreement.

20 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

21 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 105

1 To Kelli - this provision just says that NC-SARA 

2 isn't the ceiling for consumer protection.

3 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

4 Johnson is coming back to the table for legal aid

5 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

6 To Carolyn - a big part of the SARA agreement is 

7 being compliant with consumer protection laws in the state 

8 that distance education is being offered. While obtaining 

9 state authorization remains intact with your proposal, the 

10 concern we are hearing is that the compliance with consumer 

11 protection laws is going away. This means that any institution 

12 that seeks to offer distance education courses to students 

13 would need to meet the varying consumer protection laws across 

14 the states. For our smaller institutions that are under15 resourced and have capacity issues, this would disincentive 

16 them from participating. I hope this better explains the 

17 overwhelming concern that we have heard.

18 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

19 +1 to Amanda

20 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

21 Borrowers to Everyone:

22 +1 Amanda.

23 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

24 Everyone:

25 +1 to Amanda
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 106

1 From Barmak Nassirian (A) Servicemembers & Vets to 

2 Everyone:

3 +1 on Amanda, Johnson, and Ernest's comments 

4 regarding transcripts

5 From David Socolow to Everyone:

6 +1 to Amanda, Johnson, and Ernest on transcript 

7 ransom

8 From Jaylon Herbin- (A) Consumer Advocate & Civil 

9 Rights to Everyone:

10 +1 to Amanda, Johnson, and Ernest's comments

11 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

12 Everyone:

13 +1 to Adam's suggestion.

14 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

15 Everyone:

16 my comment is on 34, so I will let Johnson go first

17 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

18 Everyone:

19 given the additional hands being raised i will wait 

20 on 34

21 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to 

22 Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 107

1 Thank you Steve - that context was important to 

2 hear.

3 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

4 Everyone:

5 +1 to Adam on ED's authority to act to preserve its 

6 investment of Title IV in the students.

7 From Anne Kress (P) Comm College to Everyone:

8 Do we know how many of these obligations are due to 

9 R2T4 requirements—and if so, is the Dept looking at this 

10 requirement?

11 From David Socolow to Everyone:

12 +1 to Adam's point about the Department's interest 

13 in its investment in students. Also, if students cannot 

14 provide prospective employers documentation of the education 

15 that the Department financed, the students' opportunities to 

16 secure employment will be harmed -- thus reducing their 

17 ability to repay their student loans which the Department is 

18 interested in collecting.

19 From Adam Welle, State AGs (P) to Everyone:

20 +1 to Debbie's comment

21 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

22 We have been told that many institutions won't 

23 withhold if an employer is seeking the transcript as part of a 

24 job opportunity. If the employer makes the request then the 
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 108

1 institution will send it along regardless of the student's 

2 account status.

3 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

4 The Department has previously taken a broad view of 

5 its authority to regulate school conduct in PPA— from the 2016 

6 Final Rule (81 Fed Reg 75,926):

7 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

8 “[T]he HEA gives the Department the authority to 

9 impose conditions on schools that wish to participate in a 

10 Federal benefit program. In this regulation, the Department is 

11 exercising its broad authority, as provided under the HEA, to 

12 impose conditions on schools that wish to participate in the 

13 Federal Direct Loan Program. Section 452(b) of the HEA states, 

14 “No institution of higher education shall have a right to 

15 participate in the [Direct Loan] programs authorized under 

16 this part [part D of title IV of the HEA].” 20 U.S.C. 

17 1087b(b). If a school chooses to participate in the Direct 

18 Loan Program, it must enter into a Direct Loan Program 

19 participation agreement (PPA). 20 U.S.C. 1087d. Section 

20 454(a)(6) of the HEA authorizes the Department to include in 

21 that PPA “provisions that the Secretary determines are 

22 necessary to protect the interests of the United States and to 

23 promote the purposes of” the Direct Loan Program. 20 U.S.C. 

24 1087d(a)(6); 81 FR 39385."

25 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

26 I’m coming back to the table for legal aids
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 109

1 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

2 Borrowers to Everyone:

3 I appreciate Emmanual's comment and yet know that 

4 was not my experience at first, and have heard from students 

5 that it wasn't theirs as well. If there is a chance the 

6 Department would consider protection on this piece, that's 

7 something to be considered.

8 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

9 Borrowers to Everyone:

10 worth considering*

11 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

12 Borrowers to Everyone:

13 Jessica raises a could point. Could we get a 

14 response from OGC?

15 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

16 Borrowers to Everyone:

17 a good point*

18 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

19 she/her to Everyone:

20 Laura and I believe that will address the pre21 accreditation issue.

22 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

23 Borrowers to Everyone:

24 +1 Yael
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 110

1 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

2 +1 to Yael

3 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

4 Everyone:

5 +1 to Yael

6 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

7 Everyone:

8 I have a resonse

9 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

10 Everyone:

11 +1 Carolyn - disclosure is needed.

12 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

13 Everyone:

14 good question Dave

15 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

16 But doesn’t the program have to meet state licensing 

17 requirements by your changed regulatory proposal?

18 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

19 Other proposals to allow an institution to offer a 

20 program in states that does not meet state licensing 

21 requirements was not approved
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 111

1 From Jamienne Studley--Accrediting Agencies (P) 

2 she/her to Everyone:

3 Perhaps ED could look at this issue that Greg wants 

4 to look at, plus a response to Barmak's proposed addition to 

5 (32) and return to this tomorrow morning?

6 From Kelli Perry - (P) Private Non-Profits to 

7 Everyone:

8 Emmanual also would like to ask a question regarding 

9 this and is coming to the table

10 From Jessica Ranucci (A)- Legal Aids to Everyone:

11 And I would ask ED to please take another look at 

12 the new language in (26) that would partially fund some 

13 students’ programs with Title IV

14 From Laura Rasar King (A) Accrediting Agencies to 

15 Everyone:

16 +1 Jessica

17 From Yael Shavit to Everyone:

18 +1 Jessica

19 From Debbie Cochrane (P), State Agencies to 

20 Everyone:

21 David Socolow will be closing out the day for state 

22 agencies.

23 From Yael Shavit to Everyone:
Committee Meetings - 03/17/22 112

1 Adam is coming back for State AGs

2 From Ernest Ezeugo (P) Students and Student Loan 

3 Borrowers to Everyone:

4 Thank you for your participation and your thoughtful 

5 insights the past few months, Johnson.

6 From Marvin Smith (P) 4 Year Publics to Everyone:

7 Been a pleasure Johnson.

8 From Carolyn Fast (P) Consumer/Civil Rights to 

9 Everyone:

10 Thank you for all of your contributions!

11 From Bradley Adams (P - Proprietary Institutions) to 

12 Everyone:

13 Johnson it was a pleasure meeting and working with 

14 you. have a great weekend and stay in touch. I am going to 

15 have to drop off during public comment. Mike will fill me in 

16 on what i missed later tonight.

17 From Emmanual Guillory (A) PNPs to Everyone:

18 Thank you Johnson!

19 From Amanda Martinez (P) Civil Rights to Everyone:

20 Thank you Johnson! We appreciate your advocacy, your 

21 perspective, and work on behalf of students!