Negotiated Rulemaking 10/4/2021

1

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

AFFORDABILITY AND STUDENT LOANS COMMITTEE

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING SESSION 1, DAY 1, AFTERNOON

OCTOBER 4, 2021

On the 4th day of October, 2021, the

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

4:00 p.m., before Andrea González, Shorthand Reporter

in the state of New Jersey.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

P R O C E E D I N G S

MS. MACK: Welcome back, everyone. I hope 

that you enjoyed your lunch. We're now going to start 

the afternoon session. We have three hours together this 

afternoon, and I can tell you that the plan will be to 

take roughly a 10-minute break around 2:15, so plan 

accordingly. Again, we'll try to keep that very brief to 

10 minutes. We're also going to conclude this afternoon 

around 3:30 Eastern Time with 30 minutes of public 

comments. So, I'll let you know when we need to begin 

that part of our program as well. According to the 

agenda, we had hoped to kick off this afternoon with our 

first substantive topic item for which you should have 

all received an issue paper and perhaps a revised issue 

paper. Persis, I see your hand, please.

MS. YU: Yes, thank you. And good afternoon, 

everyone. Is there an opportunity to add items to the 

agenda?

MS. MACK: In terms of items, you mean 

additional topics?

MS. YU: Additional topics, yes, additional 

issue topics.

MS. MACK: If you want to make a motion to 

entertain additional topics to add to our agenda, then 

we could hear those, discuss those as a committee and 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

ultimately that would be subject to a consensus vote by 

this committee. Are there topics that you wish to add, 

Persis?

MS. YU: Yes, I would like to add -- I'd 

like to make a motion to add two additional topics to 

the agenda.

MS. MACK: What are the --

MS. YU: The top first topic that I would 

like to propose is to create an additional pathway out 

of default. And the second pathway -- Sorry, the second 

topic that I would like to propose is to eliminate the 

acceleration clause upon default, when borrowers default 

on their federal student loans, and limit collections to 

an income-driven payment amount. And I have sent a 

proposal to the facilitators, and I'm happy to share 

that as well or provide additional information.

MS. MACK: Okay, can you -- when you get a 

chance -- put a brief headline of that in our chat? Just 

so that everyone can look at that, as we dialogue about 

that. But let me ask the group, what are your thoughts 

or clarifying questions on what is being proposed for 

your consideration? Jennifer, please.

MS. HONG: Thank you for that, Persis. I'm 

wondering if those issues we can address when we talk 

about income-driven repayment. They may -- that might be 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the best place to discuss them, in terms of relating 

that issue to one of the topics we already have on the 

agenda. I just want to caution -- We have a very, very 

ambitious agenda. And I just -- I’m very eager to kind 

of get started in talking about the substantive issues 

here. I'm concerned that we're going to run out of time 

if we add too much to this such already full agenda. So, 

to the extent that some of these issues might have a fit 

-- a place where it might fit within the existing 

agenda. As you might know, some of the issue papers are 

open ended and we do have a lot of kind of questions on 

IDR. But we really want to get to the issues that we 

have proposed on the table as much as we can.

MS. YU: So, I would be willing to table 

this discussion to the IDR conversation if we can commit 

to discussing default. One thing I did notice was the 

IDR papers did not include issues for defaulted 

borrowers and, so, if that is something that the 

Department is willing to take up at that time, I'd be 

willing to fold these proposals in to the income driven

repayment proposed topic. But I would -- I'd ask for 

some kind of commitment that we will actually discuss 

defaulted borrowers at that time then.

MS. MACK: Jen, what are your thoughts on 

that? In terms of potentially committing to address this 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

at that time.

MS. HONG: I can assure you that we are here 

in good faith, and we really want to tackle these 

important topics. My only concern is our -- we want to 

get through even everything that we have on the -- that 

we've proposed and it's hard to predict those things. 

We're really taking this day by day and depends on how 

much conversation -- discussion each issue warrants and 

how much time it is going to take on discussing some of 

those things. So, if I say yes, we're interested in 

discussing all angles of this. But as far as me -- as 

far as us committing and saying that we -- if we -- when 

we get to that issue and we've -- if we can tie it to 

some of the proposals that we have, we are more than 

willing to discuss that.

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jen. David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I think these topics 

seem relevant to the larger topics at hand. So, I see no 

reason why we couldn't fold them into the existing 

topics. I would certainly like to discuss them and 

consider if there are proposals to make amendments --

changes to the existing regs relevant to these topics. 

I'd like to hear them.

MS. MACK: Does anyone else want to comment 

or ask any clarifying questions on this piece? Then, can 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

I suggest perhaps we hold off on a consensus check on 

this and, as we work our way through additional issues, 

that we can revisit this as we are addressing those 

relevant topics? Persis?

MS. YU: Yes, I just would like to request 

if I can send a memo -- the proposals around to our 

negotiator so that they can have those for further 

consideration when the income-driven payment topic does 

come up.

MS. MACK: Yes, at that time. And you have 

already shared those with us. If you would like the 

facilitators to go ahead and send those out, we can do 

that as well, at the right time.

MS. YU: That'd be great. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay. Anything else on that 

point? Okay. Then, I am happy to move us into our very 

first issue, and that is Total and Permanent Disability 

discharge. I'd like to turn it over to the Federal 

Negotiator, Jennifer, to walk us through that issue. 

And, Jennifer, I'll remind you if there are provisions 

at any time that we need to share on the screen that we 

should give Vanessa and/or Aaron a heads-up to do that.

MS. HONG: Thank you for that reminder, 

Kayla. In fact, why don't we do that now to give Vanessa 

some time to cue the TPD, Total and Permanent Disability 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

discharge issue paper up while I provide some 

background? I guess, just a couple general comments 

before we dive into our first issue. 

As you know, we tend to use, at the 

Department, a lot of acronyms to refer to the different 

programs, and we may take them for granted, so please do 

interject if you need clarification. One that we use 

quite frequently for the purposes of this agenda is that 

we will refer to our authorizing statute, the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, as the "HEA". And all 

the programs we are discussing for this negotiated 

rulemaking is authorized under Title Four of the HEA. 

Total and Permanent Disability discharge we will refer 

to as “TPD”, Borrower Defenses to Repayment is “BD”, 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness is “PSLF” and, while I'm 

sure the committee members may be familiar with this 

shorthand, I just want to be sure that the listening 

public can follow along. 

Finally, you will notice that there are 

various degrees of detail in each of the issue papers, a 

few include proposed regulatory text, others are more 

open-ended. We've tried to be transparent in those areas 

where we had some possible solutions that we wanted to 

invite your thoughts on. 

For some areas, we will need more
8

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

discussion, so, you will notice these variations in 

areas where we could perhaps advance the conversation. 

And with that, I will begin with our first issue, which 

is improving the process for granting Total and 

Permanent Disability discharge, which is issue number 

one. Section 437a of the HEA provides for TPD discharge 

a federal student loan for borrowers who are totally and 

permanently disabled. 

A Total and Permanent Disability is defined 

in the statute as a medically determinable physical or 

mental impairment that prevents an individual from 

engaging in substantial, gainful activity and that can 

be expected to result in death, has lasted for a 

continuous period of at least 5 years, or can be 

expected to last for a continuous period of at least 5 

years. 

Under current regulations, a borrower may 

receive a TPD discharge based on a disability 

determination by the Veterans Administration, or VA, or 

Social Security Administration, SSA, or based on a 

physician certification. Borrowers in the latter two 

categories, those identified through SSA or who are 

certified by a physician, are subject to a 3-year 

monitoring period. 

If a borrower fails to meet certain 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

conditions during the 3-year monitoring period, the 

discharge loan may be reinstated. One of those 

conditions is annual earnings from employment that 

exceeds 100 percent of the poverty guideline for 

(audio). 

So, as you may know, the Department has 

already taken an important step to improve TPD for 

eligible borrowers, and that is by automating the 

process through a data match with the Social Security 

Administration. We published a final rule toward that 

end on August 23 of this year. The Department also 

announced in March 2021 that we would be relaxing the 

monitoring period requirements during the national 

emergency and reinstating discharges for any borrower 

who had not responded to requests for earnings 

information. 

So, relatedly, as to our first point of 

discussion for TPD, we would like to eliminate the 

income monitoring period altogether. And we found that, 

rather than acting as a guardrail, requiring borrowers 

who are totally and permanently disabled to submit 

annual income information has been a barrier and a 

burden for borrowers, which has caused their loans to be

erroneously reinstated. We believe this is not effective

policy. Around half of TPD discharges get reinstated 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

because of failure to respond to the request for 

earnings information. 

The vast majority of these reinstatements 

are occurring for borrowers who are low income. So, with

that said, we are open to hearing how the committee 

feels about eliminating the income monitoring period for 

TPD borrowers. And once Vanessa is able to pull up that 

issue paper, I can point you to -- for this particular 

issue, we have -- there it is. Thank you, Vanessa. Some

proposed regulatory text, we can find that on page seven 

of the issue paper.

MS. MACK: Really quickly, I just want to 

make sure that you all can see the document on the lefthand side and the faces on your screen on the right-hand 

side, and Vanessa's going to scroll to the applicable 

place. I see already that we have hands raised. Let 

Jennifer, if at all possible -- you don't have to put 

down your hand, Bethany, no problem. That will track the 

order when we get there. Just give me a second to start 

calling on folks for comments and questions until we 

walk through that part. Thank you.

MS. HONG: Sure, so I will just point --

Vanessa, if you could scroll up to subparagraph seven: 

Conditions for reinstatement of a loan. That is -- I'm 

sorry, on page seven. Page seven. Yeah, subparagraph 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

seven: Conditions for reinstatement of a loan after --

yeah, there you go. That -- and that is the proposed 

language for eliminating the income monitoring period. 

And at this point, I will be quiet.

MS. MACK: Alright, so let's focus on that 

first piece of this issue based on what has been shared 

out by the Federal Negotiator on this point. Does anyone 

have any comments or questions? Bethany, please.

MS. LILLY: Thank you. And I want to start 

off by just saying that we completely support the 

Department in this move, we think it's a great idea. 

Substantial evidence from GAO reports to other 

documentation of this has made it incredibly clear that 

the monitoring period is just a barrier. And no doubt 

that's because, by definition, the population that TPD 

is serving are people with disabilities, so, many of 

them are going to have limitations in one way or another 

complying with paperwork requirements.

I am -- one thing that this raises that I 

just am a little bit curious about and that -- something 

we have seen come up in the veterans’ space since you 

guys automated that and I imagine we might see come up 

in the context of the automation for folks with 

disabilities that started last month, is there are 

current students who are on SSDI or SSI, the disability 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

programs where you have that automatic match, who are 

currently in school. 

And, so, I just want to flag for the 

Department that I don't know that this is something we 

need to necessarily address in regulations, but I think 

in the context of kind of adding that -- you're getting 

rid of "the income piece" but you're keeping the "if 

someone takes out new loans piece" and, I think that, 

thinking about that population of folks, as you're 

thinking about the kind of new loans reinstatement 

piece, is going to be important. 

And I don't know if you want to add 

something about reinstatement if there happened to be 

errors in the automation or things like that, but just -

- I think you are going to have a small, but some folks 

who are in fact in school who are going to run into this 

challenge, perhaps particularly, so I just wanted to 

flag that. And then -- on kind of a related point here -

- no, I think I can hold it. I'll stop there.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Bethany. And 

that was beautiful. You did not go over your three 

minutes. But I was remiss in reminding you all that we 

have in the protocols a three-minute limitation. I've 

asked one of my fellow facilitators to remind anyone if 

they hit the 30-second remark, alright? So, just as a 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

reminder in our protocols to keep our conversation 

moving forward. Does anyone else have any questions or 

comments on this particular subpoint? Persis, please.

MS. YU: Thank you. And I echo Bethany's 

sentiment that I 100 percent support the idea of

eliminating the monitoring period. The clients that we 

serve routinely have their loans reinstated due to the 

monitoring period. And so having that eliminated would 

make a big difference. 

One question that I do have for the 

Department is when they will consider this to be a final 

discharge if we don't have the monitoring period, which 

we should not. But, so, to be clear, when -- before the 

tax changes in the tax code, people would receive 1099s 

after the 3-year monitoring period. Right now, 

obviously, this is not taxable. But those provisions 

will sunset at the, I believe, end of 2025, or 2026. And 

so, if this is not considered to be a final discharge 

until after the 3 years, that timeframe is actually 

going to come up pretty quickly for us. 

So, I just -- my question is when do we 

consider -- if we still have -- kind of have a 

monitoring period because of folks who will -- might 

take out new loans, when will this cancellation be 

considered final? 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. MACK: Thank you, Persis. Do we have an 

answer for that question or is that something we'll need 

to deliberate on and return to?

MS. HONG: Let me get back to that question, 

Persis.

MS. MACK: Okay. Any other questions or 

comments on this? Daniel, please.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, this is really more of a 

question for clarification. Again, I completely agree 

with the moves the Department is making and support it. 

My question goes back to the issue that was raised by 

Bethany. Is the -- so, the Department is waiving the 3-

year timeframe around monitoring, but maintaining 3 

years for the new loan or to trans -- is that the 

proposed understanding? Is that a period up for 

discussion or negotiation, or is that a recommendation? 

The 3-year timeframe is the question I'd be asking 

specifically.

MS. MACK: Jennifer, I see your hand, 

please.

MS. HONG: Yeah, we're open to hearing your 

-- yes, your thoughts on the reinstatement for new 

loans. I know Bethany touched upon it, but if there's 

more that you can share with us, and your thoughts, we 

are open to hearing them. 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. MACK: Do any of you have thoughts on 

that particular piece raised right now? Marjorie, I see 

your hand.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: I just have a question 

of clarification about the reinstatement as well. And 

so, it says under B that the reinstate will be no longer 

than 60 days after the date of notification. Is there a 

rationale for that “60 days” or is there a reason that 

it couldn't be longer?

MS. MACK: Bethany, did you want to answer 

that question or have a thought on that? Okay, did 

anyone want to answer that particular question or speak 

to it?

MS. HONG: I just want to make sure looking 

-- Marjorie, can you point me to where your --

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: It's -- so, I read 

ahead a little bit so it's right under the new language 

so after what's been struck through. There's --

MS. HONG: Paragraph seven.

MS. MACK: We've scrolled, and I think we 

are showing that B on screen.

MS. HONG: Okay.

MS. LILLY: It's on the next page.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Next page.

MS. LILLY: (Interposing). 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: Right there.

MS. HONG: An explanation that the first 

(audio).

MS. MACK: Yeah, we've got it on the screen 

there under C, little --

MS. HONG: B.

MS. MACK: -- (iii) B.

MS. HONG: Right. An explanation that the 

first payment due date on the loan following 

reinstatement will be no earlier than 60 days after the 

date of the notification reinstatement. I think this is 

just how we've operationalized it in terms of -- yeah, 

I'll have -- let me circle back with you with a better 

answer. That's, that's been the existing process for the 

Secretary's notification for reinstatement of loans.

MS. MACK: Okay, we can circle back to that 

and make a note of that. Bethany, I saw your hand next.

MS. LILLY: So, I want to agree with 

Marjorie on that point. And I have another clarifying 

question that you may need to get back to us on, which 

is, presumably some of the folks who have their loans 

reinstated may be current students who are in deferment 

while they're finishing school. And so presumably, that 

60-day window wouldn't apply to those students. I just 

want to explicitly state that, though, so that, if there 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

needs to be something added on that point, you'll think 

that through. 

And I just wanted to add -- I mean, if the 

Department is open to it, I certainly think that 

revisiting the 3-year date, I -- it does seem to be 

fairly arbitrary. And I -- to Daniel's point -- I mean, 

I don't know that I have a particular number for the 

Department, but I don't know that we should stick with 

three simply because that was the number chosen. 

And so, I might need to get back to the 

Department with a recommendation once I've thought 

through some particular data on that point, but -- I 

mean, we all know that the heightened costs of having a 

disability in this country make it incredibly difficult 

to afford many things. I mean, the National Disability 

Institute estimates it's about 25 percent more expensive 

for folks to live with a disability. And so, I think 

recognizing that, which the TPD program does initially -

- doesn't necessarily mean that folks won't have need of 

additional schooling in the future to maybe adjust to 

having a new type of disability. I think of folks who 

have had traumatic brain injuries, who have gotten into 

car accidents and had spinal cord injuries, there's a 

possibility that education can be incredibly helpful at 

that point to shift career paths. And so, I need to do a 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

little thinking on that.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Bethany. Michaela, I 

saw your hand next, please.

MS. MARTIN: On the topic of the date -- the 

days deadline, is that -- the days throughout the 

requirements are all different and can be kind of hard 

to track. And so, I was just wondering -- so, I’ve been 

-- for example, there's 90 days of the date the 

physician certifies, right, which also is a very short 

amount of time, and then another date is 120 days. If 

maybe they could all just be 120 days to kind of 

standardize that time limit and make it easy, so people 

weren't like, "Was that one 60 or 90 or 100?" Would add 

kind of a -- an easier-to-track timeline.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Michaela. Jennifer.

MS. HONG: So, I think this -- looking at 

this process -- is important. I just want to emphasize 

that these rules were last negotiated, I believe, in 

2012. And so, at that point in time we discussed it. I'm 

sure that it's in the preamble, we can have staff look 

at it, why we arrived at the timeframes that we did. For 

the blackened text, that means the current regulations. 

If we could hone in on the actual 

amendatory text, I think that that is where we're trying 

to shine the spotlight in terms of what we want to 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

change. And what I'm understanding is that there's --

folks have voiced their support for the concept of 

eliminating the income monitoring period, but there is 

some question about the 3-year time period for the 

reinstatement of loans for getting -- if you get a new 

loan. Is that -- I think that's what I'm hearing. Is 

that correct? Or are there questions of retaining --

okay, of retaining the reinstatement for any conditions?

MS. MACK: Daniel, do you want to speak to 

that?

MR. BARKOWITZ: Yeah. So, I guess I'm struck 

by the fact that the Department notes that 92 percent of 

students -- 92 percent of the half of those who don't 

certify -- would be eligible for full cancellation 

anyway. So, that would argue that there are 8 percent 

that wouldn't be. So, by and large, we're acting for the 

majority -- or the vast majority here -- and understand 

that there may be some folks who wind up slipping 

through. I wonder -- and it's more than an "I wonder" 

question -- what it would look like if we were to 

eliminate this condition entirely. Because there may be 

some students who have a significant disability and then 

need retraining in a career program. And what would it 

look like if this entire clause were removed along with 

the income piece? Is that -- how does the Department 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

feel about that as a possibility?

MS. MACK: Jennifer, do you want to speak to 

that?

MS. HONG: Yeah, I would just say that we 

would be interested in understanding and hearing more 

from you all on that point. I mean, I think we've honed 

in on the income monitoring keys because that was really 

what was identified as the barrier. And I guess the 

assumption underlying the reinstatement once a new loan 

is taken out -- and so, I don't know, I guess that's the 

question that we wanted to pose to you all.

MS. MACK: Bethany?

MS. LILLY: As a -- I know that we're 

supposed to email the facilitators about data requests. 

So, I will certainly pass this along, but I just as a --

I think it might be helpful and get us some of the 

answers to this if we had a sense of folks who maybe go 

back and look at new loans, if you have any data on that 

-- if that's an element of kind of the analysis that GAO 

or other folks have done of the monitoring period, that 

would be interesting for me to see. I don't remember it 

from any of the GAO reports, but if there is anything on 

that, I think that could be useful. Because I could 

certainly see somebody exactly in a situation Daniel 

outlined, who had a particular career, then encountered 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

a type of disabling condition that requires a completely 

different career, and how that would work there. So --

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Bethany. Any 

other clarifying questions or comments on this 

particular part that we have not already addressed? 

Okay, I am seeing none. This is going to be 

a great opportunity for us to take a temperature check 

for tentative agreement. I just want to see, folks, 

thumbs on what has been redlined so that the Department 

can have some meaningful feedback, and us, facilitators, 

have some meaningful feedback on what's been proposed 

thus far. This is not an official consensus check. We 

are not taking a check for agreement, just a signal on 

how we feel about this redlined text. Can I please see 

your thumbs? 

Okay, I'm seeing everyone has an up or 

sideways thumb. Thank you for that. That is extremely, 

extremely helpful. There are a number of questions here 

that we want to circle back to Department of ED to 

address these things and I'm understanding that some 

data points and some other suggestions may be

forthcoming around that subpart. Anything else before we 

move on to the next? Joe, I see your hand.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify 

that temperature check was just on the elimination of 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the 3-year monitoring period, is that correct?

MS. MACK: That's correct. Okay. Shall we 

move on to the next subpart? Jennifer, you walk us 

through.

MS. HONG: Yes. The next subpart has to do 

with the fact that, for those who currently qualify for 

TPD discharge based on an SSA Disability Determination 

must be in the Medical Improvement Not Expected or MINE 

category, and that is outlined in current regulations in 

order to qualify. 

However, we are aware that there are other 

data sets, perhaps, that SSA has available that someone 

could potentially meet the statutory definition for TPD, 

and we want to ensure that we're encompassing all those 

individuals that could potentially qualify for TPD 

discharge. 

And a couple of statuses came to our 

attention and that is Compassionate Allowance, which is 

a status where the borrower has one of a predefined set 

of serious conditions that SSA can fast track because a 

condition is highly likely to qualify for disability 

determination. Now, of those individuals that are --

request a review for Compassion Allowance, how many of 

them may be -- may qualify for TPD discharge and how can 

we ensure that we -- those individuals get captured in 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the match. The next status is a Medical Improvement 

Possible or MIP status, and that has been renewed at 

least once. So, it's our understanding that SSA focuses 

on how long it expects that a disability is to persist. 

MINE is the only status -- current status 

the Department employs, and it requires an individual to 

be reviewed every 5 to 7 years, thereby meeting the 16-

month continuous disabling condition as outlined under 

the statutory definition. MIP requires disability 

reviews within 3 years. So, a borrower who is approved 

for disability benefits in an MIP category once and then 

whose approval in the MIP category was subsequently 

renewed, would be in that disability status for 6 years, 

thereby meeting the statutory definition of a condition 

that’s lasted or expected to last 5 years. So, we wanted 

to consider the MIP status. 

And finally, we recognize that there are 

individuals that have been placed in the retirement file 

in SSA but were previously in MINE status. So, 

therefore, once a borrower in the MINE or MIP status 

hits retirement age, they often move into SSA's 

retirement file and no longer show up as eligible for 

disability benefits. So, we would like to allow those 

borrowers receiving SSA retirement benefits with a 

disability determination date at least 5 years in the 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

past to qualify for TPD discharge. So, there are some 

details that we would need to work out in terms of the 

process of finding these individuals for an SSA match. 

While SSA can report the date of disability 

determination, it cannot report who in the retirement 

file has had a prior MINE status. That means the 

Department will not be able to identify borrowers who 

had a MINE status but entered their retirement file 

prior to any of the matches conducted with SSA. So, we 

have questions about that as well. So, we are -- we 

would like to hear your thoughts on the inclusion of 

these three statuses into the regulatory text. And I 

will direct your attention to -- let’s see, this would 

be on page four, Vanessa, the amendatory text at the 

bottom of page four and into page five, addresses some 

of these issues.

MS. MACK: While Vanessa is scrolling, I'm 

going to invite questions and comments for this 

particular subpart of the topic. Bethany, I see your 

hand.

MS. LILLY: Sorry, you all are going to be 

hearing from me a lot this time around.

MS. MACK: Please, (audio).

MS. LILLY: So, going back to your first 

definition of the statute -- because I'm not sure if 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

there's just a disconnect between ED understanding how 

SSA uses diary categories and how that works. So, 

apologies if this is stuff you already know, but there 

seems to be some confusion here. 

So, there are three categories of folks in 

the statute who are eligible for the discharge, folks 

who are -- die or likely to die, and that's the 

Compassionate Allowance list. I'm really glad to see 

that added to the list of categories here. This is --

these are folks with very likely to be terminal 

disability, so, I think that's a really great addition. 

Then you've got folks who, in the future, will have had 

their disability for 5 years. And though that's the 

prospective kind of category folks and those are the 

folks who are in the MINE category, who are in the MIP 

and have been reviewed once, those folks are likely to 

have their disability for 5 years. 

But then there are also the folks who have 

had their disability for 5 years, and, as you said, 

that's something SSA tracks, that's something they could

data share with you. There are lots of folks who might 

not be classified as MIP or be classified as MINE, but 

who have had their disability for 5 years, so who meet 

the statutory definition. And I don't see anything to 

help those folks here. And that concerns me because 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

those are folks that -- there's a responsibility from 

the Department. If there's statutory authorization to 

discharge this debt, you don't suddenly get put in MINE 

if you've been on Disabilities for 5 years. That's not 

how the system works, you actually -- they have a pretty 

strict rule about when they apply the MINE status, and 

it has to do with age, it has to do with how many times 

you've been reviewed. Sure, folks get their kind of 

medical diary category reviewed every time they go 

through a CDR, but it's not -- you're not going to 

magically capture everyone who's been on the program for 

5 years, just with the MINE categories. That's not how 

those categories work. They're very prospective. 

And so, I would really encourage the 

Department should be taking a look at the retrospective 

category here. You can look at the onset date of 

someone's disability, if it's 5 years out, and they've 

been on social security benefits since then, that's 

pretty clear indication that they've had a disability 

for 5 years. And I think that would help a lot of folks. 

I mean, one of the major concerns we have in this 

context is that folks oftentimes have their social 

security benefits garnished -- offset to U.S. treasuries 

-- (interposing).

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds. 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. LILLY: -- pretty language here. Thank 

you for the warning. And so, I just want to claim that I 

really think you need to take a look at that category of 

people. Because they're just missing now.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Bethany. Anyone 

want to speak to that or have additional comments or 

questions? David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: So, I really appreciate that, 

Bethany and I'll admit to not having the technical 

expertise that you clearly have, although I think I'm 

convinced by what you share even if I -- I'll be honest, 

I couldn't follow all the acronyms. And so, I'm 

wondering if -- and I don't want to -- I'm very hesitant 

to give anyone homework -- but I am curious as to 

whether you or you working with someone could propose 

actual amended language to capture that group in a way 

that that you're suggesting because I'd like -- I'd love 

to consider it. And I think seeing the language would 

help me follow your argument a little better.

MS. MACK: David, I appreciate those 

remarks. It's very solution-oriented. So, Bethany and 

others, if there is a suggestion there for everyone to 

consider, I think I agree with David, that would be 

extremely helpful. Anyone else have additional comments 

or clarifying questions for this? Jennifer, please. 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. HONG: Just real quickly, that they 

appreciate so much that you're here. And I just -- I 

want to be clear that you are supportive of what is 

currently in the issue paper, you're just saying to also 

include the retrospective piece as well.

MS. LILLY: Yeah, I'm very supportive of 

what you've added. I think it does a good job of 

capturing the -- I hate calling it this -- but the death 

category, and then also the prospective categories. I 

just -- I do think you need to add that retrospective 

piece. And I'll try and drop some language in the chat 

that would capture that to help out David.

MS. MACK: David and others, I'm certain, 

yes. Perfect. Okay, Persis, I see your hand.

MS. YU: Thank you. So, I completely agree 

with Bethany for the need for -- to both identify folks 

who have experienced their disabilities for over 16 

months, because I think that's a lot of the folks who we 

see come in because they don't even know that this is a 

possibility. So, a lot of folks do -- are going to have 

met that criteria, and I think that that is easily 

identifiable. And I thank Bethany in advance for her 

language. The question that I have is, how does this fit 

in with the announcement about automating relief? I 

noticed that the language still continues to say that 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the -- there will be an application process. And so, we 

were ecstatic to see that disability relief is provided 

automatically as of last month, but I'm not exactly sure 

how that fits in with this particular proposal. And we 

would hope that the Department plans to continue to 

automatically grant relief to everyone who can be 

identified through social security or whatever other 

processes.

MS. MACK: Department -- let me ask -- is 

that something you'd like to speak to and answer?

MS. HONG: Yes. Yeah. It just -- Simply, 

Persis, we have to retain that language in the 

regulation for anybody that wants to apply by physician 

certification, for example, that the automated process 

takes care of everyone else, you'd have to say.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for that, 

Jennifer. Jaye, I saw your hand.

MS. O'CONNELL: Yes, I -- the regulatory 

sites are focused on direct loans, and I wondered about 

conforming changes to fail to allow for the same 

automatic qualifiers.

MS. HONG: Yes, we just -- for the proposed 

-- for the draft language, we just -- we're just showing 

you the DL language, but all this would be conforming 

for the other loan programs as well. 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. O'CONNELL: Thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay, thanks for that question, 

Jaye, and answer, Jennifer. Any add -- Jaye, please. 

Okay. Any other additional questions or comments on this 

particular section, which we have not covered? Okay. I 

would like to ask again for your thumbs. Not for a 

consensus check, let me be clear, just for tentative 

agreement, your temperature on this particular proposed 

section. All right, so, if I could see your thumbs in 

terms of support and agreement on this particular 

section, where are folks at. I believe I have seen 

everyone's thumb and, again, they're all for this 

juncture -- at this juncture up or sideways. Thank you. 

That was very, very helpful. All right, Jennifer, I am 

going to turn it back over to you to continue to walk us 

through the proposed solutions.

MS. HONG: Great, thanks. Okay, the next one 

in this text's subtopic is fairly straightforward. It's 

more technical in nature, and that is to expand the 

allowable SSA documentation. And we just need to amend 

the regulations to reflect the current practice of 

allowing borrowers to submit a Benefit Planning Query or 

BPQY, which is (audio) documentation produced by SSA, 

that contains similar information to the newest award 

and is -- excuse me -- easier to obtain. And where this 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

is all captured in the same section that Vanessa has up 

on the screen.

MS. MACK: Are we seeing the applicable 

provisions on the screen now or do we need to scroll at 

all?

MS. HONG: No, we're good. Right here under 

-- one minute -- "iii".

MS. MACK: Perfect. Okay. Let me open it up 

to the group. Any questions or comments on this 

particular subpart? Bethany, please.

MS. LILLY: So, this goes also to the 

eligibility stuff that we just discussed. But I don't 

want the Department to lose its flexibility to accept 

other types of documentation. And I know that you were 

starting to accept BPQYs earlier, and I think that's 

good. If something seems to be working and the 

Department wants to accept it, I don't want them to lose 

that ability to do that. And just technically, I think 

that could be done or other SSA documentation indicating 

this would be an easy statutory addition there -- or 

regulatory addition there. I will say that I think if 

you expand to the retrospective piece, there are a lot 

of other SSA paper that you could be thinking about. 

There are 1099 tax forms that folks could submit that 

would verify that they have received social security 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

benefits for 5 years. There are also printouts from the

MINE social security website that might be appropriate. 

And so that's partly why I'm suggesting that I want the 

Department to keep that flexibility because if you're 

going to update the eligibility piece, I think there are 

other pieces that you might want to accept here. So that 

is the extent of my question there.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Bethany. Did anyone 

want to comment on that point or any additional comments 

or questions on this subpart? Okay, same thing, I would 

like to check for tentative agreement or temperature 

check on this particular portion so that you can 

indicate your support thereof, what are folks thought on 

-- thoughts on this subpart. Please, show me your thumb. 

Okay, so 17 of them. Thank you. Again, I think they were 

all up or sideways. Let me know if I missed someone. 

David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: In just a similar comment, 

I'd love to see those other forms of evidence that could 

be considered and ways that we could build in the 

flexibility for some discretion on the part of the 

Secretary to allow for some greater flexibility for 

those that can benefit from these benefits.

MS. MACK: Okay, and everyone continue to 

monitor that group chat, because there are some ideas 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

being shared and captured there. Okay, thank you, David. 

Thank you, Bethany. Let's move on. Unless there was 

anything else comments or questions on that point, we'll 

move to the next one. Jennifer?

MS. HONG: Great. The next subtopic is with 

regard to accepting TPD certifications from certain 

healthcare professionals who are not physicians. So, we 

want to expand the list of the eligible signers to 

include both nurse practitioners and physician's 

assistants who are licensed to practice in the United 

States. We've been able to identify a source for 

verifying licensure of nurse practitioners. However, we 

still are looking for some way to verify licensure 

status of physician's assistants, so we would be open to 

hearing from negotiators on that point. And the general 

point about expanding the list of signers.

MS. MACK: Okay, we have a number of hands 

raised. So first, I had David in order.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, and we're moving quick, 

which is awesome. Really supportive of moving fast, but 

just a procedure process question. We're having language 

suggested, which is awesome. But as to previous points, 

are we trying to run through everything and then we're 

going to go back to the beginning, or what? I mean, this 

is -- I mean, I don't know, since we're doing this via 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Zoom, we kind of have to figure these things out so that 

we can kind of set the precedent moving forward. I just 

don't want to lose this text. Hopefully, it's being 

copied and pasted and saved to some place. But I'd also 

be good with returning to a point sooner rather than 

later so that we could resolve things.

MS. MACK: Great questions. And, David, I 

imagine that each issue will look a little bit 

differently in terms of how expeditiously we'll be able 

to move through it and its subparts. Right now, I want 

to make sure that we address any preliminary questions 

and comments about what's being proposed by the 

Department. If there are any data points that we need, 

I'd love to identify those. And if there are any 

suggestions for additions, I'd love to address those. I 

appreciate your invite for specific text. And to the 

extent that those are being shared in the chat, I think 

that we should in fact capture it. 

I am not sure that this group will be ready 

to return to this for an official consensus check today, 

after revisiting these data pieces or language that's 

being put in the chat, but if the committee is ready, in 

fact, to move to a consensus check, I'm happy to do 

that. If not, then we will return to this for some 

additional dialogue, make decisions on whether 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

additional edits should be made, revisit those tentative 

agreements that we've talked today to signal where folks 

are out with this, and then move for an official 

consensus check. So that was an answer, not necessarily 

-- maybe not what you were looking for. David, did that 

answer your question?

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I think so. And I 

wasn't pushing towards a consensus vote, just iteration 

of the text. I don't want that to be lost. So as long as 

there's a plan to return to the suggested language and 

that topic for additional consideration, I'm happy. I --

we’ll get to the consensus votes when we get to them.

MS. MACK: We will definitely track that and 

return to that for consideration and conversation. Okay, 

Justin, I saw your hand next.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks so much, Kayla. 

I just want to say, we’re probably supportive of this 

addition in terms of the types of certifications. It’s 

these nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant pieces 

of info and certifications are relevant in VA 

determination process. So, we think it’s an appropriate 

area of priority between -- that was in the VA system 

and outside. 

The one thing I would flag here, and not 

that it’s necessarily inappropriate, but we’d love to 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

get some thoughts on the need for folks to be -- or for 

these individuals to be licensed by a state. Again, not 

that it’s inappropriate but just with taking into

consideration folks that may live overseas and perhaps 

have difficulty in identifying and/or getting somebody 

that’s licensed in a U.S. state. So, maybe along the 

lines of the flexibility that was discussed previously, 

but just some thought to that will be much appreciated. 

Thanks.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Justin. Joe, I have 

your hand next.

MR. SANDERS: Hi. So, I spoke with my 

professional regulator here in Illinois on the topic of 

-- sort of related to what Justin was talking about on 

state licensure. They could give me a database, the AMA 

keeps a database. And there’s a subgroup at the AMA 

that’s the PAs, so that’s a possibility. I’m happy to 

give a link on that.

The other issue that they raised was, in 

Illinois, during these types of certifications, they 

thought what probably be within a nurse practitioners’ 

scope of practice, and they were concerned about 

physician’s assistants because their scope of practice 

is often defined by collaboration agreement with the 

physician. These are often required for insurance to 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

cover procedures done by PAs.

I raised this with Bethany earlier and she 

helpfully pointed to some language that social security 

administration uses on this scope of practice. 

So, I think that my professional 

regulators’ concerns will be alleviated if we just put 

in a qualifier in the position that notates that any

physician’s assistants can make these certifications 

provided it’s within their scope of practice.

And as to Justin’s point, I don’t -- I’m 

not taking a position on “yes, they should absolutely be 

licensed, but to the extent we’re talking about state

licensure we wanted to pull the last so that state and 

federal law are working in tandem as opposed to being at 

odds.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Joe. Jeri.

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Hello. I just want to 

support everything everybody’s been saying because 

there’s a huge problem in poor or rural -- especially in 

rural and poor communities, where they don’t have access 

to doctors.

So, I think this is really important to 

keep in mind as we’re moving forward agreeing with 

everything everybody else said as well. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jeri. Bethany. 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. LILLY: So, generally, I want to agree 

with everything that’s been said. I -- The list that Joe

mentioned earlier is acceptable medical sources, SSA has 

a list on it and it’s a subregulatory list and if you 

take a look at it, you may notice that they have folks

who have particular specialties in dealing with 

particular types of disabilities. Because we’re talking 

about disabilities, mental health disabilities are a big 

one, visual impairments are a big one. And so, there’s a 

collection of other providers that have particular 

specialties in this that the Department might want to 

think about. 

Given that, SSA has already done this with 

the regulatory work, I think that might help just in 

terms of have -- giving you guys something to take a 

look at it.

One thing that I really wanted to emphasize 

here is, disparities when it comes to mental health care 

across this country. You really can’t access a 

psychiatrist in a lot of places, so SSA has expanded 

their criteria to include psychologists, there are also 

licensed clinical social workers who in some states can

in fact diagnose things. 

And I would just say that that is a massive 

shortage across this country right now that lots of 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

folks face. 

Jeri is completely right and I will echo 

all of her points about rural and specifically lowincome communities also having those challenges. 

And so, as you’re taking a look at this and 

thinking about other criteria, I would specifically say 

looking at mental health providers would also be 

important, and looking at other specialists too who have 

that particular expertise in a particular disability 

piece, because, I mean -- I think that there are plenty 

of doctors who might feel uncomfortable filling out the

form for someone if they don’t have that particular 

specialty. 

And so, that’s just something to flag to

all of you. 

And I would also flag -- because I thought 

about this when I was looking at -- thinking about the 

PAs licensure piece -- there are other agencies that 

verify kind of the providers in one way or another. 

You have Medicare reimbursement, you have 

Medicaid reimbursement, you have federally qualified 

health centers, you’ve got NIH, you’ve got VA medicines.

I assume you have some type of out-of-state or 

international -- I don’t really know how it works on 

military bases internationally and I’d be curious if 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

there’s something that -- where you have the implementer 

of the folks saying, “hey, these are the doctors you can 

go see in the current foreign country.”

And so, I would be curious if there is 

something there that you can look at in terms of both 

getting at Justin’s question, but also maybe getting a 

little broader than licensure databases if you are going 

to be extending their criteria.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Bethany. If 

someone else had their hand up and it’s now down, I’m 

going to assume that your remark or question is no 

longer to be made. But -- So, make sure you raise your 

hands if you’re going to -- inadvertently lowered it. 

Bobby, please.

MR. AYALA: That was me, but everybody had 

already said it so beautifully, so I didn’t want to 

repeat what everybody said, so --

MS. MACK: Perfect, that works for us, we 

appreciate not being duplicative. Any other questions or 

comments on this particular section? Daniel, please.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, the Department indicates 

that it’s having difficulty finding a way to certify PAs 

and I wonder if (audio) looked at NCCPA, which appears 

to be a licensing body or certification body nationwide, 

and whether or not the department has considered their 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

certification as a potential source. And I can put the 

link to the information in the chat if that would be 

helpful. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for putting that 

in the chat so the folks can refer to that. Any other 

comments or questions at this time? Okay, I am not 

seeing any. If we put a -- excuse me, a kind of 

agreement check on what you see here from -- proposed by 

the Department, would you indicate your support and 

agreement again through a tentative agreement 

temperature check at this time? 

Okay, so I’m noting that we would not all 

be in agreement at this particular point. Anyone who 

have their thumb down, I would appreciate very much if 

you could articulate the reason for that, so that we may

all have that to consider as we move forward. Joe, 

please. 

MR. SANDERS: I would just want that phrase 

that I put in the chat in there, so that -- it 

acknowledges that the state’s scope of practice matters 

in terms of signing the certification.

MS. MACK: Okay, that is extremely helpful 

and we are going to track all of the suggested text over 

there so we can refer to that back in our dialogue 

together. Any further coins on this before we continue 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

to move on? Okay, Jennifer, can I turn back over to you?

MS. HONG: Yes. It’s so helpful. Okay, and 

the final subtopic on this issue paper is concerning 

providing greater protection around the physician’s 

certification of the TPD discharge form. 

We just want to add some language stating 

that we will analyze physician’s certification forms to 

verify any patterns that suggest potential cause for 

concern. 

This could include large numbers of forms 

from a single individual, for example. 

We would have the ability to refer

concerning practices to the OIG, the Office of Inspector 

General, and to decline to accept physicians’ 

certifications from that individual. And we just feel 

this is important as part of eliminating the income 

monitoring period and giving more options on physicians’ 

signatures and documentation. 

We do want to include some language giving 

us some ability to deal with potential fraud in the 

physicians’ certification process. 

This is a better situation for borrowers 

and it really helps us avert potential fraud, which is 

important because of the concerns in this area back in 

2012, which is why I created the monitoring process in 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the first place. So, I welcome your thoughts and 

discussion on this piece.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Jennifer. Michaela, 

please.

MS. MARTIN: I was just wondering if there 

is any definition for patterns of concern, just because 

that seems so ambiguous and just kind of -- I wasn’t 

sure exactly what would qualify. 

Also, when you’re opening up something to a 

nurse practitioner or PA that otherwise hasn’t been able 

to sign this document, there’s the potential, especially

in the beginning, when you’re going to have a higher 

volume of folks who previously couldn’t assist patients 

in this way that now are going to, so you likely could 

have quite a few -- multiple from one particular PA, 

especially in rural communities. 

For example, I see a PA and he serves quite 

a few people there. 

So, if he’s now able to sign this 

documentation when he wasn’t previously, I just wonder 

how that’s going to factor into what you’re calling 

patterns of concern. 

And again, particularly in that start up

time.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for those 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

questions, Michaela. So, I will invite folks who can 

answer some of those questions around the patterns of 

concerns to raise their hands so that we can circle back 

to that. The next hand that I saw is Bethany, please.

MS. LILLY: This actually builds on 

Michaela’s question, which I think is excellent. 

I really think that this is an area where 

ED might want to think about working pretty closely with 

the SSA, Office of Inspector General as well, because 

they do an extensive amount of work on the disability 

determination process and analyze doctor patterns and 

analyze other patterns, and I’m sure they could tell you 

kind of things that they look at rather than -- and just 

have been doing this for a lot longer.

So, I would just really encourage that the 

two Offices of Inspector General kind of work on those 

criteria together, because I think we don’t want to find 

ourselves in the situation where somebody, as Michaela 

described, in a rural community is verifying everybody,

because they’re the only provider who can, and get that 

person in trouble when really -- they’re doing exactly 

what we want them to be doing. 

I really wanted to flag that as something 

that you can think about going forward.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you. Can we scroll, 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Vanessa, to just ensure that we are looking at the right 

page? I think it’s on five. Okay. Is this where we need 

to be, everyone? Yes, perfect, alright. Persis, I saw

your hand next.

MS. YU: Thank you. I’m largely -- want to 

echo on what Michaela and Bethany had said. But this 

section causes me a fair amount of concern. 

I said that when I worked for a legal 

services provider in Rochester, New York, there were not 

a lot of practitioners and most of my referrals came 

from a single source, and so, we worked through it with 

VA clinics, we worked with HIV clinics, and it would 

typically be the same person who I would engage with.

I would be very concerned about creating 

some kind of chilling effect where those folks would no 

longer feel comfortable signing the certifications.

And so, I would like a little bit more of 

information from the Department about what they would 

consider to be a pattern of concern and why they would 

find it concerning. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay, that’s very helpful. I just 

want to welcome Greg to the main table. Dixie, the 

primary, is having some internet issues, I believe, so 

Greg is going to step up for this particular topic in 

her absence. Thank you and welcome, Greg. Justin, 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

please.

MR. HAUSCHILD: Yeah, thanks so much, Kayla. 

I just want to echo the concerns raised by Michaela and 

Bethany, particularly when it comes to rural areas.

A quarter of veterans returning from active 

military service end up residing in rural areas, it’s 

somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.7 million individuals 

perhaps, and so, that is a concern.

In addition to what has already been 

mentioned, when it comes to particular specialties that 

might be relatively specific, a particular practitioner 

that specializes in that, they might see a 

disproportionate number of certifications, and so, I 

just want to flag that as well, thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you, Justin. Does 

anyone else have any additional comments or questions on 

this that we have not already covered? Jaye, please.

MS. O’CONNELL: I just wanted to say that 

Will as my alternate would like to speak. I’m not sure 

if that’s the right protocol, but --

MS. MACK: Yes. Will, we will welcome you to 

speak on this particular subtopic.

MR. SHAFFNER: I appreciate that. Thanks.

So, it’ll be quick. 

I do appreciate the comment here for 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

suggesting patterns of concern. I’m also leaning on the 

side of not defining this and keeping it broad. And I 

understand the concerns that folks have mentioned so 

far. Based on information we found, it appears that 

about 46 percent of all borrowers have engaged or are 

currently engaged with some type of organization such as 

a Doc Prep or a Debt Relief Organization that is 

assessing additional fees when they don’t need to be and 

borrowers are paying these fees when their federal 

servicers and other organizations are offering this for 

free. And so, these organizations are nimble, they are 

quick and they don’t use the same efforts over and over 

again. 

So, the Department does need flexibility 

when it comes to evaluating what is happening when it 

comes to forms and the completion of forms. 

And it’s not only to protect and make sure 

that someone might not -- might be certifying TPD 

incorrectly or doing TPDs inappropriately, but it’s also 

to protect the borrower, to make sure that there’s not 

some type of abuse that is happening by another 

organization filling out a federal form on their behalf. 

So, I really agree. I understand the 

concerns, but the Department does -- they need the 

ability to look and just see if any patterns arise. So, 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

it’s very difficult to predefine that because these 

organizations are tremendously sensitive to enforcement,

and if they see that something’s being tweaked, they’re 

going to pivot.

So, I don’t want to pin the Department down 

too much in this area, so I just wanted to ensure 

there’s thoughts on this. Thank you.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Will. David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: I definitely share Will’s 

concern about these organizations that are attempting to 

profit off of students and former students. And so, I 

think there may be a place within the regulations that 

we could do some additional work there. 

This language here, I’m not sure if it’s 

relevant to that. Maybe I’m missing something since it 

specifically mentions physicians, nurses or physicians’ 

assistants only in it, and it doesn’t mention any other 

organizations that may be working on this area. I’m not 

sure if there’s a connection there, but I could be 

missing it. The other -- I welcome others who could 

enlighten me on that. 

The other question that I have is, do we 

have data on how often this happens? Specifically, with 

health care providers. I’m sorry, my dog’s making noise 

in the background. But do we have data on how often this 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

happens? Is this really a concern? Do we have anything 

to validate it? Are physicians just doing this on behalf 

of students in a way that we should be concerned about? 

MS. MACK: David raised two questions. I 

encourage anyone that can speak to either one of those 

to please raise your hand so that we can get some 

feedback on those, and not lose track of those questions 

raised. Joe, I saw your hand next.

MR. SANDERS: Yeah. I can address one of 

David’s questions. First of all, I certainly hear Will. 

That student loan debt relief scam is a big problem. My 

office has something like 10 lawsuits over the last five

years against these entities. We get -- Over the last 

couple of years, we’ve probably had over a hundred 

complaints. They’re definitely nimble, all those things 

are true, but I agree with David that I don’t know that 

this section is particularly relevant to SLDRs. 

In Illinois, we made some amendments to our 

Debt Settlement Act, which specifically addressed SLDRs. 

There’s other federal regulation on this, the Stop Act,

it’s a new one. 

And so, I don’t know that this -- I would 

be more concerned with the -- in terms of priority --

with the concern that Persis raised, where you have a 

provider that works for legal services and that person 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

might want to get out of the business because they don’t 

want the Department breathing down their neck. 

So, I have a lot of experience with student 

loan debt relief scams. That is where I would fall on 

this one.

MS. MACK: Thank you, Joe. Brian, please.

MR. SIEGEL: Hi. Just a couple of things.

I’ve worked on these programs for more than 30 years, 

and every few years we get some very significant 

criminal prosecutions in this area of -- usually, one or 

two doctors on a particular practice falsifying borrower 

disability discharge applications, sometimes in 

connection with SSA, sometimes not. 

So, this language was just intended to 

address those situations. Is it -- Do we have specific 

numbers? I’m not aware of any. But they tend to be large 

cases when they come up and, I think, at least what I’ve 

seen is, then -- they give the program a blackeye and 

then you have more pressure on the Department to tidy 

things up.

So, this language is designed to just put 

people on notice that we’re going to analyze the 

information that’s out there, and we’re going to take a 

look at it and take action to protect the federal 

office. 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

I understand the concerns about how it’s 

phrased and the concern about when these new 

certification authorities -- go into effect for people 

who are new and in new areas, and that’s something that 

we can certainly look at and possibly address it. 

I also note that we have this authority 

whether or not we include the language, so it’s more 

that we’re including the language as a way of putting 

people on notice about that we intend to do this. 

MS. MACK: Thank you for that, Brian. 

Persis, I see your hand next. 

MS. YU: Yeah, so this kind of actually gets 

into the last piece that Brian was just mentioning that 

the Department already has the authority, these forms 

are first signed under penalty of perjury of law, so 

whether or not this language is truly necessary, given 

that the Department does already do prosecutions if they 

have reason to believe that somebody has -- is 

committing fraud in this way. And so, I’m just concerned

that since the Department can do this anyways, whether 

or not -- on the balance -- whether or not, the chilling 

effect is going to be more detrimental to borrowers than 

the effects of the fraud, given that we can already do 

it anyways. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for that. Any 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

other comments or questions that we have not already 

fielded? Okay, I’m seeing none. Let’s do what we have 

done for the prior subparts. Based on the conversation, 

the questions asked and answered, and the clarification 

provided by our general counsel from the Department, 

what are everyone’s thoughts in terms of a tentative 

agreement on the language specifically proposed here? 

Again, this is the temperature check for tentative

agreement. Can I see your thumbs? 

Okay. So, for this one we actually have a 

number of downward thumbs. Then we know we have some 

more work to do on this particular subpart.

Jen, is that all of the proposed solutions 

and subparts of this particular topic? 

MS. HONG: Yes

MS. MACK: Perfect. Pretty good. We said we 

were going to take a break right at 2:15 Eastern time. 

So, we are right on schedule. Let’s take a quick 10-

minute break, and as soon as we come back, we will get

ready to start with our second issue. Thank you all very 

very much. I’ll see you in 10 minutes.

(Recess from 2:15 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.)

MS. MACK: (audio) issue and invite the 

Department to address that. But before we do, we have a 

couple of announcements by way of primary and alternate 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

participants for this next issue, which is closed school 

discharge. Again, I believe that Greg will be stepping 

in for Dixie, for their constituency group, and then 

Persis, primary, will be stepping away for this 

particular issue, so we’re inviting Josh to the table as 

the primary. Josh, I see your hand raised, please.

MR. ROVENGER: Yes, thank you. I’m very much 

looking forward to the conversation on closed school 

discharge, and before we move to that topic, I did just 

want to revisit the conversation we were having earlier 

about adding a specific borrower to the committee and 

who has attended a for-profit school. 

We’ve been able to secure one such borrower 

to be a primary negotiator and another to be an 

alternate, and both of them are members of the Sweet

class but not the plaintiffs. 

I’ll just reiterate the points that Persis 

made before that these two borrowers are not only 

important to discuss their experience with their schools 

and the unique experiences that they have there, but 

also their interactions with the Department of Education 

and the difficulty that they had for years to this 

point.

MS. MACK: Would you be able to share with 

us the identities of these individuals, Josh, that you 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

are putting forward?

MR. ROVENGER: Yes, I’ll put them in the 

chat right now. 

MS. MACK: Alright, and for our viewing 

audience who cannot see that chat as we post, would you 

also read them aloud for me, Josh?

MR. ROVENGER: Of course. For primary we

would nominate Ashley Pezzuti (phonetic) and for 

alternate Evelyn Cervantes, and both of them are 

watching the livestream right now ready to jump in.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for that, Josh. 

Jessica, I see your hand.

MS. BARRY: Yes, thank you. I’ve been 

thinking about this since we talked this morning, and I 

think if we were going to add another seat to the 

negotiations, I think we should have time to think about 

nominees.

It’s really difficult, in my mind, I’m

racking my brains over the last couple of hours thinking 

if I could nominate someone, and it would be very hard 

for me at this point to find someone immediately who can 

take off work for this week and get up to speed on these 

issues and be able to really become a part of the 

committee and be effective. 

So, I’m wondering if we’re going to add a 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

seat, could we think about doing that for the next 

session? That way we have time to think about nominees 

and put them forward and give them the time that they 

need to prepare.

MS. MACK: So, there are a number of hands 

going up. Let me remind you all that the protocols do 

say if we’re going to nominate someone and if we reach 

consensus on that, those individuals become and the 

expectation is they are readily available.

So, Jessica, if there is someone that you 

want to nominate at a later date, we can subject that 

individual to a consensus check at that time. 

I think that Josh, on behalf of their 

constituency, are nominating these individuals with the 

expectation or hope that the committee will take a 

consensus check on that at this time, if and when -- if 

you are in fact ready. David, your hand was up, sorry I 

missed you. No? Okay. Does anyone have any questions or 

comments on the nominations that are up for your 

consideration at this time?

I’m giving you a long pause so that you can 

think about it. Noelia, please. 

MS. GONZALEZ: Hi, yes. I have a question. 

Are we looking at -- or have we decided to add another 

seat? So, are we voting on the idea of putting in --
56

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

opening up another or the actual people? 

MS. MACK: So, we’re going to take a 

consensus check, if and when the committee is ready, on 

these actual participants. That would not prevent 

individuals from bringing forward new nominations at a 

later time. 

Any other questions or comments? Committee, 

I’m going to ask -- Heather, please.

MS. PERFETTI: We’re just going to inquire 

if there’s any additional information that can be shared 

about each of these individuals. I think that would be 

helpful what went forward with all of our nominations,

including some additional pieces of information about 

us. 

So, I think that would be helpful, at least 

to me, in having a better sense and understanding of who 

these two students -- I believe they’re students from --

representing the experience at a for-profit institution, 

but I’d like to have a little bit more information if 

you have it.

MS. MACK: Great question, Heather. And 

Josh, if I can ask you to provide some additional 

information on these individuals, so that when the 

committee takes the consensus check they can do so in an 

informed manner. 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MR. ROVENGER: Sure. Both of them were 

students of the Brooks Institute, which is a for-profit 

school that has since shut down. Both of them have 

asserted to the Department borrower defense claims a 

whole host of issues and based on both their recruitment 

and their experience at those schools. 

And both of them for both of those 

applications the Department has sat on the applications,

which is why they’re members of the Sweet class action, 

which sought to compel to the Department to decide their 

claims. 

So, I think they’re unique. One, because 

they’re able to speak to the dynamics that are at play 

when we’re discussing for-profit schools, particularly 

one that has since shut down, and two, able to speak not 

only to the application process of borrower defense and 

these discharge regimes, but also to the impact on their 

lives, of -- the Department of Education’s failure to 

decide their claims. 

And they got a particularly important 

point, given that one of the specific questions that ED

--- that the Department has on borrower defense does 

relate to the time that it should be taking to decide 

those claims. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Josh. Any 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

further questions or comments? Daniel, please.

MR. BARKOWITZ: So, a question about the 

public comment period and the ability to caucus. 

So, if we do not accept these two as

proposed, they can still serve as public commenters in

the public comment period, correct?

MS. MACK: Yes, they could register just 

like anyone else through that link that was shared 

earlier and try to access the public comment periods,

which we will get as many folks as we can each day in 

the final 30 minutes of our sessions. 

They also -- the public can register for a 

link for it to be livestreamed. (audio) Okay. Thanks, 

Daniel. Josh, please. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks. I just want to

respond to that point from Daniel. So, first, I think 

public comment, at least for the near term may be 

(fullso they may not actually have that opportunity as a 

practical matter.

But I do think, as all of us here could 

attest, there’s obviously a distinction. Public comment 

is essential and important, but it’s not the same as 

having a seat at this table. 

And I think for-profit students are in a 

unique situation. They have not only been -- many of 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

them have not only been defrauded by their schools, and 

with respect to the Department of Education, have been 

failed by their government entirely. And so, I do think 

it’s a perspective and a voice that is really important 

to have at this table. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thanks for that, Daniel. 

Thanks for that. Cindy, please.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, I just wanted to make 

sure that Daniel’s question was answered in its 

totality. I thought I heard two pieces to that, one with 

the public comment piece and the other piece was about 

the ability to caucus with anyone that you wanted to 

during your caucus time. And I’m not clear if we 

answered both segments of that. Daniel, can you respond?

MR. BARKOWITZ: That was also -- thank you, 

Cindy. I was also curious about the ability for them to 

be a part -- or part of any caucus that might take place 

with the representatives of student borrowers or the 

other representatives that might be called upon. 

MS. MACK: I’m sorry. Thanks for bringing 

that to my attention, Cindy, and apologies, Daniel, if I 

was remiss for that point. If they are not on the 

committee, we will not bring them actually into the Zoom 

platform to caucus, but just like anyone else, once you 

are in those breakout caucus spaces, you could call 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

those individuals for consultation separately. Right?

Thanks again, Cindy and Daniel. Marjorie, please.

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: I just have a 

clarifying question about -- I believe we talked about 

this earlier, and so, it’s just not clear to me, are 

these students not a part of this legal case? And if 

they are, doesn’t that mean that we -- they aren’t able 

to serve -- I apologize, because I feel a little bit 

confused about that point. 

MS. MACK: That’s okay. We have addressed 

that somehow, but let’s provide some clarification. 

Josh, can you answer that question?

MR. ROVENGER: Sure, so, the Sweet class 

action, I don’t, off the top of my head, remember the 

precise number, but I think it was in the hundreds of 

thousands of class numbers. And so, they’re not named 

plaintiffs in the case, because the Department of 

Education had this giant backlog of borrower defense 

claims that they were sitting on and there’s just a

whole bunch of borrowers who are included in that class. 

And I think, as Mr. Siegel pointed out before, just by 

virtue of the nature of the class action, there was no 

way for them to opt into it or optout of it once the 

class -- once the court certifying the class, they were 

in that class. 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. MACK: And Jennifer or Brian, if there

is more that we need to flesh out to answer Marjorie’s 

question or provide clarification, please let me know. 

David, please.

MR. TANDBERG: I’d like to recognize my 

alternate, Suzanne Martindale. She has something she’d 

like to share with the group. 

MS. MARTINDALE: Thank you, David. 

MS. MACK: Suzanne, (interposing) go ahead, 

Suzanne, please.

MS. MARTINDALE: Yeah, so, on this point 

about the inclusion of student borrowers who have had to 

live the experience of seeking borrower defense claims, 

I think their perspective is incredibly valuable. 

We have representation, I think, whether 

it’s wearing our official hat or unofficial hat at this 

table of folks who have tried to get an income driven 

repayment, who have experienced interest capitalization,

who are seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness. But I 

think -- and people who are seeking TPD discharge, but 

in terms of folks who may have tried to get a closed 

school discharge, and/or tried to file a borrower 

defense claim, I think centering the first-person 

experience of those folks is very very valuable to get 

into in detail during these negotiations. 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

As a state regulator, we receive consumer 

complaints on student loan issues, and so, a lot of the 

work that we do at the Department is trying to 

understand what the borrower thought they were supposed 

to be doing when they were interacting with a loan 

servicer or with the Department of Education or with 

their lender. And I think that centering the borrower’s 

experience on all these different kinds of discharge 

options is going to be really crucial to make sure that 

we’ll get it right in terms of the regulations. This, 

Department, I applaud you for pulling together an 

incredible committee of people, and it really 

demonstrates your commitment to tackle long overdue 

problems and to address the fact that we put the burdens 

on student borrowers way too long, to have to navigate 

all these different repayment service and discharge 

options. So, it’s a great opportunity to right that 

wrong. 

And for these reasons I think that having 

this category in this instance, given that a few of your 

issues pertain to borrower defense as well as the closed 

school option, it feels like a valuable addition to me. 

And also, for what it’s worth, I’ve served 

on past committees where new categories, new folks were 

added on day 1, and it ended up being very valuable for 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

the ensuing sessions. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Suzanne, for those 

remarks. Any final comments or questions around this 

motion for nomination? Heather?

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, I think I 

heard that these two students have a similar experience 

from the same institution, and if that is accurate, is 

it better to consider students who have different 

experiences to hear a broader perspective than one that 

may pertain only to one institution and one experience 

going through that, then, with the Department? So, I 

just put that out there for thought and consideration. 

MS. MACK: I appreciate that, Heather, and I 

will just remind you all that the protocols contemplate 

adding members, not necessarily primaries and 

alternates, so it would be such a thing that this 

committee could add one of these individuals and not in 

fact both as primary and alternate. I apologize, I saw a 

hand, but it went down, so if I’ve missed someone, 

please don’t hesitate to re-raise that hand. Okay.

MS. MARTIN: You’ve answered my question, 

thank you.

MS. MACK: Not a problem. Alright, let me ask 

the group this. I am inclined to ask you for a consensus 

check on these individuals separately at the moment, 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

unless you indicate to me that you need additional time 

to contemplate the space on the conversation. 

Okay, I’m not seeing anyone indicate that 

they do in fact need additional time, so, I’m going to 

ask each of you about adding these individuals as members 

to the group and will ask all of you to show me your 

thumbs. Before I do, Josh, can you pronounce these names 

for me one more time so I do not butcher them for all to 

see? 

MR. ROVENGER: I’ll do the best I can. Ashley 

Pizzuti () and Evelyn Cervantes (phonetic). 

MS. MACK: Cervantes and Pizzuti (), thank 

you for that. Michaela, I see your hand. 

MS. MARTIN: I’m sorry, it’s a little bit 

different of a question. So, I know it sounds like 

there’s some folks that have reservations right now about 

adding someone without having the opportunity to 

consider, and I was just wondering if maybe we could 

consider, let’s say, we voted on an alternate right now. 

That way if folks want to present a different person, 

then either that alternate could become the primary or 

this potential new person could be the primary and they 

would work together. Or that gets too convoluted?

MS. MACK: I don’t think we intend to add 

multiple alternates that could sub in for one primary 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

person. I do in fact think that that would be 

(difficult). Did I misunderstand you, Michaela? 

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, I just meant one -- as a 

place holder -- because I think that for this next topic 

it’s really, really important that we have that voice at 

the table, right? So, my fear is that right now, because 

folks feel like they haven’t had enough time, that 

they’re going to vote “no” because they want that 

additional time, but then we’ll have this whole 

conversation, and a -- I don’t know -- saying that I hear 

often is that “nothing about us without us,” and I think 

having that voice while we’re having this conversation 

right now is important. So, if it’s possible to vote in 

one alternate that for today would operate, of course, as 

the person at the table for this conversation, but that 

still leaves the opportunity to readdress at a later time 

who would be the primary moving forward. Could this --

could that work for folks? 

MS. MACK: I think I’m following you. Per the 

protocols, if we vote in an individual, they will take 

their place at the table immediately. It does not 

designate or deem them to be an alternate, but another 

primary for the purposes of consensus vote. So that’s --

I think, to be true and consistent with the protocols, we 

need to take a consensus check on whether you are adding 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

these individuals to be a primary at the table from here 

throughout the remainder of the process. The protocols do 

not contemplate adding additional members solely for the 

purpose of being an alternate, or to be part of the 

process for just one issue. So, if you are adding these 

individuals, I want to be clear that you are doing so as 

a primary for consensus check throughout the remainder of 

the process. Does that address your thoughts, Kayla --

Michaela? Kayla and Michaela. Josh, please. 

MR. ROVENGER: Alright, so I hear what

Michaela is saying and one thought I have -- and I don’t 

know if we can do this under the protocols -- is just 

having an initial vote on whether we want to add a seat 

dedicated to this constituency of borrowers, and then 

from there we can consider Ms. Pizzuti (). And, for what 

it’s worth, I think it’s telling that both of these 

borrowers not only have been watching today but are ready 

to jump in to have their voices heard, but that may be 

one way to address the concerns that Michaela was 

flagging. Do we want this constituency at the table just 

generally? 

MS. MACK: Understood. My thought is that we 

would in fact vote on these individuals becoming members 

rather than voting on just a seat, and then needing to 

take a separate vote to find the right person to fill 
67

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

that seat. But I will ask the Department if my 

interpretation of the protocols and plan for moving 

forward is the same. Otherwise, I think my fear is that 

we’re opening it up to multiple consensus checks. “Should 

there be a seat? Is this the appropriate constituency? 

And then, who do we fill it with?” But, Jennifer, if I’m 

mistaken, please, let me know. 

MS. HONG: No, I think you’re thinking about 

it the right way, Kayla, take a vote on the individuals. 

MS. MACK: Okay, then I am going to move your 

committee to a consensus check, first, on adding as a 

member for the duration of the process, to be included in 

all consensus decision making, Ms. Pizzuti (). May I 

please see your thumbs? 

Okay, Ms. Pizzuti () will not be admitted as 

a member of this committee because we have not reached 

consensus on that. For adding Ms. Cervantes, and again, 

apologies if I am not pronouncing the last names 

correctly. Does the committee wish to add this individual 

to (audio) for purposes of the remainder of the process 

in consensus decision making? 

Okay, I’m again seeing a number of thumbs 

down, which means again we are not in consensus on adding 

either of these individuals to the committee. Right? I 

appreciate that dialogue and the motion, Josh, and the 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

ensuing conversation. If short of anything else, I am 

going to move us into our next issue.

Okay. The second issue on our agenda today 

was “closed school discharge” and I’ll invite Jennifer to 

open that issue up for us. 

MS. HONG: Thank you, Kayla. This is issue 

number two. Among your issue papers for closed school 

discharge, I will ask Vanessa to go ahead and pull up 

that issue paper. Would you have the proposed regulatory 

text associated with it? And you can go ahead and put us 

on page eight of that issue paper, to the amendatory text 

at the bottom of the page. Vanessa, thank you so much. 

Give me one second here.

MS. MACK: Jennifer, while you’re hunting 

that down, I did want to let folks know that right now 

public comment is closed for today, but it is still open 

and there are slots available for tomorrow and through 

the rest of the week, for those in the public who are 

viewing this right now and are interested in 

participating in that. Sorry, Jennifer, back to you. 

MS. HONG: Okay, thank you for sharing that. 

So, our next issue is “Improving borrower access to 

closed school discharge.” Again, this issue is listed as 

issue paper number two on the website. Just as a bit of 

background, section 437 (c) (1) of the HEA authorizes the 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Secretary to discharge the loans of certain borrowers 

when a school closes.

In order to qualify for a closed school 

discharge, a borrower must have been enrolled at the 

institution on the date of its closure, or have withdrawn 

no more than 120 days prior to its closure, or 180 days 

for loans to made on or after July 1st, 2020. They must 

not have graduated from the school, or transferred their 

credits to complete the same or comparable program at 

another school. We have several concerns we feel we could 

remedy in the closed school discharge regulations for the 

benefit of borrowers who have experienced this type of 

disruption and who look to have a fresh start.

The first issue we would like to start with 

is to restore automatic discharge. We see when we put up 

paperwork requirements for borrowers, it does create 

roadblocks to relief. We would like to reinstate 

automatic discharges for borrowers who do not enroll 

elsewhere, but reduce the period before automatic 

discharges occur from three years to one year following 

closure. 

As you may know, just last week the GAO 

noted that over 50 percent of the borrowers who received 

automatic discharges were in default, and without 

automatic relief, only a small percentage of eligible 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

borrowers ever got the relief they were owed. And this is 

precisely why we want to reduce the automatic discharge

window to one year. It would make it far less likely that 

a borrower who did not apply for closed school discharge 

could end up in default before receiving automatic 

relief. 

So, at this point we’ll go again subtopic by 

subtopic, but I would like to hear from the committee on 

restoring automatic closed school discharge within --

with a one-year wait out period. We have an attendant 

regulatory text pulled up already. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Jennifer, and 

thank you to Vanessa for sharing the screen and pulling 

up the relevant text. Questions and comments about this 

particular portion? Josh, please. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thank you. And I just want to 

start all by saying that we are broadly supportive of the 

Department’s decision to reinstate automatic closed 

school discharge, and it’s particularly important, and as 

discussed -- The data from 2014, for example, showed that 

about 6 percent of those eligible for a closed school 

discharge actually applied, and between 2011 and 2015 

only about 20 percent of those eligible actually had 

their loans discharged. So, we really are excited and 

pleased that the Department has decided to reinstate the 
71

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

automatic closed school discharge and reduce the time 

limit.

We are concerned, however, that the proposal 

denies that automatic relief to borrowers who attended 

school before 2014. In our experience, those are the 

borrowers who are least likely to even know of their 

right for this relief, who had been burdened for the 

longest by these loans, and whose unpaid federal loans 

may have prevented them from ever starting over, for 

example, because their loans are in default, or because 

they are already closer at the federal borrowing limit. 

And, in our view, it’s particularly unfair to treat these 

loans worse than those who have attended school more 

recently. We’re thinking we’re happy to discuss this 

later on when we get to the comparable program 

requirement, but the easiest solution here would just be 

to go back to the statutory language and eliminate the 

comparable program requirement, which isn’t actually in 

the HEA to begin with.

We can discuss that more fully then, but 

some other alternatives that the Department should 

consider, in our view, would be eliminating it 

specifically from this group or, an absolute minimum, 

flipping the presumption that the borrower transferred 

credits to any comparable program. Because right now, as 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

I understand in the regs, it essentially presumes that 

they did transfer credits and requires an attestation 

form if they did not, and one possible solution here 

would be just to flip that around, give them some sort of 

time period to inform the Department whether they had in 

fact transferred credits and otherwise made the automatic 

discharge for anyone who attended a closed school from 

1986 to 2014.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you very much, Josh. 

Jessica, please.

MS. BARRY: Sure, thank you. At first, I have 

a broad question for the committee and for the 

Department. I think obviously we’re all trying to think 

what is best for students during these difficult school 

closures and always felt that the higher education 

community has been aligned in thinking that teach-out 

plans and transfers of credits to other institutions were 

the best options for students. I know the recent GAO 

report exposed challenges that students are facing when 

completing teach-outs and transferring credits, and it 

seems that there are some pretty significant issues that 

need to be addressed to help students complete their 

education in these situations.

But if we suggest moving forward with this 

proposal that reinstates automatic discharges, I think 
73

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

more students will receive closed school discharges and 

fewer students will complete teach-out plans and transfer 

their credits to other schools. I fear that the Secretary 

will discharge thousands of borrowers who withdrew from 

their institution for personal reasons and were not 

impacted by the school closure or the degradation of 

educational quality. And I just wonder if the Department 

and other committee members could share their thoughts on 

that. 

MS. MACK: Thanks, Jessica. So, if anyone 

wants to speak to that and share some thoughts on what 

Jessica raised, please raise your hand. David, you are 

next.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, I’m wondering if the 

provision regarding if the borrower did not subsequently 

re-enroll in any other institution -- is that statutory? 

Because I’ve always felt like that disincentivize reenrollment, which is, I think, ultimately what we want is 

the students to re-enroll and subsequently complete their 

education, but they’re -- now they’re faced with the 

decision of, if I re-enroll, my loans aren’t discharged. 

So, is that statutory or is that language that we can 

consider here? 

MS. MACK: Okay, another question that I 

would like us to keep track of, so that we can circle 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

back to that, so if anyone, including Brian, has the 

answer to that, please let us know. Jeri, please. 

MS. O’BRYAN-LOSEE: Hi, just in support of 

the discharge. The teach-outs and transferring? Great 

idea, but you’re talking about institutions who have been 

spiraling, they just don’t close on a whim, there’s 

something leading up to accreditation being pulled, or --

the committee last week that met talked about cops being 

at the front door locking the doors on people who were 

trying to go to class. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction to 

close, and with an institution -- I’ve worked in higher 

education for almost 25 years in an institution that has 

been steadily going downhill. To lead to closure there’s 

an issue with transferring credits, and I just want 

everybody to keep in mind the process for closing down a 

school is not a weak decision, so there are issues that 

come along with that. 

MS. MACK: Ok, thank you Jeri. Heather, 

please. 

MS. PERFETTI: Thank you. So, like some of 

the others, we too found broad support in the proposals 

here, but what I would just comment about in reaction to 

some of what’s already been stated is, closures have 

distinctions, and we have seen institutions that have 

managed their closure well, and we have certainly seen 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

sufficient examples of those where it was not handled as 

well. So, we’re seeing ranges of closures.

We also have unique transactions that are 

contributing to closures and they probably don’t think of 

some of those as closures. So, mergers, consolidations, 

acquisitions, all ultimately end with an institution 

officially closing, and in many of those circumstances 

the institution is in good standing, but an institution -

- multiple institutions made a decision to engage in a 

transaction that hopefully results in a stronger 

institution in the end.

I think the teach-outs are critical, the 

transfer issues are critical, the process of teach-out 

plans and teach-out programming is iterative. What you 

see at the beginning is not always what translates at the 

end once an accrediting agency is reviewing that for 

consideration and approval. So, all of those issues I 

think embedded here where the range of closures are so 

wildly different. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Heather. Josh, please. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thank you. So, I’m going to 

tackle a few of the points that have been raised so far. 

In the first, I just want to take a step back and say 

that when a school closes -- a closed school discharge is 

never going to make a student whole. It kind of provides 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

a borrower some necessary relief, but even for those who 

are able to transfer credits to another program, it’s 

still devastating to students who have given up jobs to 

go to school, or spent months or years in this program 

that they can no longer finish, many of whom it should 

able be noted, have taken out private or institutional 

loans to further that degree that isn’t addressed in 

something -- It isn’t addressed in the closed school 

discharge.

In -- with respect to transferring credits 

and teach-outs -- So, the data just doesn’t back it up 

that this is a viable option. A 2019 GAO study found that 

about 4 percent of students who attended for-profit 

schools between 2004 and 2009 were actually able to 

transfer their credits, and even those who did,

approximately 94 percent of them lost credits and weren’t 

actually able to fulfill their degree requirements for 

their intended major. More recently, the GAO just reached 

-- released a report saying that only a 13 percent of 

those students who transferred after their school closed 

actually completed the program.

So, the idea that these -- that we should be 

pushing for transferring or these teach-out programs 

rather than discharging the loans, and that the student 

wants to transfer elsewhere -- It should be a “yes, and...” 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

approach rather than one or the other, and I think, 

again, to the question that, I think, David raised 

before, it’s the comparable require -- it’s the 

comparable program requirement statutory here, is it 

something that actually has to be in here, and it’s not. 

The HEA is very, very broad in its language, and that the 

Secretary shall discharge the loan if the student was 

unable to complete the program in which such student is 

enrolled due to the closure of the institution. So, it’s 

a regulatory burden that’s been added and has just 

prevented borrowers and our clients from obtaining 

(interposing).

MR. TOTONCHI: 30-second warning. 

MS. MACK: Do you have anything else, Josh, 

after that 30-second warning?

MR. ROVENGER: No, thank you.

MS. MACK: Okay. Now, thank you for your 

remarks. Jennifer, your hand is next, please. 

MS. HONG: Thank you. So, I just -- I want to 

make some clarifications and I realize that we’re taking 

these subtopics, these discreet subtopics one by one just 

to kind of get a temperature check on how everybody is 

feeling, but they are interrelated, so, Josh, I 

appreciate you jumped in ahead to the comparable program 

discussion. 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

I just want to make abundantly clear that 

our goal here is to create more ways for a borrower to 

stay eligible for an automatic discharge, even if they do 

not enroll in college again. And re-enrolling would not 

preclude them from getting a discharge. We simply don’t 

have data prior to -- reliable data prior to 2014, so 

this is when we’re proposing -- what we are proposing 

under a comparable program, and that is an attestation 

that they did enroll in a comparable program, which we 

would define as a program with the same credential level 

and in the same field of study, and which accepted most 

of the credits transferred from the closed school. That 

is a question to be raised, whether that is a reasonable 

standard, most credits transferred. The 2016 rule on 

automatic discharges said that anyone who enrolled 

elsewhere was not eligible for a discharge regardless of 

the program enrolled in, and under current practice, a 

borrower is not eligible for a closed school discharge if 

they identify that program is similar and some of their 

credits transferred. We wanted to adopt a more generous 

set of eligibility criteria, so that’s what we’re opening 

up for discussion, in terms of comparable program. We do 

-- there’s some just straightforward -- trying to get an 

idea of how people are feeling about automatic closed 

school discharges, and then also, the one right after 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

that is just establishing a consistent window. We have 

one window applying to one set of loans, and the other --

to another. So, we’re just going to make it all one

eighty (phonetic). So those are the first two. I don’t 

want to jump around too much, but I do appreciate that 

these issues are interrelated, but -- my point being, is 

that the Department is absolutely, we want to get behind

more generous standard here, so that we can discharge 

these loans for students. 

MS. MACK: I’m going to piggyback on 

something Jennifer said, and perhaps reiterate it. These 

are in fact broken down in the issue papers in the 

subparts, so let’s stay focused on one time. I’m going to 

lean on all of you to help me hold that accountable, 

because you are the subject matter experts, and as a nonsubject matter expert, it’s not always very clear to me 

that we have in fact jumped ahead, so I’m going to ask 

for each and every one of you to help me regulate that. 

Focusing on this first subpart, I’m inviting additional 

comments or questions. Marjorie, please. 

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, thank you, again, I 

think there’s agreement that this is certainly a good 

proposal and a good start to the conversation in 

supporting students being able to discharge their loans 

from institutions that have closed. There are a couple of 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

points that I wanted to -- I guess maybe clarify, and 

maybe bring up for a general discussion. One, in some of 

these conversations, it almost seems like we’re shifting 

the burden from the institutions to the students, through 

no fault of their own are these institutions closing, and 

so, to hold them responsible for these loans from an 

institution that -- for whatever the reason it no longer 

exists -- seems to be punishing the students.

In addition, for many institutions that have 

closed, there are often institutions that predominantly 

serve marginalized students, so, women, lower income 

students, older students, adult learners. So, there are 

lots of students who are within these groups who are 

further discouraged from continuing education if they’ve 

already had these loans that are not discharged 

automatically. So again, if we’re thinking about equity 

and equitable access to continued education and postsecondary education, it wouldn’t make sense that we 

support this for all the students that are across the 

board.

And then, for the issue of transfer, 

transfer is a really difficult topic, and even within the 

same systems -- so, New York, Texas, California, we have 

large university and college systems -- even for students 

within the same system it’s very difficult to get credits 
81

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

to transfer, and so, to sort of use students within this 

group to simply say, well, they can transfer their 

credits and then go somewhere else. The research and

scholarship doesn’t support that. We know for a fact that 

(audio) often need a lot of time trying to get their 

credits transferred, only to find out they have to take 

these courses again, and so, we’re almost charging these 

students twice if we’re not allowing for automatic 

discharge across the board, regardless of whether or not 

they enrolled in different programs, or whenever they 

might decide to go back to school. So, that’s just one 

part of the language that I think could be addressed to 

provide more clarity, and make it clear that we’re not 

holding students responsible for these closures, which 

are not their fault. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Marjorie. David, 

please. 

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah, echo what Marjorie said, 

she said it very well. A promise was broken to the 

students, and so, not their fault, and the repercussions, 

I think, as Justin said earlier, the repercussions echo 

throughout their lives and their educational career, and 

we want to provide every incentive for them to move past 

that, re-enroll. And so, what I would suggest, as far as 

changes to the language, is that we keep the proposed 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

language, one says “If the Secretary determines” 

etcetera, etcetera -- comma, “The Secretary may discharge 

the loan without an application from the borrower,” 

period, and strike what comes next. So, we would strike 

“If the borrower did not subsequently” on, and on, and 

on, close period. So, that would -- all of that language 

would be struck, we’d just end with a period after 

“borrower”.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you for that suggested 

edit, David, and perhaps when we do a consensus check for 

tentative agreement, we can take into account the 

existing language as is here, or the proposed friendly 

amendment from David. Thank you. Josh. 

MR. ROVENGER: Thanks, I’ll be quick. I don’t 

want to monopolize the conversation. I do want to start 

just by echoing and amplifying everything Marjorie said, 

and agree entirely, and it was very -- just on point. I 

do also want to respond to something that Jennifer 

mentioned in her last remarks. We appreciate that the 

Department here is trying to create a more generous 

standard, and one that will facilitate the discharge of 

these loans, and we are, as I mentioned before, in 

support of automatic school discharges for as many 

students who are eligible as possible. I guess one 

specific question I would have is, what data is the 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Department missing to be able to grant these discharges 

for students before 2014? And then, as a follow-up, if 

the Department only rescinded or eliminated the 

comparable program requirement for that group of people, 

at that point would the Department still be missing data 

or would it be able to effectuate the automatic closed 

school discharges for those specific students?

MS. MACK: Thanks, Josh. And actually, 

Jennifer, you are my next hand, so, I know you have some 

thoughts, and if you have any feedback to Josh’s 

questions, that would be helpful as well. 

MS. HONG: Sure. I just -- well I was still 

on David’s suggestion here, and I just -- I wanted to 

point out that we need to retain this one-year period, 

remember, because we don’t want the students going into 

default. So, it’s not that we’re going to discharge the 

loans, it’s just that for the automatic discharge we 

can’t let -- as espoused by the GAO, if we keep that 

window too long, those students are going to go into 

default, right? So, we want to make sure -- we want to 

find a way to help them -- most of them get their 

discharges within a year and a half. We have the window 

for a year to get their automatic discharge, and then 

what we have proposed for institutions based on their 

date of closure is to ensure that these students get 
84

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

their discharge. They may not get it automatically, but 

to ensure that they get their discharge for their school 

closures. 

For example, for those institutions that 

closed between July 2014 and June 2019, if they did not 

enroll in a program at the same level and with the same 

four-digit CIP code as the program that they were 

enrolled in the closed school, they could still receive -

- even if they enrolled in the same program essentially, 

they would still receive the discharge, but they would 

have to submit an application and state in that 

application that they did not transfer most of their 

credits. That is the only -- that is far more generous 

than what we had in ’16, and the point being, is we 

wouldn’t be able to issue the automatic discharge. We’re 

proposing to limit the window to one year to (audio) --

to prevent those students from going into default. That’s 

the idea. 

MR. TANDBERG: So, could we just strike the 

“If the borrower did not subsequently re-enroll in any 

title for an eligible institution” and -- but keep the 

one-year window? It’s the re-enroll part that I don’t 

like, and I think that it’s a negative incentive on 

students and doesn’t recognize the harm done on them, so 

if we could get rid of that but keep the one-year period, 
85

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

that would be great. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thanks for the comments, 

Jennifer, and then that friendly amendment, David. So, 

the suggestion now is to cross out the re-enroll portion 

but retain the period of one year on part of that 

provision, and I’m seeing some folks in the chat saying

that they support or appreciate that suggestion. Bobby, I 

saw your hand next. 

MR. AYALA: Yes, I also really support 

David’s proposal to strike the language, and I also 

wanted to give an opportunity for our alternate for twoyear colleges to speak, so, if we can open the forum to 

Christina.

MS. MACK: Okay, let’s invite Christina to 

the forum, to share with us on this portion. Hi, 

Christina.

MS. CHRISTINA: Am I connected?

MS. MACK: You are. 

MS. CHRISTINA: Hi, good afternoon. I am 

speaking from -- doing many years of work outreach to 

displaced students and displaced borrowers, specifically 

through some volunteer work through our national 

organization, which is NASPA From a student’s point of 

view, which I had the opportunity to receive, this is --

this process of closed school discharges and -- is 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

fraught with pitfalls and complications, and the minute 

you start mentioning CIP codes I start rolling back, and 

that’s just so deep in the weeds of financial aid policy 

and academic structure that you don’t -- that language 

gets so complicated to students, they just -- they’re 

already stuck in a complicated situation, then they start 

to feel hopeless because not only are they facing 

discharge as months go by, they can’t see their way out 

of it, and then we start throwing our wonky language 

their way, and the depths of despair just begin to 

exponentially deepen.

And so, what I also see in community college 

is that students come from other academic experiences and 

closed schools and etcetera, and they don’t get many if 

all of their -- all or any of their transfer credits, 

particularly (audio) degree, so now we have this wasted 

time towards their new academic or continuation of their 

original academic goal. We’ve got Pell lifetime units 

ticking away, so they’re no longer -- they begin to lose 

eligibility for their grant aid, they have lifetime 

borrowing limits --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30-second warning. 

MS. CHRISTINA: -- that begin to be chipping 

away and then, again, with that despair, they see their 

resources diminishing and not making any progress, and it 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

becomes very disheartening. So, I would second David’s 

proposal to eliminate the language that requires any type 

of re-enrollment. Thank you. 

MS. MACK: Thank you, Christina. We still 

have a number of hands up, so I want to make sure that 

we’re focusing in, again, solely on this subtopic and are 

only sharing questions and comments that haven’t been 

previously made, in the interest of time, because our 

public comment is coming up in a very short period of 

time. Jessica, please. 

MS. BARRY: Thank you. So, I have a question. 

If we are to keep the one-year window, is it actually 15 

months until a student defaults? And this is just -- I’m 

just trying to clarify this, does this six-month grace 

period figure into that? Because I’m thinking about if we 

were to keep this, and if the student -- say, their 

institution closes in July, and they’re going to a 

traditional type college, they probably would miss the 

application deadlines and would actually have to start 

that following August, which would be past that one-year 

mark. So, I know there’s a couple of questions in there, 

but I just wanted to get clarified on that period. 

MS. MACK: Okay, anyone has the answer to 

that particular question? Please, raise your hand so that 

we can share that information out. Greg, please.
88

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MR. NORWOOD: Yeah, I wanted to be --

Jennifer mentioned (audio) some application process She 

went into a whole thing. I guess I just want 

clarification as to why that would be a need. What would 

the reason for that need? I don’t think that was 

answered. I think she mentioned the process, but I would 

just -- Because I think what Christina is mentioning is 

just this added burden on students that I think Marjorie 

mentioned earlier as well. That -- it seems like the 

blame is been shifted, so there’s yet another process on 

top of the process. So, I’m just trying to understand 

what would be the reason for that, if she can clarify 

that. If the Department could clarify that, excuse me. 

MS. MACK: Alright. Heather, please. 

MS. PERFETTI: I have a question, too, that 

is probably best directed to the Department, ensuring 

that this provision that we’re looking at now -- if we do 

have three independently accredited institutions, whether 

for-profit or public, and they consolidate, so there’s 

one surviving institution, are the other two then 

considered closed pursuant to this provision, even if 

they become a (branch) campus or and additional location 

of that now surviving institution? 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Heather. So, 

there are being a number of questions asked, and so the 
89

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Department hopefully -- we can track these if there are 

no -- if we don’t have answers readily available for 

everyone, particularly given the time we have left. But 

Jennifer, your hand is actually next, please. 

MS. HONG: So, just to bring us back, and 

for your pleasure, Kayla, we are actually discussing --

and again, I appreciate that these are interrelated, that 

we’re actually discussing the comparable program issue, 

which is the third subarea -- I want to -- while the 

language -- proposed language is not perfect, we do want 

to get a sense of conceptually reinstating an automatic 

closed school discharge process as well as establishing 

consistent windows, so just keep those in the back of 

your mind, because Kayla will be taking a temperature 

check on those two issues.

We did anticipate a lot of discussion on 

this particular issue, we want to get it right. So, if we 

strike -- there’s no point in a one-year period if we 

strike the re-enrollment language. I understand what 

you’re trying to get at, but the full idea is that when a 

school closes, a borrower has the option to either 

continue their studies or walk away, and we want to give 

them that one year to decide whether they want to 

continue or not. If they do, if they do continue, they 

will still get a discharge. It just won’t be an automatic 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

one. And again, the one-year -- the point of the one-year 

window is to prevent those borrowers from going into 

default. There was another point that I wanted to make. 

If prospectively we can be more generous, for example, 

for newer borrowers after 2019, you would receive 

borrowers -- borrowers who enrolled at another school 

would receive a discharge, so long as they did not accept 

and complete an accreditor-approved teach-out program.

So, this is much narrower than what we have 

currently in our regulations. And a clock on the 

automatic discharge window would be paused while the 

borrower is in a teach-out program, and would re-start 

after they leave the teach-out if they do not finish. So,

I appreciate the complexity of this particular issue, we 

want to get it right, but I want to make clear that the 

whole -- the point here is to improve the process for 

borrowers. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Jennifer. We only 

have a few moments left, and I know that there are 

several folks with their hands up. So, I want to make 

sure that anyone with their hand up truly has a comment 

or question that has not been shared or asked already and 

is solely around to the first solution, reinstate 

automatic closed school discharges. The remaining topics 

we will address tomorrow morning when we pick back up 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

with this issue. Okay, so, the hands are remaining up, so 

I’m going to count on this being about reinstate 

automatic closed school discharges. Josh, please. 

MR. ROVENGER: (audio).

MS. MACK: Josh, unfortunately you are 

robotic right now. We’re having a difficulty with your 

audio.

MR. ROVENGER: (audio).

MS. MACK: Unfortunately, that is not better. 

MR. ROVENGER: (audio).

MS. MACK: No, it’s not. May I move to the 

next hand and I’ll come back to you in just a moment? 

Okay. Michaela, please. 

MS. MARTIN: I personally -- and this has 

been asked, I think, in a couple of different ways, but 

just really want to hone in that it has not been 

answered. Why -- if there is going to be a discharge of 

the loan, why that wouldn’t be automatic? Just very 

simple. If it’s going to occur either way, then are we 

not creating an administrative burden for the Department 

of ED, but then also for students who have to go through 

the process? Particularly, I want to point out that one 

of the largest student borrowers are student parents and 

in specific student mothers who often can receive 

benefits also, and that time that you spend in school is 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

ticking the clock of how many benefits you are allowed to 

receive from the state. And so, that aspect of what 

students are losing isn’t made up in any way during this 

process. And when you have to navigate benefit systems, 

and your school closing, and potentially going back to 

school, if you’re trying to continue, and all of the 

other things that go with that, having -- then also 

another application process I think it’s just too much to 

put on a student, and I think that we really should 

strike that, and if you get the discharge anyways, why 

wouldn’t it be automatic?

MS. MACK: Okay, so I’m going to note that 

question, why it can’t be automatic, Michaela. Heard loud 

and clear that that’s an answer the committee is 

desiring. David. 

MR. TANDBERG: Just point of clarification, 

because I think Michaela and I are asking the same 

question. Michaela, you’re referring to those students 

who re-enroll, why can’t their discharges be automatic. 

Is that correct? Okay.

MS. MARTIN: Yes.

MR. TANDBERG: Yeah. That’s my same question. 

I don’t understand why we couldn’t just make it automatic 

for all students, whether they re-enroll or not. 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, David. Josh, 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

let’s try again.

MR. ROVENGER: How is it sounding now? 

MS. MACK: So much better, thank you. 

MR. ROVENGER: Perfect. I apologize for that,

but thank you, now, I just --

MS. MACK: No problem. 

MR. ROVENGER: -- I have some questions for 

the Department, and I can submit these formally, as well 

to the facilitators, but I’m interested for the group of 

borrowers who attended schools that closed between 1986 

and 2014. Number one, can the Department confirm that it 

provided individualized notice to all of these borrowers, 

that they were entitled to closed school discharge 

relief? -- or potentially entitled --. Two, how long 

after the school closed, on average, did the borrowers 

receive the notice? And three, has the Department 

provided any such notice since that -- if the Department 

did provide any notice, has there been anything more 

recently? 

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, Josh, for those 

questions. Do we want to --

MR. ROVENGER: (interposing) questions I 

think will inform, in our view, some -- will inform the 

discussion over on why an automatic discharge (audio). 

MS. MACK: Unfortunately, Josh, we have lost 
94

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

you again, so if you do log out, we’ll admit you again as 

soon as we can. Apologies for the connection right now. 

So, we have noted a couple of questions that we will need 

to come back to for this particular subpart to move 

forward with the process and the dialogue around this. 

I do in fact want to take a check with you 

all for tentative agreement. If the language were as 

proposed, as you see on screen, for this particular 

subpoint, where would everyone land? So, this will be my 

last invitation of your thumbs for the day. So, could I 

see your thumbs on the proposed solution around reinstate 

the automatic closed school discharge? 

Okay, so we are primarily sideways and 

several thumbs down on this particular issue. Alright. 

Tomorrow we will be picking up in the morning with our 

closed school discharge and solution number two, and 

opening it up to the Department to give us an overview of 

that, and continue the dialogue there.

Any questions, comments about the process or 

beginning tomorrow before we start with our public 

comment portion of the day?

MS. MACK: Okay. I also want to remind us --

because we had a lot of engaged dialogue around borrower 

representation -- that all borrowers are represented by 

the appropriate folks on the committee and the 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

constituencies, and are encouraged to reach out to the 

committee to consult with them and provide their input 

and feedbacks, so that it does get incorporated into the 

process. We just wanted to remind you all of that. 

Alright, I believe we will open up the 

public comment portion. We’re going to admit these 

individuals one at the time to the actual Zoom meeting, 

so that they can come on screen. They will have a max of 

three minutes to share their thoughts and feedback with 

the committee, and then we will ask them to conclude 

within three minutes, we’ll move them back to the waiting 

room out of the meeting, and then (audio) the next person 

for public comment.

So, first I would like to invite in -- and 

Brady, I’ll ask that you move her in from the waiting 

room, we’re going to invite in Ms. Jennifer Esparza, 

representing Veterans Education Success. 

Welcome, welcome, Ms. Esparza. We would like 

to open it up for your public comment. You’ll have three 

minutes. Thank you. 

MS. ESPARZA: Thank you. Good afternoon, my 

name is Jennifer Esparza, and I’m a law fellow with the 

Veterans Education Success. I wanted to speak with you 

today, because I’m on the frontlines, observing defrauded 

student veterans. It’s my job to try to help them. 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

But the sad truth is, there isn’t much help 

available to them. Veterans tell me they feel like their 

country is even letting them down. Each week, without 

fail, we receive emails and phone calls from veterans who 

were cheated out of their benefits and lied to by college 

recruiters.

Because of the high cost of predatory 

schools, many veterans are forced to take out loans, 

sometimes without their knowledge, leaving them with a 

crushing and unfair debt. For instance, one veteran told 

us that American Intercontinental University had her sign 

paperwork without explaining she was signing up for 

student loans. In fact, the paperwork was presented to 

her as a hardship grant, for being a single mother at the 

time.

Another veteran told us about coercive and 

aggressive recruitment tactics used to get him to sign up 

for an MBA at a for-profit school, which included the 

promise of career counseling that never came true and a 

claim that the bachelor’s degree that he obtained at this 

school would not be taken seriously unless he also 

obtained that MBA.

And it’s not difficult for me to believe 

these experiences because I’ve been there too. I spent 11 

years enlisted in the Marine Corps, and while still on 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

active duty, I was lured by a recruiter to enroll at 

Ashford University. The recruiter’s tactics were so 

sleazy, and he asked me for very personal information. I 

was young and he used this against me.

Now, I’m lucky to have had a brother who 

helped me leave Ashford and attend a really good school, 

but most veterans aren’t so lucky. I’ve learned some 

lessons from working with the veterans that contact us, 

and first, I can tell you that having a robust closed 

school discharge regulation without a strong borrower 

defense rule is not enough, because predatory schools are 

successful in preying on students long before they’re 

shut down. And veterans don’t often know that they’ve 

been victimized until they hear about lawsuits or other 

students speaking out.

In following that point, the current 

standard for borrower defense relief is just too high, 

and it leaves veterans feeling hopeless. They’re asked to 

prove more than any student could possibly prove on their 

own, and they’re so discouraged by the fact that the 

Department of Education continues to allow these schools 

to operate with federal funding --

MR. TOTONCHI: A 30 seconds warning. 

MS. ESPARZA: -- Thank you. You have the 

opportunity to fix this, and I ask you to remember that 
98

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

veterans and service members whose financial futures are 

ruined by the loans encouraged by predatory schools, they

do need a strong borrower defense rule. Thank you for 

your time. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much, Ms. Esparza. 

We will move her back to the waiting room and next we’re 

going to admit Mr. David Eger (phonetic) who is speaking 

as a campus president for the refrigeration school. 

MR. ROBERTS: This is David McQueen 

(phonetic). Mr. Eger is not at the waiting room at this 

time. 

MS. MACK: Oh, thank you for the 

clarification. As soon as he connects to audio -- There 

you are, sir, you have the floor for three minutes.

MR. COLE: Good afternoon. My name is Michael 

Cole and I’m the campus president for Tulsa Welding and 

I’m actually going to have one of my top students speak 

on my behalf, Mr. David McLane (phonetic), so, I’ll 

switch places with him. 

MR. MCLANE: Good afternoon, everybody. 

MS. MACK: Good afternoon. 

MR. MCLANE: My name is David McLane, I’m a 

student here at Tulsa Welding School and I just want to 

say that I enjoy here, I love it here, and all of you 

guys are great people. I just want to say this program 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

has helped me change so much from a kid from Columbia, 

South Carolina -- that’s where I’m originally from. I 

moved here in Jacksonville, Florida, to attend the 

Welding School because, back home, I didn’t want to 

attend a community college. When I graduated high school, 

I didn’t know what I wanted to do. I went to school for 

welding for two years, and I have got my OSHA, I got 

certified my OSHA there.

It was just so much that was going on, and I 

was just -- I wanted to actually do something in my life, 

and it’s here in Jacksonville, Florida, where is that 

change in my life. So, when I relocated here and I 

started school, it was just such an amazing experience 

for me, because it was something different. I wasn’t used 

to anything else besides this. So, when I first moved 

here and I completed the program, it was just amazing. 

There was just so much changing, I enjoyed it here, it 

was just everything about this school, got the family 

here, the welcoming, just everything. They took great 

care of us. Currently, as of right now, I’m in 

pipefitting, as of right now, so I’m getting certified in 

pipefitting, which is another great step in my career 

that I chose to choose in my lifestyle, because I do see 

myself working at shipyards -- basically just doing the 

exceed [sic] amounts of work that it takes to be a 
100

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

successful person in the lifestyle that I’m in. And 

growing up, it was just -- everything is changing, and 

you’re growing up, because I’m only 19, I graduated last 

year in 2020, so, coming out being a pandemic graduate in 

a -- it was very tough. But for this school to have 

everything still in place and lined up and everything it 

has brought, and the organization and how organized it 

is, it’s just amazing, bro, it’s amazing. So, with the 

school changing to -- at the -- sorry, something popped 

up. 

MR. TOTONCHI: A quick note. 30 seconds until 

-- you have 30 seconds. 

MR. MCLANE: Okay. I also have -- during my 

time being here, it’s been amazing. I graduated the first 

week of August and I have a lot of job employers lined 

up. I recently had an interview with General Dynamics, 

Tenneco, TTAs (phonetic). Just -- basically a lot of job 

employers are there. So, basically, just what I’m just 

saying is, any change that would be made within the 

community, just get the input of students, because we do 

play a huge and big role within this and after we will 

also be -- make sure that we’re comfortable with whatever 

change that comes between any agreement, or something 

that got to be changed, that’s --

MR. TOTONCHI: So sorry, time is up. 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. MACK: Thank you very much for your 

remarks today. 

MR. MCLANE: Thank you guys, appreciate it. 

I’ll be going. 

MS. MACK: Next, we will be admitting Timothy 

Babulski, representing Southern Maine Community College. 

Welcome, the floor is yours for three minutes. 

DR. BABULSKI: Thank you. Good afternoon, I’m 

doctor Babulski, I’m an adjunct professor at Southern 

Maine Community College and a part-time faculty member at 

the University of Southern Maine, and I wanted to make a 

quick comment on the eligibility requirements that have 

been outlined in issue paper five as proposed by the 

Department.

The Department proposes creating an 

equivalency between one credit hour and two and a half 

hours’ worth of work based on the idea that this is the 

student work requirements. However, adjuncts are --

except for some exceptions -- not students, and for an 

adjunct, a full-time 12 credit teaching load is 

equivalent to 40 hours of work a week. So, reducing that 

to two and a half hours of credit is equivalent to giving 

us three quarters credit. Instead of working 30 hours a 

week, we would end up being recognized for only working 

22 and a half hours. That’s, of course, untenable, and 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

because many adjunct positions are either contingent or 

part-time, assembling enough credit hours across various 

campuses trying to meet this increased burden of actually 

having to work more than full-time in order to be 

recognized as full-time is an insurmountable burden.

Adjuncts are also the most likely to have to 

work summers and winters in order to bring more credit 

hours. So, putting this in terms of credit hours per 

semester is simply a way of saying to adjuncts, “your 

work is never going to be recognized.” I would recommend 

instead using an 18-credit hour per twelve-month period 

threshold. It’s much, much simpler to calculate, and a 

lot less fuss, and it would recognize the diverse and 

split-up work that adjuncts are doing. 

I would also recommend that the rules not 

insist on the term “adjunct”. Many colleges and 

universities, some of whom are present, don’t use the 

term “adjunct”. Community faculty, part-time faculty, 

contingent faculty. Insisting that it be put in terms of 

adjunct again, will leave people out and ensure people 

are not included. As it stands, the purpose of the rule 

is to ensure clarity. Unfortunately --

MR. TOTONCHI: (interposing) 30 seconds. 

MR. BABULSKI: -- is that adjuncts really 

aren’t going to be welcome in loan forgiveness. The only 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

real solution is to cancel student loan debt, all of it, 

for everyone. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much for your 

remarks today. Next, we have Warren Kohler, representing 

Wilde Spirit Productions.

MS. MACK: Thank you for joining us. You have 

the floor for three minutes. 

MR. KOHLER: Hello? 

MS. MACK: Thank you, thank you for joining 

us. We can hear you. You have the floor for three 

minutes.

MR. KOHLER: Okay, now I can hear you, I’m 

sorry. How are you today? 

MS. MACK: We are well, thank you. 

MR. KOHLER: Very good. Are you in D.C.? 

MS. MACK: Everyone logged in here is from 

all over the place. Proud Coloradoan here.

MR. KOHLER: Oh, okay. Got it. 

MS. MACK: You now have the floor for three 

minutes. 

MR. KOHLER: Oh, okay. And you want -- I’ll 

just talk about my experiences at the school, right? 

Correct?

MS. MACK: (audio) committee today. 

MR. KOHLER: Okay, alright. Basically, I’ve 
104

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

been working with Full Sail University since 2003. And 

since that time, I’ve hired -- let’s see -- about 52 

graduates. All of them are exceptionally trained and 

well-versed in their education, and it was the hiring was 

through -- entirely through their career development 

department.

I -- just this weekend, I hired -- I worked 

on a show with three others that Full Sail provided me, 

and in addition to that, I did an entire eight-city tour 

with -- let’s see -- 18 of their students and grads, and 

basically, it’s been a very good experience, and, in 

fact, I’m doing a career -- virtual career event --

hiring event, on October 18 -- October 20th, and they 

have 120 companies at that event to hire their students 

and grads.

So, my experience has been excellent. I’ve 

worked -- I know their career development department is 

made of about 75 plus people and probably have worked 

with over a dozen of those individuals and they’re my goto whenever I’m hiring entertainment industry crew. So --

and then also in the upcoming hiring event I will be 

hiring 20, 22 for all the film work that I’m doing for 

next year, so -- they’ve been great.

MR. TOTONCHI: Just 30 seconds left you have 

(audio). 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MR. KOHLER: They’ve been very supportive of 

their students and graduates, so, it’s a great school, 

with a great organization and support system for not only 

employers, but for their graduates and students on campus 

and online. So, that’s pretty much it. It’s been awesome. 

MS. MACK: Alright, thank you very much for 

your remarks today. 

MR. KOHLER: Okay, thank you. Have a great 

week.

MS. MACK: You too. Next, we’re going to 

invite in to comment Ms. Evelyn Cervantes, representing 

herself. Ms. Cervantes, welcome, you have the floor for 

three minutes.

MS. CERVANTES: Hi. It sounds like I’m a 

little bit early. My name is Evelyn Cervantes, I 

graduated in 2003 and I’m a borrower’s defense applicant. 

I applied for borrower’s defense in September 2016, so 

it’s been about five years, and I have yet to receive a 

decision.

So, today you actually voted not to include 

me in this rulemaking committee, and I can’t tell you how 

disappointing and dismaying that is. Your votes not to 

include students impacted by borrower defense are 

incredibly reflective of your interests, and I’m looking 

at those of you who were previously involved with for-
106

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

profit educational organizations. You shouldn’t have a 

seat at this table. 

For-profit colleges have disproportionately 

affected communities of color, and looking at you now, I 

know that this committee is also not reflective of that. 

How can you say that you’re working to make effective 

changes when the basic properties of this committee do 

not reflect those of the people you are serving? There 

are hundreds of thousands of borrower’s defense 

applicants and you chose not to have their expertise and 

input in this process. You can’t tell me that was not 

intentional.

I truly hope that you take all the time to 

caucus people outside of your own circles and make an 

effort to address the needs they share. When that time 

comes, it should be an extensive process. The borrower’s 

defense process should be fair and timely. Instead, I’ve 

watched watch as the application for this program has 

gotten increasingly more difficult for people to 

understand and apply, while waiting years to hear a 

response, and that’s not to mention the website’s access 

issues and the consistent ignorance on behalf of phone 

operators on (inaudible) and borrower’s defense hotline 

were constantly given different information. At this 

point, I’m led to believe that this has all been 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

intentional. How do we even begin to make informed 

decisions when there’s no adequate help? We should not 

need lawyers to apply for borrower’s defense. You need to 

make that language easier to understand and make the 

process clear. 

Jennifer, earlier you said including 

students is not feasible because students are too busy, 

and that’s just one more example of how these committees 

are formed in ways that intentionally exclude the people 

who need them most. Why not structure the committee in 

ways that are actually inclusive instead of putting on a 

show to make us believe that you have our interest in 

mind? How would you know that these changes will be 

impactful or helpful if none of the borrower defense 

applicants are there? And you can’t simply continue to 

make decisions for all of us (interposing) --

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds. 

MS. CERVANTES: -- (audio) in 30-minute 

comment sessions. The rulemaking committee needs to take 

into account the intentional harm that was created by the 

previous administration, provide remedies for those 

harmed. 

Regardless of the vote, we will continue to 

watch these public hearings and work with representatives 

to address our needs and hold you all accountable for the 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

changes you have to make to make this process fair. 

MS. MACK: Thank you very much for your 

remarks today. I will let the committee know that at this 

moment we are waiting on a few other individuals who were 

pinged for public comments today to log in to the 

platform. We have no one else in the waiting room at this 

time. I can tell you that the Department of Education is 

now receiving more and more requests for public comment. 

I want everyone to understand that, 

unfortunately, we cannot expand beyond 30 minutes for 

public comments, simply because we have so much 

substantive work to get done during our sessions. But I 

want to again encourage everyone in the public to reach 

out to your constituency representatives so that your 

input and voice can be heard in fact through them as 

well. So, I’m going to pause for just a moment to make 

sure that we don’t get anyone else logging in in these 

final minutes for public comments. (interposing).

MR. ROBERTS: It looks like we have Thomas 

Gokey in the waiting room from Debt Collective. Do you 

want me to admit him? 

MS. MACK: Please. Mr. Gokey, welcome. Sir, 

the floor is yours for three minutes. 

MR. GOKEY: Hi, my name is Thomas Gokey, and 

I’m an organizer with the Debt Collective. We are a union 
109

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

for debtors. Many of our members have filed borrower 

defense, and I’ve seen firsthand how broken the system 

is. Indeed, the Department of Education has never 

enforced the borrower defense regulations. Although the 

law has been on the books, they only started to create 

the regulations after students at Corinthian College got 

organized, went on a debt strike, refused to pay their 

loans, and shamed the Obama Department of Education into 

finally putting some regulations in place. 

However, those regulations did not work. I 

still remember the words, the promises that Arne Duncan 

made to students at Corinthian College. He said, and I 

quote, “If you have been defrauded by a school, we will 

make sure that you get every penny of the debt relief you 

are entitled through -- entitled to through a streamlined 

process,” end quote. Six years later, the vast majority 

of Corinthian College students are still waiting. Arne 

Duncan broke that promise. 

At the time we prepared a two-page document 

that Arne Duncan could have signed to issue a group-wide 

discharge. He didn’t do that and here we are. Making sure 

group-wide discharges are possible under borrower defense 

and that they are not merely the Department of Education 

who brings them, but outside consumer advocates who can 

bring group-wide discharge applications is essential. The 
110

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

department of education has had ample opportunity to 

follow the law, follow its own regulations, and has 

failed every single time. 

Why should we trust you to do anything 

different this time? To echo what our previous speakers 

have said, the only people who actually understand the 

borrower defense system are the people who have tried to 

navigate it, and you have locked them out of the room. 

This is clearly an undemocratic and illegitimate process 

where you have -- the Department of Education, who has 

been knowing partner in crime with the predatory forprofit industry and a predatory student-lending industry 

as a pack of wolves in a room, democratically, by 

consensus, deciding what to eat for dinner, and the 

people who are on the menu are not allowed in the room. 

Shame on you. 

MR. TOTONCHI: 30 seconds, just so you know.

MR. GOKEY: What we are seeing clearly is 

that we have an anti-student Department of Education. 

I’ll end by saying that it is not possible to fix incomebased repayment or Public Service Loan Forgiveness, and 

that is not an adequate substitute for broad-based debt 

cancellation. Joe Biden can cancel your student debt 

today with a signature.

MS. MACK: Okay, thank you, sir, for your 
111

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

comments today. Again, committee, we are waiting on a few 

others to potentially log in to the platform and I would 

like us to hold off and wait, so that if they do come in 

within our allotted time within the next ten minutes that 

we can in fact hear from them. As soon as we have someone 

else in the waiting room, we will let you know.

While we wait for just a moment, I might as 

well utilize this time to make a few announcements. We 

are going to start at the same time tomorrow, that’s 

10:00 o’clock Eastern. We will get started promptly on 

time with our countdown to livestreaming, so I’m 

encouraging you all again to log in somewhat early, so 

that we make -- can make sure there are no technical 

issues that we need to troubleshoot.

Keep in mind those naming conventions that 

worked really well. If you know that your alternate needs 

to step in tomorrow, or at any other time, please, don’t 

hesitate to let us, facilitation team, know that in 

advance. 

Also, I know that there were a few folks 

this morning who struggled with the link. You all should 

already have an invite and access link for all four 

subsequent days -- Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and 

Friday --. If anyone does not have a link for each of 

those days, please let us know, so that we can get those 
112

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

send back out to you. Persis, I see your hand. 

MS. YU: Thank you. I just wanted to know if 

there’s any way -- I understand that a lot of people 

signed up to do public comments and that they were turned 

away, and so, I’m wondering if there is such high demand 

for a public testimony, whether or not there is a way 

that we could extend the amount of time that we allow for 

this, so that everyone has the opportunity to be heard. 

MS. MACK: Extend the time beyond our 4:00 

p.m. hard stop? 

MS. YU: Beyond either the 4:00 p.m. or if 

there’s [sic] additional days that can be added. I am 

flexible on how it happens, but I think it would be 

important, if there are additional people who are signing 

up and are being turned away, that they have some kind of 

opportunity to participate. 

MS. MACK: So, for now, I can tell you that 

the schedule has been determined and published, and I’m 

not sure that there’s an opportunity to add additional 

days or times beyond 4:00. If I hear otherwise, I will 

let everyone know. 

Again, I’m going to encourage everyone to 

sign up in advance for public comment. We will fit as 

many folks into the half hour as we can. Today is a 

little bit different because it looks like we didn’t have 
113

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

some of our anticipated folks logging in. There is high 

demand, so again, I’m going to encourage folks to reach 

out to your constituency representatives, so that you can 

have as much input and voice through them as well. David, 

I see your hand. 

MR. TANDBERG: Just a -- there is precedent 

for adding days and time. We certainly did that in our 

last negotiated rulemaking. We added three additional 

days, something like that. Michale McComis would know 

better than me, but -- and the added time, different days 

-- I’m not –- I’m just saying that I think it’s possible. 

MS. MACK: Okay. That’s something that us 

facilitators can check back in on as well. Thank you, 

David. I want to remind everyone also while we still have 

a few moments that tomorrow we will pick up with closed 

school discharge in the morning, and we will start with 

the second solution proposed by the Department. Let me 

ask, any other housekeeping matters that we can touch 

upon before we conclude? Daniel, please. 

MR. BARKOWITZ: Okay, just a suggestion given

Persis’ comment and given the empty space we had today. 

Is it possible to have an alternate or a waitlist 

maintained of folks who might not be able to talk? If we 

do that, that spare time, like we did today, with 

primaries not showing up, or people not using their full 
114

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

three minutes, we can move to an alternate or waitlist 

approach to handle at least -- additional folks who might 

want to participate. 

MS. MACK: Okay, we can chat about that, and 

turn back to perhaps a waiting list. Let me just let you 

know it’s going to be -- what we can achieve logistically 

in terms of limiting who we send the link out to, so that 

we don’t have folks logging in that we’re not prepared to 

accommodate in the public comment. But I absolutely hear 

your points, and it’s something that we could follow up 

with the Department on. 

Okay, we haven’t had anybody else come in 

yet, so we will hold off for just a minute. I’m not sure 

that anyone was turned away, in fact, for today, and I 

don’t think that it’s common to have no-shows for folks 

who register the same day. Unfortunately, that’s the 

experience today. Joe, please. 

MR. SANDERS: Are we going to go into 

interest capitalization following closed school discharge 

tomorrow? 

MS. MACK: Looking for my unmute button. Yes, 

that is the plan. 

MR. SANDERS: Okay, and you anticipate that 

we will make it all the way to Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness tomorrow?
115

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

MS. MACK: I am not sure that we will get 

through closed school discharge, the rest, and eliminate 

interest capitalization, but if we do, then we will move 

on to the next one. There may be a slight edit to the 

agenda that I need to confirm, but I believe that there 

is an interest in bringing the issues six, seven, and 

eight, borrower defense, before the two issues regarding 

PSLF, which is four and five. Jennifer, do you have 

thoughts on that? Can you confirm? 

MS. HONG: Yeah, I can confirm that. So, we 

are flipping the issue, so, after interest capitalization 

we will move straight to borrower defense and to 

repayment. 

MS. MACK: Okay. Thank you for bringing up 

that question, Joe. So, if everyone (audio) tomorrow, we 

will begin with closed school discharge, move in to issue 

three, “eliminate interest capitalization for nonstatutory capitalization events,” and then move into 

issue six, the first borrower defense issue. Marjorie, 

please. 

MS. DORIME-WILLIAMS: So, I’m not sure if 

this is a procedural issue, or consistency issue, but 

since we have a little bit of time left, I know we went 

back and forth between nominating individuals versus the 

conversation about “should we have representation on the 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

committee?” and I think -- particularly given the 

testimony that we heard from some of the public comments 

--, it might be important for the committee to revisit 

that conversation. Not about the individuals, but I do 

think the points about representation were important, and 

so, I don’t know if that’s something that we can handle 

through e-mail, or through conversation, maybe offline, 

about how we might go about that, since we’re running 

short on time, but I did wanted to bring that point back 

up, because it seems like -- and again, this is sort of 

broadly looking at the group -- the concern wasn’t so 

much representation as to how we went about choosing who 

those individuals might be. 

MS. MACK: If that’s a dialogue that the 

committee wants to further engage in tomorrow, we can 

certainly do that and discuss whether or not additional 

folks on the committee are needed to represent certain 

interest -- interests of folks. I would say, if we do 

discuss that, we will then have to have a conversation 

about who would be the appropriate representative 

(inaudible). 

Alright, any final thoughts, questions? We 

are now reaching the final hour. I just want to thank you 

all and applaud you all. You have exceeded my 

expectations in the technology and the virtual space. We 
117

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

had relatively very few hiccups today and it went 

extremely smooth. We look forward to working with you 

tomorrow and beyond. Again, we’ll pick up with issue two 

tomorrow, alright? Thank you very much. 

MS. HONG: Thank you.
118

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

Appendix

Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 

Education

Zoom Chat Transcript

Affordability and Student Loans Committee - Session 1, 

Day 1, Afternoon, October 4, 2021

DISCLAIMER:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a 

recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate; 

in some cases, it is incomplete or inaccurate due to 

inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as 

an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but 

should not be treated as an authoritative record.

From Persis Yu, (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

Proposed topic 1: Create additional pathways out of 

default

From Persis Yu, (P), Legal Aid (she/her) to Everyone:

Proposed topic 2: Eliminate the acceleration clause 

and limit involuntary collection to the

income-driven repayment amount

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

Suggested additional text: (D) The borrower qualifies 

for SSDI or SSI benefits and has an onset date of 

disability of at least 5 years previous.

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:
119

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

But an edit across the eligibility criteria, I think 

it should all be "SSA disability benefits" because we 

wouldn't want to exclude disabled widows/widowers or 

other forms of survivor benefits.

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone:

(ii) A certification by a nurse practitioner or 

physician’s assistant licensed by a State, provided 

that the certification is within their scope of 

practice in the State they are licensed in, that the 

borrower is totally and permanently disabled as 

described in paragraph (1) of the definition of that 

term in §685.102(b);

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone:

Physician's assistant database information: 

https://amacredentialingservices.org/credentialing/phy

sician-assistantprofiles#:~:text=The%20American%20Academy%20of%20PAs%2

0%28AAPA%29%20maintains%20a,to%20practice%20as%20PAs%2

0in%20the%20United%20States

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

The SSA POMS on acceptable medical sources: 

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422505003

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Administrators (he/him/his) to 

Everyone:

https://www.nccpa.net/

From Daniel (P) - Fin Aid Administrators (he/him/his) to 

Everyone:

https://www.nccpa.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/Statistical-Profile-ofCertified-PAs-2020.pdf - Statistical Profile of 

recipients

From Jennifer - ED negotiator to Everyone:
120

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

bottom of page 5 for proposed language

From Jaye FFEL agencies P to Everyone:

I am hearing there are buffering issues for the public 

viewing. Just wanted to report this...

From CEMS Production 3 to Everyone:

Thank you. We tracked a single instance on a certain 

group of devices and provided remedy. Let me know if 

you receive addtional feedback.

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone:

Primary: Ashley Pizzuti; Alternate: Evelyn Cervantes

From Josh (A), Legal Aid (he/him) to Everyone:

Thank you for clarifying that re: public comment.

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

language here:

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

(c) Discharge.— (1) In general.—If a borrower who 

received, on or after January 1, 1986, a loan made, 

insured, or guaranteed under this part and the student 

borrower, or the student on whose behalf a parent 

borrowed, is unable to complete the program in which 

such student is enrolled due to the closure of the 

institution or if such student’s eligibility to borrow 

under this part was falsely certified by the eligible 

institution or was falsely certified as a result of a 

crime of identity theft, or if the institution failed 

to make a refund of loan proceeds which the 

institution owed to such student’s lender, then the 

Secretary shall discharge the borrower’s liability on 

the loan (including interest and collection fees) by 

repaying the amount owed on the loan and shall 

subsequently pursue any claim available to such 
121

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

borrower against the institution and its affiliates 

and principals or settle the loan obligation pursuant 

to the financial responsibility authority under 

subpart 3 of part H. In the case of a discha

From Christina (A), 2-Year Public to Everyone:

I support David's proposal

From Michaela (P) Ind. Students to Everyone:

+1

From Rachelle Feldman to Everyone:

+1

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

Also like David's proposal

From Misty (P) Priv & Non-Profit to Everyone:

+1

From Jeri (P) (she/her), Student Loan Borrowers, Primary 

to Everyone:

yes.

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone:

Loss of pell and loss of time are essential points. 

Students can't currently get the Pell back and can 

never get the time back.

From Marjorie, 4 Yr Public Inst (P) (she/her) to 

Everyone:

Wouldn't an automatic discharger eliminate the issue 

of default?

I do have a comment on consistent time period.

From Joe (P); State AGs to Everyone:
122

Negotiated Rulemaking - 10/4/2021

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

I have the same question as David and Michaela

From David (P) - State hi ed agencies to Everyone:

I love the automatic part. Just want it for all 

students

From Marjorie, 4 Yr Public Inst (P) (she/her) to 

Everyone:

Agreed.

From Stan Andrisse (A), Ind. Students to Everyone:

Or be sure to create a wait list of people so we don't 

have down time.

From Bethany (P) Disability (she/hers) to Everyone:

Agree w/ Stan

From Stan Andrisse (A), Ind. Students to Everyone:

Great meeting with you all.