Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/11/23 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

 SESSION 3, DAY 1, MORNING

December 11, 2023

On the 11th day of December, 2023, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m.

to 12:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, everyone, 

and welcome to our third and final week of this 2023 

Department of Education Negotiated Rulemaking. My name is 

Brady Roberts, with Federal Mediation Conciliation 

Service. We, as always, have a very packed agenda today. 

So I'll get right into our roll call, and then I'll move 

to, old business. So kicking us off, joining us on behalf 

of civil rights organizations, we are joined by Wisdom 

Cole.

MR. COLE: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. And his 

alternate, India Heckstall.

MS. HECKSTALL: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Representing legal, 

systems organizations that represent students or 

borrowers, we are joined by Kyra Taylor.

MS. TAYLOR: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. And her 

alternate, Scott Waterman.

MR. WATERMAN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Representing state 

officials, including state higher education executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies, and state 

regulators of institutions of higher education. Lane 
3

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Thompson, the primary, will not be joining us today, but 

we are joined his alternate, Amber Gallup. Do we have 

Amber? I'll be sure to note her when she's able to join 

us. Representing state attorneys general, we are joined 

by Yael Shavit. Oh, I see you. Good morning, Yael, you're 

on mute, but good morning. And we're joined by her 

alternate, Josh Divine.

MR. DIVINE: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, Josh. 

Representing public institutions of higher education, 

including two and four-year institutions, we are joined 

by Melissa Kunes.

MS. KUNES: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. And joined by 

her alternate, J.D. LaRock. We're still missing J.D., but 

I'll note him once he is able to join us. Representing 

private nonprofit institutions of higher education, we 

are joined by Angelika Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. And her 

alternate, Susan Teerink.

MS. TEERINK: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. 

Representing proprietary institutions, we are joined by 

Kathleen Dwyer.
4

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. DWYER: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. And her 

alternate, Belen Gonzalez.

MS. GONZALEZ: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. 

Representing historically black colleges and 

universities, tribal colleges and universities, and 

minority serving institutions we are joined by Sandra 

Bonham, Boham, excuse me.

MS. BOHAM: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: And her alternate, Carol 

Peterson. I thought I saw Carol join, but I'll note her 

once she's able to join us. Representing Federal family 

education loan lenders, servicers or guarantee agencies 

we are joined by Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Scott. And 

his alternate, Benjamin Lee.

MR. LEE: Morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. Representing 

student loan borrowers who attended programs of two years 

or less, we are joined by Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. PIZZUTI: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. And her 

alternate, David Ramirez. Again, I don't see him, but 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

I'll note him when he's able to join us. Representing 

student loan borrowers who attended four-year programs, 

we are joined by Sherri Gammage.

MS. GAMMAGE: Here, good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Sherri. 

And her alternate, Sarah Christa Butts.

MS. BUTTS: Present.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. Representing 

student loan borrowers who attended graduate programs we 

are joined by Richard Haase. 

MR. HAASE: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Richard. 

And his alternate Dr. Jalil Bishop.

DR. BISHOP: Here.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. Representing 

currently enrolled postsecondary education students. I 

believe Jada Sanford, the primary, will be joining us 

later, so we are joined by our alternate, Jordan Nellums.

MR. NELLUMS: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning. 

Representing U.S. military service members, veterans, or 

groups representing them, we are joined by Vincent 

Andrews.

MR. ANDREWS: Yes, present.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. Representing 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

individuals with disabilities or groups representing 

them, we are joined by John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: Good morning, 

colleagues.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, John. And his 

alternate, Waukecha Wilkerson.

MS. WILKERSON: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning. Last but not 

least of our nonfederal negotiators, we are joined byrepresenting consumer advocates, we are joined by Jessica 

Ranucci.

MS. RANUCCI: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, Jessica. And 

her alternate, Ed Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: We are, of course, 

joined by our Federal negotiator, Tamy Abernathy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Morning, Tamy. And 

representing the office- the Department's office of 

general counsel, I believe we are represented this 

morning by Mr. Soren Lagaard.

MR. LAGAARD: Good morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Good morning, Soren. Did 

I forget anyone? Apologies if I did. I know we had some 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

folks join a little bit late, and I want to make sure we 

let folks know that you joined us. Okay. With that, I 

want to move right into, revisiting some old business, 

specifically, adding a new constituency group. Just a 

quick process, check. You should have received an email 

on Friday. Did everyone receive that email, noting that 

new constituency group?

MS. ABERNATHY: Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah.

MS. ABERNATHY: Could we- could I make 

a couple of announcements and handle the other old 

business before we jump into a new constituency group, 

please?

MR. ROBERTS: Of course, yeah. Please.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you. Thanks so 

much. Welcome back, negotiators. We are now in the third 

session of our negotiated rulemaking on student loan debt 

relief, which specifies the Secretary's waiver authority 

under section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

as amended. On December 4th, we sent the agenda and 

proposed regulatory text to you. We have also publicly 

posted all related materials on our official website. We 

look forward to our discussion and to moving toward final 

consensus on the areas covered in the proposed text that 

was sent to you, over the next two days. In addition, 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

after final consensus, we've set time aside to discuss 

hardship. As a reminder, we have a good deal of work to 

get through, so we'll start with the old businesses Brady 

mentioned, and then we'll focus our attention on 

reviewing the proposed regulatory text. There are a few 

updates I wanted to make mention that all of these 

responses to questions from session two have been 

provided verbally to the negotiators, and the data 

requests were filled and provided to the negotiators in 

advance of this meeting, and there are no outstanding 

data requests. Seeing as this is the final session, we 

are unable to fulfill any additional data requests. We 

appreciate the regulatory text proposals many of you 

submitted, and we will touch on them as we navigate 

through the agenda today and tomorrow. Thank you, Brady. 

I'll turn it back to you.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course. I do just 

want to note, I believe that Amber Gallup, representing 

state officials has joined us. I just want to say good 

morning to Amber. Morning, Amber. Sarah, I see your hand. 

Oh, I believe you're still muted. I apologize.

MS. BUTTS: I just wanted to mention 

in regard to data requests that we did make a request for 

any public service professionals that qualified for PSLF 

forgiveness but still have remaining loans, and we 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

understand that the Department's unable to give us that 

information.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Sarah. 

Yael, noting your comment. Welcome to the table, Josh, on 

behalf of state AGs. Quick process check, did everyone 

receive Josh's proposal on a new constituency group? I 

believe it was sent last Friday. Not seeing anyone note 

that they didn't get it. Josh, anything to add for the 

group for discussion? Otherwise, happy to move to a 

consensus check.

MR. DIVINE: Yeah. I'll just give a 

little bit of a brief introduction. As mentioned during 

the November session, several different communities of 

interest have reached out to me to express their concern. 

They say that a critical interest group was never invited 

to the table. This all stems, I believe, from oral 

arguments earlier this year in the initial student loan 

process where the Chief Justice and Justice Alito asked 

questions about the fairness of the Department's previous 

student loan program. Namely, this is a very, very large, 

very, you know, that program is a very, very large, very 

expensive program, given to students, but not 

necessarily- there's essentially no program for small 

business owners, people who didn't go to college, people 

who went to trade schools or took out- or went to an 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

alternative or went through alternative career processes. 

The Supreme Court gave the example of a small business 

owner, a landscaper, things of that nature. And so, in 

November, the Department said if a committee were to add 

a new constituency group, somebody would need a proposed 

negotiator, so that's what I'm doing today. So, this is a 

constituency group that would represent individuals who 

are taxpayers representing the community of interest that 

does not hold student loans. One of the individuals in 

the document I circulated last week, one of the 

individuals had a conflict arise over the weekend, so 

I'll just discuss the other two. First is Betsy Miller. I 

nominate her to be the primary negotiator. Ms. Miller is 

a Missourian and the founder of a successful professional 

organizing firm called To Be Organized. Her firm 

specializes in organizational architecture. She helps 

clients move, sell their homes, downsize, event plan, 

things of that nature. Started in 1997, her company now 

has 15 locations across the country. She is also very 

heavily involved in community philanthropy, including 

helping rebuild Joplin Missouri after the devastating 

2011 tornado. As the alternate, I nominate Alex Williams. 

I mentioned last week that Missouri differs substantially 

from Massachusetts and that Massachusetts is the state 

with the highest percentage of adults who have college 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

degrees, whereas 70% of Missouri adults do not have a 

bachelor's degree. There's one other big difference, 

which is that Missouri is home to College of the Ozarks, 

which has an innovative financing model. Nicknamed Hard 

Work University, the college has a zero tuition model 

where students, instead of paying tuition, work in on 

campus employment jobs. And that's how Alex Williams was 

able to obtain his bachelor's degree. Since then, he 

founded a successful foreign business in Branson, 

Missouri. He's also very active in the Branson community, 

including as a member of the city's finance committee. 

He's also a combat veteran. I'll leave the rest for the 

committee.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you, Josh. 

Tamy, you have your hand up.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Brady. 

Thank you, Josh. The Department would be interested in 

hearing opinions from other negotiators if they're 

willing to add this constituency or not. The Department 

has concerns about adding a constituency group this late 

in the process, and we do note that this constituency 

group is not among those contemplated in the requirement 

for negotiated rulemaking in the Higher Education Act. 

But we would like to hear thoughts from other 

negotiators. Brady?
12

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Tamy. Would 

any other negotiators like to add to the discussion? 

Yeah. Ashley, please.

MS. PIZZUTI: I just want to point out 

that I actually fill quite a bit of those spaces. I am a 

small business owner. I am a taxpayer. I went to a trade 

school, And I actually no longer have any student loans. 

So, I fill a lot of those roles that are already having a 

seat at the table.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ashley. 

Anyone else? Yeah, Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: Thanks, Brady. I would 

also like to note that this is awfully late in the game 

to add a constituency group given that we've already had 

two rulemaking sessions, where we had robust discussion 

of all of the proposals on the table. I wonder why this 

constituency group is being added this late in the game. 

In addition, I'm curious as to what the student loan 

expertise of these proposed individuals are given that 

these programs are incredibly complex. The Higher 

Education Act is incredibly complex, and I did not see 

any evidence of those individuals' experience or 

familiarity with the Higher Education or student loans in 

the bios that were provided.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Kyra. So, we 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

will take a consensus check on this. Just as a reminder, 

per the ground rules we've agreed to, all primary 

constituency groups are going to get a vote. So, if 

you're Primary negotiator, feel free to turn your camera 

on. As a quick reminder, we're going to ask for a show of 

thumbs. To add a new constituency group, it needs to be a 

unanimous consensus vote. So, thumbs up indicates a yes 

vote. A sideways thumb does not indicate a yes or a no, 

but you're not withholding consensus. So, if it is all 

sideways thumbs, for instance, you would still 

technically have consensus. And then a thumbs down would 

represent, an individual or constituency group has 

serious concerns, with voting in the affirmative for a 

consensus check. Any questions about that? Okay. So, at 

this point, I'm going to ask all folks with their camera 

on who are voting members to please indicate their 

consensus vote towards adding a constituency group, per 

Josh's proposal. Okay. I do see several thumbs down. So, 

we are not in consensus on adding a new constituency 

group. But, Josh, I do see your hand up, please.

MR. DIVINE: Yes. Well, I appreciate 

the committee taking the time to consider this today. As 

I said, you know, I have had a lot of people who 

expressed serious concerns to me about this issue over 

the past several, over the past several weeks. And 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

because the committee has decided not to go along with 

adding this this constituency group, I'm going to go 

ahead and withdraw at this time from my own participation 

in this committee, and I will submit something formal in 

writing to the facilitators. Again, thank you for taking 

the time this morning.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Josh. 

Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Thanks, I think that 

that changes a little bit what I was going to say, which 

is that, you know, I think that Josh has provided a voice 

for his constituents in Missouri. And I would also just 

like to note that whatever rule comes out of this 

negotiated rulemaking session will be subject to public 

comment. And so, I think that this is not by any means a 

last opportunity for the public to weigh in. And I think 

that I agree with the negotiators who said this sort of 

this at this stage, I think we're dealing with some 

technical student loan issues. It's really late in the 

game. But then I think that I think that there is, like, 

a whole another public comment period that's going to

happen for, you know, after the proposed rule comes out 

that would be appropriate for public comment. Thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Great. Thank you, 

Jessica. The only other old business that I would note, I 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

just want to quickly, remind folks of what the goal here 

today is to do. So, you all received a lot of proposed 

regulatory texts from the Department. Today, the plan is 

to have the Department share that text, provide a walkthrough of the text, some of the changes that are that 

they're proposing. We're going to take temperature 

checks, which is a phrase that we've been using with some 

regularity in previous sessions. That is not an official 

consensus vote. It is really just an opportunity for the 

Department to solicit the group's feedback on their 

disposition towards the proposed regulatory changes. So, 

it takes the same form. A thumbs up is you have no 

problems with the regulatory text. You would vote in the 

affirmative on consensus if this was a consensus check. A 

sideways thumb, as always, you maybe have some 

reservations, but you're not withholding consensus. And 

then a thumbs down, you would withhold consensus. You 

have serious problems with the regulatory text. What 

we're going to do with those folks who vote, in the 

negative, who vote with a thumbs down, is ask you to come 

off of mute and share what your serious reservations with 

the proposed text in its current form would be and what 

changes you might propose to bring it in line with 

something that you could see yourself at minimum voting 

sideways, not withholding consensus from. You're going to
16

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

have the opportunity to submit any changes, minor or 

technical edits to the regulatory text, we might be able 

to do live. However, if they're more substantial in 

nature, we're going to ask you to submit those in writing 

and put them in the chat and send them to the 

facilitation team as quickly as possible, just so we have 

time to disseminate that and for additional discussion to 

be had. Am I forgetting any old business, Tamy? 

Otherwise, I'll turn it right back over to the Department 

to kick us off.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Brady. No. 

But you stole some of my thunder in my opening remarks, 

so I might have to repeat some of that.

MR. ROBERTS: That's alright.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thanks again. Let's 

take a few minutes to articulate the process and flow for 

the last session. We'll start by reviewing each section 

of the amendatory text. I'll turn it over to FMCS for 

temperature check, and then we'll have discussion just 

like Brady said. I would also like to mention that the 

Department may make minor changes to the amendatory text 

live if needed, but please be patient as the screen 

sharers update the text accordingly. There might be a 

little bit of a delay with the screen updating. So, if 

you have substantive regulatory text changes like Brady 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

mentioned, please follow that process.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Fantastic. 

Tamy, on my list first, I have Subpart g for discussion. 

Do you want to? 

MS. ABERNATHY: Actually, what I'd 

like to do, Brady, is ahead just a few more things to 

mention about what we're doing today, if I may. As a 

point of clarification for the final consensus on day 

two, we're going to take one final consensus on all the 

technical corrections and changes in sections before 

Subpart g. So, sections 30.80 all the way through before 

Subpart g. We'll then take a final consensus on each 

regulatory provision in the new Subpart g, and that's 

going to be done separately. So, I just wanted to make 

sure that everyone understood that the technical 

corrections are a little bit different, and we will be 

grouping those together for one final consensus tomorrow. 

So, Brady, if you don't have any additional comments, I 

can go right into the other changes in part 30 and ask 

the team to share those screens.

MR. ROBERTS: Yep.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you. Alright. 

So, in 34 CFR part 30, debt collection, in Subpart (a), 

we have made a correction to some outdated language in 

(a)(2). We're going to refer the debt to the Government 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Accountability Office for collection. In (4)(b), we have 

made technical corrections to update 31 CFR parts 900-904 

as opposed to what was listed before was in Subpart (4). 

Excuse me. It was in part (4). Additionally, we have 

added point (7), which is waive repayment of a debt under 

Subpart G of this part. We have, of course, remunerated 

paragraphs (8) and (9). We've also added a severability 

clause. Additionally, in part C, which is 30.20, we have 

once again in (a)(1) romanette (ii) updated the IRS tax 

refund to the treasury offset program. And we've changed 

the word exists to exist. In romanette- in 2 in 3 

romanette two, we've removed or excuse me, we've removed 

paragraph 4. We've proposed for deletion in paragraph 4 

and did a minor grammatical update in romanette (ii). In 

30.23, we have again changed (b)(1) to just some minor 

changes removing, including the debtor's Social Security 

number from the reg text. In 30.25, we have another minor 

conforming edit change. 30.27 C, we have updated the 

regulatory reference from 4 CFR 102.3 to 31 CFR 901.8. In 

30.29, paragraph (a) (3), we've again updated the 

regulatory text to 31 CFR 901.3. In paragraph 3, we have 

updated yet again, there's a pattern here, the regulatory 

text to reflect 31 CFR 901.3. And in 30.33, we have again 

changed the IRS tax refund to treasury offset program. 

Subpart E 30.62 (a), we've updated the regulatory text 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

and we've added or to the extent that waiver of repayment 

of these amounts is appropriate under section 30.80. In 

(b)(1), we've updated regulatory text changes again to 31 

CFR part 902. And then in (d)(1), we've updated again 31 

CFR 901.8. We've added a severability clause in 30.69. In 

Subpart F 30.70, we have changed from the Secretary uses 

to the Secretary may use in paragraph (a)(1). Again, in C 

(1), the Secretary may use the standards in FCCS. And in 

paragraph 2, we've added the words of this section after 

paragraph E. In paragraph E (1), we have added the 

reference to the Health Education Assistant Loan Program 

authorized by sections 701.720 of the Public Health 

Service Act 42 U.S. code 292-292o. And in 30.79, we've 

added another severability clause. And that brings us to 

where we'd like to stop and turn this over back to Brady.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you, 

Tamy. Richard.

MS. ABERNATHY: I'm sorry, Brady. I do 

still have more comments. I'm sorry. I'm a little slow in 

the uptake today.

MR. ROBERTS: That's alright.

MS. ABERNATHY: As you've seen, we've 

made small technical corrections to this section because 

most of these regulations have not been amended since the 

late eighties, and many references are out of date. So 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

even though these changes and corrections are technical, 

we will take consensus on the changes tomorrow. And while 

there was a suggestion for a number of changes to 30.70 

around compromise, our focus is on waiver. So, we're not 

going to take those substantive changes here, but we may 

discuss those ideas presented under the hardship 

discussion on day 2. Alright. Now back to you, Brady.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Richard and 

Kyra, I see your hand. Are these questions for the 

negotiating committee? Okay. Great. Go ahead, Richard, 

please.

MR. HAASE: Good morning. Sorry. I 

didn't- we jumped right into the text. I actually should 

have asked this question, in the beginning when we were 

kind of setting the table for the day. So, one of the 

questions I had, I know we spent a lot of time in the 

last four gatherings talking about hardship, and a lot of 

the proposals that were submitted were centered on the 

issues of hardship, but I noticed that they're absent in 

the agenda here. Can someone from the Department clarify 

what the plan is for continuing discussion of those items 

and the hardship topic in general?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. We plan to 

discuss that at the end of final consensus. We did 

mention that a little bit earlier, perhaps, not as 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

clearly as we should have, so thanks for bringing that 

up. But we will at the end of final consensus on day 2, 

we will have time for a discussion and if time permits a 

presentation.

MR. HAASE: So, if I can understand 

correctly, the expectation is that the negotiators will 

be taking up down votes on what's in the language here 

without knowing at all what the plan is for handling the 

hardship? Which was I think it represented a large 

portion of where our concerns were concentrated.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yeah. We have not 

proposed regulatory text for the negotiating committee to 

review and provide consensus on. So, the paragraph of 

hardship, we have much like last session where we 

discussed it and we did not have proposed regulatory 

text, we did not bring forth proposed regulatory text 

this session either. So, our hope is to- and we'll talk 

more about this tomorrow, but our hope is to engage in 

additional conversation with the negotiators and get

additional information so that we can take that back and 

make additional decisions later.

MR. HAASE: I understand. If I can 

just share as long as, we're still having this exchange 

that, I understand that it's a big topic for us to tackle 

but it's going to be hard to really get a clear sense of 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

where, personally, where I want to be on some of the 

items we're going to discuss in the next day and a half, 

not knowing where we're going to go with the hardship 

issue because that represents so many borrowers. So, I 

understand that the agenda is laid out and maybe it's not 

possible to change it, but I do think that it represents 

a problem in the decision making process. So.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Richard. Kyra 

and Jessica, I also see your hands. Are these, again, 

more questions, or is it feedback for the Department?

MS. TAYLOR: Feedback for the 

Department.

MR. ROBERTS: If it's okay, is it okay 

to take a temperature check first and then solicit that 

feedback?

MS. RANUCCI: Wait.

MS. TAYLOR: I'm not speaking for you. 

Just for myself.

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry. Usually, when we 

do this, like, the Department goes through the red text, 

and then we get to say stuff, and then we take the 

temperature check, but you wanted the Department to go 

through the red text, and then we do the temperature 

check, and then we say things?

MR. ROBERTS: That's the plan, yes.
23

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. RANUCCI: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. RANUCCI: I mean, that's fine now. 

And I think in the future, that might be hard because I 

think the responses to what we have to say might depend 

on how we do the temperature check, but you could 

facilitate how you want to facilitate. I'm just a little 

confused.

MS. ABERNATHY: Jessica, what we're 

trying to do here is get a gauge right now today on where 

we are with the reg text and do a temperature check on 

that so that we can engage in discussion with you. 

Perhaps there are things that you bring to our attention 

that we need to take back to present tomorrow for further 

consideration and final consensus check. So, this is the 

way that we've chosen to do this because we want to make 

sure that we capture important essence of things, and we 

may not be able to do that if we have to take those items 

back. So, it's best if we discuss after we take, you 

know, we want to know, are we there? Are we not there? 

What do we need to do? And so, this is the way that we've 

chosen to do that for this session.

MS. RANUCCI: Okay. Sorry. I don't 

mean to belabor this. This is not important for the 

background, but I think it's important for the rest of 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

the day. Okay. Tamy talks, we have the screen share, and 

then we do a temperature check, and then we get to say 

what we want and then we do another temperature check or, 

like, then we're done and we just wait?

MR. ROBERTS: No. From a process 

perspective, we're going to- the temperature checks are 

nonbinding and relatively informal. It's really just the 

chance for the Department to solicit feedback from folks 

that might have serious reservations about an eventual 

consensus check. All the official consensus votes are

going to be held tomorrow after everyone's been given a 

chance in this process in the more informal temperature 

check to offer feedback to the negotiating committee on 

where they stand right now on proposed regulatory text.

MS. RANUCCI: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. TAYLOR: Just to jump in on that 

procedural point really quickly, I think it would be 

helpful if there's the possibility of a subsequent 

temperature check just to assess whether or not the 

Department's responses ameliorate any of the concerns 

that were raised initially. And that will expedite how we 

move through things during the day and tomorrow 

potentially as well.

MR. ROBERTS: Understood. Gotcha. 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Okay. Tamy, did you want to walk back through, Subpart G 

or that initial walk through do you want to take the 

temperature check now?

MS. ABERNATHY: We wanted to dobecause we're going to take consensus on all of those 

changes tomorrow, we wanted to present this as one pre, 

like, 30.70 and above, pre Subpart G collectively. So, if 

we would just take the temperature check on 30 point, 

excuse me, on everything pre Subpart G and then we'll go 

from there after discussion. Thanks, Brady.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you. So, 

with that, again, we got a little practice this morning. 

But again, if folks actually wanted to use their physical 

thumbs, rather than the react buttons on Zoom where they 

stand on a temperature check. Again, an informal, check 

on where you are on everything preceding Subpart G. A 

thumbs up would be like, you know, love it, can live with 

it, serious reservations. I see at least two thumbs down. 

I see Kyra and Ashley. Did I miss anyone? Okay. Thank 

you. So, what I'm going to ask Kyra and Ashley to do now 

is feel free to come off of mute. Ashley, if you'd like 

to go first. If you want to share what your serious 

reservations are and then critically, if there are 

amendments you'd make to the proposed changes that would, 

at minimum, move you to a sideways thumb.
26

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. PIZZUTI: Get off mute here. Okay. 

I once again want to thank the Department for the time 

and consideration. After two months of being involved in 

this committee, sitting here, listening to hours upon 

hours of folks trying to define hardship and who is 

worthy of cancellation, I'm disappointed and frustrated. 

This policy leaves a lot to be desired. The policy 

changes are in no way big enough, fast enough, bold 

enough to address the proportions of the catastrophic 

student crisis that we are dealing with. It feels like 

everything that has been said in the last four sessions 

has fallen on deaf ears. It really feels out of touch. 

And to be honest with you, there isn't any of the 

language defining a hardship. But there's something even 

more important that I want to remind everybody here. The 

Department of Education does not need new regulations in 

order to cancel the student debt. Under the new 

regulations, it can, under the current regulations, it 

can order to release people from the shackles of the 

student debt with the stroke of a pen. Over 30,000 people 

have filed demand letters directly with the Department, 

expressing their hardship and need for cancellation now. 

Every single piece of paper behind me represents one of 

those borrowers demanding that you use this authority to 

release them from this unjust debt. Does the Department 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

plan on using these demand letters? If so, when will 

people expect to hear from you? People cannot wait until 

2025 or whenever the Department decides to roll out these 

insufficient and vaguely defined policies. They certainly 

can't wait for the inevitable court fight to allow the 

policy to move forward. Heck, have any of the borrower 

defense applications that have been reviewed at this 

point outside of the several lawsuits against the 

Department of Education? It is extremely lucky that I am 

able to be at this table. Most ordinary borrowers can't 

take days off work to sit on hold for hours and hours 

when their servicers mess up their payment schedule, the 

amount they owe, or refuse to honor their SAVE plan or 

lawsuit cancellation. Real people depend on their credit 

reports to function in society. These loans are the cruel 

incompetence of the Department keeping them in poverty. 

Millions of families are unable to live the American 

dream that they were sold when they signed up for higher 

education. It doesn't have to be this way. Folks are 

burnt out and waiting and squeeze beyond their means. 

They're apathetic about voting on empty promises. It's 

actually pretty terrifying going into the next year's 

election cycle knowing firsthand how done people are. All 

of my data requests and suggestions have been denied or 

ignored during this process. I'm here representing 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

borrowers, not clients, not cash flow, not votes, rather 

real humans who have lives.

MR. WEATHERS: Jessica, 30 seconds.

MS. PIZZUTI: With the yoyo promise of 

fixing this mess, we are out of time. My question is to 

you, when will the Department process this cancellation? 

When it's too late? Thank you for your time.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Ashley. Kyra, 

I know you also voted thumbs down. Do you want to- would 

you like two minutes to speak? Please go ahead.

MS. TAYLOR: Great. Thanks, Brady. So, 

I would just like to note, I support the discretionary 

use of the Federal claims collection standards, in 30.70. 

However, like Rich and like Ashley have noted, we don't 

have all of the proposals on the right now. We're missing 

a significant portion in not having the regulatory text 

for what the Department is considering doing regarding 

hardship. But even if we had the hardship proposal, I 

would strongly encourage the Department to take this 

opportunity to revise 30.70 to create an enduring process 

for borrowers to compromise their debts. As we've seen 

time and time again, when the Department has tried to 

provide targeted relief to borrowers, there are still 

borrowers who get left out. In addition, while 30/70 is 

on the books, the Department is not using its compromised 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

authority either under 10.82 or under the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act and Federal Claims Collection Standards 

to its fullest extent. This must change moving forward 

because we have to take bolder steps to make sure that 

distressed borrowers are not within the student loan 

portfolio and the debts are right sized to what borrowers 

can afford to repay. So, for that reason, I cannot 

support these changes.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Kyra. As we 

move to the next session, I do just want to remind 

negotiators, I know we said it once before, but any 

proposed changes to these regulatory texts, we welcome 

the submission of those, especially, the folks who 

currently are thumbs down on these. Anything else on this 

particular piece of the reg text, Tamy? Are you okay to 

move to, 30.80? I believe you're muted right now.

MS. ABERNATHY: I am. It wouldn't come 

off. I think we're ready to move on. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I'll turn it over 

to the Department.

MS. ABERNATHY: Great. So, the reg 

text in paragraph section 30.80, I'd like to point out 

that we've separated each proposed waiver policy into its 

own section. We believe this makes it easier to view the 

distinct policies and assist with the process of 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

temperature checks. We've made some edits in every 

section that we will discuss as we go through the 

individual sections. Let's start with section 30.80. This 

is an overall lead in section. We've not made any 

significant changes here from our last session, and this 

text still captures the same loan types. As a reminder, 

this waiver authority, excuse me, as a reminder, this 

waiver authority only applies to loans that are held by 

the Federal Government. It does not cover commercial 

Perkins, Federal Family Education Loan programs or FFEL 

or Health Education Assistant Loans, HEAL. There was a 

suggestion from a negotiator to strike the mention of 

direct loans. We do not think that is appropriate. The 

Secretary's authority under the Higher Education Act 

applies to direct loans. These are loans that the 

Department owns and loans that the Secretary has been 

granted the authority to waive, modify, and release. We 

also wanted to mention that while there was a proposal to 

require an analysis of the effects of persons who never 

attended college, paid off their loans, and taxpayers, we 

do not think that adding such a requirement would be 

appropriate. The Secretary of education is authorized and 

required to administer the Federal student loan programs, 

which considers the participants and stakeholders of 

those programs. However, as part of the regulatory 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

process, we're required to develop and include in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking and the final rule 

regulatory impact analysis, which includes analyses of 

costs, benefits, and transfers. And from a regulatory 

standpoint, the spending on issuing a waiver that 

relieves borrowers of some of their obligation to repay 

would be considered a benefit the borrower and a transfer 

from the Federal Government to borrowers. We believe that 

required analysis will appropriately address the issue of 

overall costs and benefits in a manner consistent with 

the analysis of other Federal regulations. I'll turn it 

back over to Brady now to discuss 30.80.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you, 

Tamy. We can now unshare the text. Any questions for the 

Department at this time? Otherwise, I'll move us to a 

temperature check. Yeah. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Hi, Tamy. I just want to

clarify something that I think I understood you to say, 

which is that 30.80 and the subsequent provisions apply 

to all FFEL loans except for commercially held FFELs and 

that the narrower FFEL provisions that are the end here 

in the FFEL section apply only to commercially held FFEL 

loans. Is that the right relationship here?

MR. ROBERTS: I see her nodding.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. I can't find the 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

mute button today. I'm so sorry. Yes, Jessica. You are 

exactly correct. Thank you. And I would mention that it's 

the Department held Perkins as well so that we clarify

it's not commercially held Perkins either.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you. I do 

just want to note, I know I missed you during roll call, 

but I just want to welcome, Jalil Bishop, on behalf of 

graduate student borrowers to the table who's stepping in 

on behalf of that constituency group. So good morning, 

Jalil. With that, I'll move us to a temperature check. 

Folks want to indicate how they feel about, 30.80, with 

their thumbs. Let's see. Most folks have voted. I see one 

thumb down. Jalil, feel free to come off a mute and share 

your reservations with the Department, and then, as 

always, if you have any proposed modifications or changes 

to the regulatory text.

DR. BISHOP: So just clarification on 

process. We hear, we'll share reservations and then have 

the opportunity to send in amendments or alternative 

text?

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah. Absolutely. And if 

you can do that as quickly as you can so we can 

disseminate it to the negotiators, that would be great. 

This is- the temperature check is fairly informal just to 

get a sense of where the committee is right now. And 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Cindy, feel free to.

DR. BISHOP: Yeah. And I think really 

echoing a lot of the points raised by Kyra and Ashley 

around just the need to make sure we're providing relief 

that reflects the urgency and the burden of the student 

debt crisis. I think that we need to see some type of 

regulatory text here that's really addressing borrowers 

having some type of full cancellation or some type of 

significant decrease in the original amount that they 

borrowed. So, from my understanding, a lot of this is 

getting at borrowers' interest, it's tackling some of the 

issues that borrowers are experiencing around a growing 

interest balance, but I would like to see cancellation 

that reflects the amount of research that shows just what 

that overall balance does for borrowers. Which I think my 

proposed or amended text would be some type of regulatory 

text that actually is canceling the full debt for some of 

our borrowers who are low income, some of the borrowers 

who are carrying a disproportionate amount of debt. I 

think a lot of this could be tied into hardship 

regulatory text which we don't have. And then my other 

big issue is around the $10 or $20,000, cutoff. So, I 

think that I'm not sure how we got to the $10 or $20,000. 

I haven't heard evidence yet from the Department of why 

those two numbers were selected as cutoff, but I think 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

that borrowers should be seeing relief where they see at 

the very least their overall original balance decrease, 

not just a decrease in the interest that accumulated over 

time. So those kind of be the two big points for me of 

why this text doesn't feel like it's where it needs to 

be.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Cindy, I see 

your hand up. Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah. I just wanted to 

kind of touch on Jalil's question. If you have a concept 

of an amended text or actual verbiage, feel free to put 

it in the chat. Or if you don't, get it to us as quickly 

as possible, so the Department can consider it for 

tomorrow's session. Okay? So, I just wanted to reiterate 

those two things. You have the chance to put it in chat 

and or send it to us and we'll disseminate it.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Cindy. Yeah, 

Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: So, I just want to

make one comment to Jalil's comments. You talked about 

why the $20,000. We believe this is an amount that 

provides meaningful relief to most low income borrowers 

or borrowers on the SAVE plan.

DR. BISHOP: And around that 

meaningful relief, you know, I guess, how are you 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

defining meaningful? You know, was that being based on 

dataset? Is it being based on, you know, some type of 

range of evidence? I'm just trying and understand how 

meaningful is being defined here so that the $20,000 

doesn't seem arbitrary.

MS. ABERNATHY: So, I would hope that 

we could go back to 30.80 because some of what you're 

talking about now is in 30.81 and 30.82. So, if we could 

kind of just rewind just a little bit and finish up with 

30.80 then I can go into some of the information there 

that may provide additional clarification for that.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Tamy, 

anything else you want to solicit from the group on 30.80 

or are we okay to move, as you adjusted, to 30.81 and 82.

MS. ABERNATHY: We're all set, Brady. 

Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I'll turn it 

over to our screen sharers again.

MS. ABERNATHY: In sections 30.81 and 

30.82, we're proposing two separate policies here related 

to negative amortization. We will discuss two other 

policies that are separate and distinct on negative 

amortization in sections 30.89 and 30.90 tomorrow. In 

section 30.81, we are proposing to cancel up to $20,000 

of the amount above what a borrower owed when they 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

entered repayment. In other words, we would be waiving up 

to $20,000 of accrued or capitalized interest. Borrowers 

would be eligible if they're on an IDR Plan and have 

income at or below 225% of the Federal poverty guideline, 

which is about $67,500 for a family of four for 2023. We 

know a borrower's income if they are on an IDR Plan, so 

therefore, we may not need the borrower to provide 

additional information in this case. Additionally, 

because we're including the Department held FFEL, we have 

included a reference to the IBR Plan for FFEL. And as a 

reminder, this waiver does not apply to commercial FFEL. 

In section 30.82, we're providing up to $20,000 in 

negative amortization relief for borrowers who are saving 

on a valuable education or SAVE Plan. A borrower who is 

on the SAVE Plan and whose income is less than $125,000 

as a single individual or $250,000 as a household may 

receive this waiver. Because we are addressing negative 

amortization going forward in the SAVE Plan, we wanted to 

target this change for borrowers on the SAVE Plan instead 

of all IDR Plans. One thing to note on this provision, we 

are not including requirements related to time and 

repayment. We discussed this during the last session and 

think we can use data on the balance owed at the end of a 

borrower's grace period for loans dispersed starting in 

2005. This allows us to focus on negative amortization 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

after entering repayment. We do not have data that would 

allow us to make that calculation for loans older than 

2005. So, for those loans, we focus on the amount 

disbursed. It is our hope that borrowers with older loans 

would have paid down their in-school interest by now. We 

received some suggestions from regarding forgiveness tied 

to the amount already repaid or eliminating any borrower 

eligibility requirements. Unfortunately, we're not able 

to take these suggestions. We considered suggestions 

regarding amounts paid. However, we are concerned about 

those being accurately captured. Next, our proposed text 

addresses having borrowers adjusted gross income or other 

income documentation that is acceptable to the Secretary. 

And finally, we note that a borrower cannot obtain a 

waiver under both of these sections. Their benefits would 

be the lesser of $20,000 or the amount by which their 

current balance exceeds what they originally borrowed. 

Brady, I'll turn it back over to you.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Thank you. Any 

clarifying questions for the Department on 30.81 or 82? 

Yeah, Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry, this is just a 

minor drafting thing. I just know that some borrowers 

might have loans that fall into categories 1, 2, and 3, 

and I'm not sure it's written that it necessarily would 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

capture that, but I think I understand what you're 

intending.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jessica. Any 

other clarifying? Yeah, please. Richard.

MR. HAASE: Hi. Yes. I have concerns 

with the number of items in 30.81. For one, I'd like to 

propose that we get rid of the use of the language says 

the lesser of, waive the lesser of $20,000 or the amount 

by.

MR. ROBERTS: Richard, very, very 

briefly. If this is a suggestion for the text, we might

just wait for the temperature check.

MR. HAASE: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Because then we can just 

capture everyone's potential suggestions sort of at the 

same time. But if you want to clarify the Department's 

current [inaudible]. 

MR. HAASE: No. I understand the

process. I'll wait for the temperature check.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. Any 

other clarifying questions? Okay. Great. Sorry about 

that. If folks want to indicate where they are right now 

with a vote of their thumbs. I see 1, 2. If folks do have 

their thumb down and want to share suggestions or what 

their reservations are. If you just want to raise your 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

hand because we had a number of thumbs down on that one. 

I want to make sure I don't miss anyone. And since I cut 

you off initially, Richard, I'll turn it over to you 

first. Sorry about that.

MR. HAASE: No problem. So that was 1. 

I would like to propose that the Department consider 

removing the language that says waive the lesser of the 

$20,000 or the amount by which the borrower's loans 

cumulatively blah blah blah. That's one piece. I've 

shared concerns in all of our prior sessions about 

formulas that are tied to income, not necessarily working 

for all parts of the country equally. I feel like, part 

B, I think it's B (2) here, might kind of fall back into 

that trap a little bit and I think it's important to try 

and address it. And finally, just, you know, in general, 

I feel like the cancellation of anything that exceeds 

what the original balance was. I still think, I'm going 

to be honest, I think I used the phrase in one prior 

session about kind of righting the wrongs that had been 

done to people. If we have borrowers who've taken out, 

let's say, $80,000 in student loans have been making 

payments for 20 years and still owe $70,000 in those 

student loans. This does absolutely nothing to, I think, 

if I'm understanding it correctly, to really correct that 

situation. So, I'll be the first to admit, I don't 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

necessarily have alternate language that would fix that. 

I think I like some of what I've heard in the past about 

applying payments that have gone towards interest towards 

reducing the actual original principal balance. I think 

that's the closest I've heard to anything that I think 

would really address that problem. So, there's a number, 

it's a good start, but I think that there are a number of 

issues here that I'd like to see improved.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Yael, I'll 

turn it over to you.

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. I was very 

disappointed to see the Department add a cap to student 

relief here. I feel strongly that borrowers should have 

at least the amount that exceeds their original balance 

forgiven. And it sounds like the Department's explanation 

here was technical and administrative but that doesn't 

explain to me why the Department can't draft the text as 

it was drafted before and give itself the discretion to 

determine the appropriate amount of relief. There's a 

distinction between the draft of the regulation and the 

way the Department ultimately applies it. And it may well 

be the case that there are times that the Department 

comes up with a number that they think is the appropriate 

number and through whatever action they take to implement 

that relief, they can explain that number and they can do 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

it that way. But to deprive themselves of the discretion, 

discretion which is typical in these types of 

regulations. To make determinations that vary from this 

20% or 10 or sorry, $20,000 or $10,000, seems short 

sighted to me and leaves me quite concerned that there 

are a large number of borrowers who will not be getting 

relief that they so sorely need and should be getting. 

And I really encourage the Department to draft these regs 

in a fashion, again, this was a surprise coming out of 

the second session, these caps, to draft the regs in a 

way that give the Department the discretion to be 

responsive when it is necessary for them to be responsive 

and to make determinations that are appropriate given 

whatever circumstances they decide to use or in whatever 

circumstances they decide to use their authority to 

forgive student debt. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Kyra, I have 

your hand next.

MS. TAYLOR: Like Yael, I am also very 

disappointed to see this proposal. I will say amongst my 

legal aid colleagues, we routinely see people that have 

accrued more in $20,000 of outstanding debt beyond what 

they originally borrowed. This is especially true given 

the history of forbearance steering, folks who have been 

in lower $0 IDR Plans, where their balance has ballooned 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

over time. And so, I'm deeply concerned that this 

proposal will not provide those people with appropriate 

relief. I would propose that the Department could limit 

providing discharging the entire amount so that it is 

somewhat income targeted by targeting Pell recipients, by 

providing discharging the full amount that exceeds the 

original principal borrowed for Pell recipients, low 

income borrowers, or individuals on the SAVE Plan. I'm 

also concerned that not everyone will be eligible for the 

SAVE Plan. So, I would hope that the Department would 

broaden this proposal, broadly as well, because I do not 

think that the SAVE Plan is going to capture enough 

people. And I will stop there.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: I agree with a lot of 

what Kyra and Yael said but I want to, so take that. And 

then I want to make one additional point, which is, I 

hope that I misunderstood what the Department said at the 

beginning, but I think that, you know, many of us had 

proposed focusing here on, you know, a borrower's 

payments and payment history and how much, you know, 

potentially reallocating those payments so that they were 

to principal, not interest. And I thought I heard the 

Department say that the Department wouldn't have payment 

records for some or all borrowers as a reason not to 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

consider those proposals and I just I find that extremely 

concerning. And I think that, you know, we made this 

point over and over, but that a principle of this 

rulemaking should be if the Department doesn't have 

records of what on their loans that absolutely should not 

be collecting on them. And I think if there are any 

places, you know, where the Department thinks that it 

lacks accurate payment data, that in and of itself should 

be a basis for loan cancellation. And so, I just like to 

make that point generally here, and I think there are 

some other places later it applies, but also specifically 

here. I think to the extent we don't know what the 

payment history is, we should be really making that in 

favor of the borrower.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. And then, 

Ashley? I believe you're muted right now.

MS. PIZZUTI: I just wanted to followup and kind of reiterate what Jessica said. I'd like some 

clarification about concerns about not having accurate 

info and certainty around payment amounts. I also agree 

that the cap is really just unjust. There are so many 

borrowers that I know that I deal with on a daily basis 

that have way more than $20,000 in just interest alone. I 

myself took out my loans in 2002. A lot of my classmates 

are still waiting for the borrower defense applications 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

to go through all from those time periods. So, it's a 

little concerning to me that, 1, there's a cap, and 2, 

that the Department does not have the records in order to 

adequately manage these loans. Can we get some 

clarification on that?

MR. ROBERTS: Not seeing an immediate 

response. I do want to turn it back over to the committee 

and if anyone else wants to share a serious reservation 

to have or any new proposed amendments to 30.81 or 82. 

Yeah, Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I would just like to make 

the additional point that in the earlier regulations that 

exist that discuss the waiver of interest in collections. 

It appears that the provision that applies to nonstudent 

loan debts is actually more generous than the provision 

that's provided here. And like Yael and Jessica 

mentioned, I think it makes more sense for the Department 

to provide itself with the discretionary authority to 

meet the moment if it becomes obvious that there have 

been mistakes in policies that have resulted in 

ballooning balances and the accrual of interest. As the 

Department has corrected which we applaud moving forward 

or if it becomes obvious that there's servicing 

misconduct that has resulted in borrowers having 

ballooning balances due to ballooning interest as well.
45

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Tamy, any 

other questions to pose on 30.81 or 82 to solicit 

additional feedback or are we okay to move to 30.83?

MS. ABERNATHY: Actually, Brady, we 

have had a minor adjustment in the I don't have anything 

to add on 30.81 or 30.82 but we are moving 30.83 to after 

lunch today, so we would actually draw your attention to 

30.84 and 30.85 next when we're ready.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm ready if the 

Department is.

MS. ABERNATHY: We're ready.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright.

MS. ABERNATHY: So, we're going to

focus our attention on 30.84 and 30.85. While these are 

similar ideas we had in the last session, they're now in 

individual sections. We did not make any significant 

changes to what is now section 30.84. This still captures 

the various repayment plans that provide forgiveness 

after a certain amount of time in repayment. Again, 

you'll see here a reference to the FFEL IBR Plan, which 

is included because of the Department held FFEL. In 

section 30.85, we simplify this language. We received 

some language from the negotiators who proposed using a 

catchall instead of listing every type of forgiveness 

opportunity. There are various targeted loan discharge, 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

cancellation, and forgiveness options in the HEA, in the 

Higher Education Act, and many of those are not 

considered programs. We think using the word opportunity 

is the appropriate way to refer to these. We also note 

that this approach would address the proposal regarding 

false certification discharges that was provided by 

negotiator as well. And lastly, we received some

suggestions from negotiators to include issues such as 

servicing errors that made borrowers ineligible for a 

benefit or program. We do not feel that would be 

workable. The standard of what would rise to that level 

is unclear. And as you can see in our announcements 

regarding various fixes to IDR and the resumption of 

payments due in October, the Department steps in when we 

identify problems and we resolve these problems, which is 

something we do all the time. This is an area where we 

had some other suggestions from negotiators about Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness. As we discussed in other 

sessions, we are not amending the rules around PSLF. So, 

changes adjusting the definition of public service or 

addressing items related to the limited PSLF waiver do 

not work here. Brady.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Tamy. We can 

bring down the text. Thank you. Any clarifying questions 

for the Department on 30.84? Yeah, Jessica. Oh wait, I 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

saw your hand.

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry. I was just going 

to ask if we could separate them. That was all.

MR. ROBERTS: Right. Absolutely. Yeah. 

Sure. Not seeing any immediate questions arise on 30.84. 

Would the voting members of the committee indicate where 

they stand right now on 30.84, the language that was just 

shared? Still waiting for a few folks to indicate where 

they are. I don't see any thumbs down. Apologies if I'm 

missing anyone. I think we are- we have a few sideways 

thumbs, but I don't see any thumbs down. I will turn it 

back over to the committee. Any additional feedback or 

consideration for the committee on 30.84? Okay. Tamy, 

anything additional for their consideration on this part 

of the reg? Alright. Then I think I'll turn it back over 

to our screen sharer for 30.85.

MS. ABERNATHY: Brady, I think we did 

both of them. So, I think if we could just unless I'm 

missing something. I don't think that I am. No. We did 

both of them together.

MR. ROBERTS: Gotcha. Gotcha.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yep. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Richard, I see your 

hand.

MR. HAASE: Thank you. Yes, I have a 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

couple of questions on 30.85. First one, I was wondering 

if someone could speak to the process for identifying 

those who are eligible but haven't applied here. Are 

there, you know, is there progress being made towards 

automation? I know that's one of the things that we 

talked about in prior sessions, but, you know, just would 

like to see how we do a better job of capturing these 

eligible borrowers. That's one question there. Second 

question, I was wondering if I understand we're not 

looking to amend the PSLF language necessarily, but I'm 

curious, I know we are expecting updates to it. And I'm 

wondering if the Department has any information on when 

those might actually be coming.

MS. ABERNATHY: So, if we can identify 

them with administrative data then we could catch them. 

So, we will be doing everything that we can on the 

administrative side of this to look at the data and find 

those borrowers.

MR. HAASE: And the updated language, 

I believe there were a number of items in those regs that 

were supposed to be clarified, but maybe they would 

answer some of the other proposals that have come in?

MS. ABERNATHY: So, I do want to

mention your PSLF question, though, because I think thatwe do plan to issue additional information on PSLF in a 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

later regulation. So, we're not really- and that focuses 

on eligible employers. And so that's not part of these 

negotiations so we won't really go into PSLF here. But do 

back to hear from the Department at some time in the 

future on within a separate regulation about the PSLF 

eligible employer issue.

MR. HAASE: So, there's- I wasn't 

asking that we dive into the language itself here but I 

was asking if you had an ETA on when we can expect some 

of that language.

MS. ABERNATHY: I don't.

MR. HAASE: You do not.

MS. ABERNATHY: I don't have an ETA, 

but we are working on it.

MR. HAASE: Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Any other questions 

before we ask for a temperature check on 30.85? Alright. 

Not seeing anything. If folks want to indicate where they 

are on the proposed text for 30.85 with a show of thumbs. 

Don't see any thumbs up. Again, if I'm mistaken, feel 

free to correct me. Great. Thank you. While no one did 

indicate serious reservations, is there any other, 

questions or comments for the committee?

MR. WHITELAW: Hold on, I thought Kyra 

had a thumbs down.
50

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, did I miss that? I'm 

sorry. Kyra, go ahead.

MS. TAYLOR: Thanks, Brady. So, I will 

say I am all in support of trying to automate relief for 

as many borrowers as possible. However, under this 

section, I am really concerned about the possibility that 

borrowers will be treated differently if this authority 

is used versus the authority provided by the relief 

program themselves. Some of these relief programs provide 

supplemental authority in the form of refunds, the 

deletion of adverse credit history, etcetera. This 

additional relief is especially important to borrowers 

who have who have had their loans go into default and 

have lost potentially thousands of dollars to involuntary 

collections. This regulatory language does not ensure 

that those borrowers would receive that supplemental 

relief. In addition, while right now, there is a law that 

excludes loan cancellation from Federal income and 

taxability. That provision is set to expire. And some of 

these relief programs have their own independent 

statutory language excluding them from being counted as 

taxable income. And so there too, I'm concerned that 

under this provision, if this authority is used as 

opposed to the relief program, those borrowers may face 

tax consequences depending on what happens to that 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

statute. So there again, while I support automation and I 

was thrilled to see the group relief provisions in these 

relief programs themselves. I'm concerned about what will 

happen to these borrowers if this authority is used.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Kyra. And as 

always, any proposed amendments from the committee we 

still do have time to hear those out if folks want to

submit anything in the chat or via email. Tamy, anything 

else you'd want to solicit from the group on 30.85? No?

MS. ABERNATHY: Nope. Not at this 

time, Brady. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I think that 

there's been a request for a short break. So, if 

negotiators are okay to hit pause right here and just 

take a quick 15 minute break or so and we'll resume, 

let's see, I have 11:07, let's say, 11:25 to be back on 

camera. Okay. See you in a bit. Alright. Welcome back, 

everyone. I think I want to pick us up- before we head to 

lunch just if there's any additional feedback for the 

negotiating committee or the Department on any of the 

proposed regulatory texts that we've discussed thus far 

today. I know there's some more to come but anything that 

folks want to add, particularly questions for additional 

consideration of the committee before we move on? Yeah, 

Jalil, you're muted right now, but go ahead.
52

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. My raise hand 

function wasn't working. It wasn't working. I want to

come back to some of the earlier regulatory texts, 

30.81,.82, and so forth. Because I think that we are in a 

moment where I first have to question kind of the good 

faith approach of this negotiating process. So, we have 

had months of conversation both here at the table but 

also negotiators, the Department preparing for these 

sessions. We were presented with hardship categories with 

different topics to discuss. And I think it's really hard 

to engage in what I would consider a good faith 

conversation, let alone a negotiation without having some 

indication of where we're going on the hardship text. I 

think in addition to that, to introduce the $10,000, 

$20,000 caps at this stage in the negotiation. Again, I 

still haven't heard a rational explanation of why those 

were introduced and why they're justified? Again, just 

makes me wonder about the good faith effort negotiation, 

research, proposals, and expertise that went into really 

trying to create relief proposals for borrowers. So, I'd 

really encourage my other facilitators on the negotiators 

on the call to really advocate and speak up if you also 

are sharing these sentiments and feelings that something 

about this negotiation process has taken a turn where we 

are not seeing the conversation, the buildup, and what we 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

have been focusing on reflected in this moment in time. 

And I also would like to remind the Department that there 

are real borrowers on the other side of this regulatory 

text that just yesterday I sat in Philadelphia with 40 

teachers in the Philadelphia School District where they 

talked about their student loan debt. They talked about 

the hardship of carrying balances that are hindering not 

just their ability to stay for retirement or buy a house 

but hindering their ability to have a good sense of self 

as they're moving through their life to hindering their 

ability not to be stressed, to feel hopeful, to navigate 

a lot of the work and things that they are trying to do 

in our public school district, not just as teachers, but 

as human beings who shouldn't be under burdensome student 

debt. And that is one group on top of the many groups 

that we have talked about so far in these sessions and I 

just don't see that reflected here in this regulatory 

text. And I'm just really more encouraging the other

negotiators to speak up and speak loudly about your 

groups if they're not reflective because I think there's 

some real dangerous restraints that I see being proposed 

right now in the regulatory text that don't offer us the 

bold and justice driven relief that we need.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Jalil. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. I just wanted 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

to flag that one of the requests that I and other 

negotiators made in recommendations following the 

regulatory text that was proposed at the second table and 

also in discussions since the first table. Is that these 

regulations more clearly create avenues for the 

Department to provide relief to people who have been 

deprived of relief in other forms or generally have been 

subjected to service or misconduct. I don't think that 

the proposals that the Department has put forward do 

enough to address both the historic harms that have 

befallen borrowers due to widespread and pervasive 

service or misconduct of which we have seen considerable 

evidence. And truly, it's irrefutable that that's the 

case. And in addition to that, I don't think the 

Department has done enough to create avenues for itself 

to address the types of service or problems that have 

occurred historically, if they occur in the future and 

there's no reason to think that they couldn't. I really 

do want to emphasize that the Department could be doing 

more on this point and also that it would be beneficial 

for the Department since it's going through this 

rulemaking process now to make sure that it's really 

creating tools that it can use. Right? It's 

discretionary. It's not obligated to, but that it can use 

in the future when unforeseen problems arise so that it 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

doesn't find itself back in the position of needing to go 

through another regulatory process to try and respond to 

problems that are both predictable, and even if they're 

not predictable, could be addressed through the creation 

of discretionary tools that are broader than what the 

Department has put on the table. So, you know, as we go 

into the last, you know, day and a half of the session, I 

really do hope that the Department can consider ways to 

expand the regulations that were proposed. And I 

encourage the Department to take a look again at the 

regulatory text that we've proposed. Thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Richard.

MR. HAASE: I think I'm going to echo 

a lot of what you're hearing right now. Really as I kind

of took a step back over the last few minutes while we're 

on break to process where we are and where we haven't 

actually moved. Really concerned by the number of strains 

that are still in place, you know, in not addressing 

servicer issues, in the absence of hardship language, and 

in some of the ceilings that have been placed on 81 and 

82. Honestly, I feel like in good conscience, I can't 

support where we are on 30.81, 30.82 without hardship 

language or hardship language without 30.81, 30.82. I 

think that those three pieces and adding this service or 

misconduct, I feel like capture so much of the hardship, 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

so much of the struggle that's out there that we've been 

talking about, and I don't see how we move forward 

without some of those pieces getting addressed.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. From the 

Department, anything else you'd want to solicit from the 

group?

MS. ABERNATHY: Not at this time. But 

if there are no, well, after there's no additional 

discussion, I'll have something to say.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Sherri, please go 

ahead.

MS. GAMMAGE: I want to echo the 

comments that have been made here. I voted neutral on 

30.81 and 30.82 because I have real concerns. And 

question also, are we really- is the Department really 

negotiating in good faith? You know, has this committee 

and the work that they've done and the discussions we had 

had any meaning at all? I too find it difficult to 

discuss anything's really going forward without 

discussing hardship. I'm concerned about the cutoffs. I'm 

concerned that some of the dates that the Department has 

chosen for what loans they'll look at and when will fail 

to meet the needs of my constituency, which is four-year 

borrowers, especially those with older loans. And I'm 

also concerned about the $20,000 cap and it not really 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

doing enough to address the amortized interest and the 

capitalization of interest and that $10 and $20,000 isn't 

going to provide the relief that my constituency really 

needs. I'm also concerned that with the offsets and being 

able to, you know, garnish folks' Social Security checks 

and their income taxes, refunds, that basically, all the 

language that I've read is not going to help people. It's 

not going to- it's pushing people further into poverty. 

Especially those in the low income group, you know, low 

middle class, working class folks, and that the work that 

this committee put into this, both in our discussions in 

the last four meetings and in our other work with each 

other that all the proposals and the work and the 

research that we did is being ignored.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sherri. John?

MR. WHITELAW: Yeah. And I just want 

to reiterate that community of students with 

disabilities. Talking about hardship is incredibly 

important. And in fact, a lot of, I think my and some of 

our other negotiators' concerns about some of the, and I 

agree, unnecessary narrowness of the proposals put 

forward could impart or significantly be assuaged if we 

knew what hardship says, but we don't. And that's a real 

problem because at the back end we don't know to what 

extent people, you know, the Department is considering 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

hardship as another- and I'm not- I'm going to use this 

advice as catchall for all sorts of things that should 

get caught by these narrow proposals but don't get 

caught. That might well change some, certainly my 

attitude towards some of these more narrow approaches. 

And for us to sort of not have any sense of what hardship 

is going to look like at the back end makes it really 

difficult to look at these more narrow proposals in 

isolation without knowing if some of the problems that 

we've identified could get fixed during hardship such 

that we wouldn't necessarily want to vote them down but 

not having any clue about what the Department's going to

do if a hardship leaves us, you know, we're all screaming 

into the void here. And I think you've heard pretty much 

from everybody that given all the questions you asked us 

about hardship, then the evidence that we on the 

proposals we put out to talk about hardship and then to 

have it be oh, we're going to talk about that later. I 

think that's problematic for many of us at the table.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, John. Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I'd just like to 

reiterate Yael's comment that it was disappointing that 

we didn't see language that would provide the Department 

with discretion to respond and provide relief in light of 

servicing misconduct. In addition, like the other 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

negotiators have commented, while I understand that much 

may be captured in the Department's hardship proposal, I 

was disappointed to see that there aren't- there isn't a 

discrete proposal intended to target borrowers in 

default. The data that the Department shared shows that 

nearly half of borrowers in default have been in default 

for 7 years or more. That is 7 years where they could be 

subject to wage garnishment, losing their tax refund, 

which they may use to pay for medications, to pay for 

housing, to pay to fix their car, and 7 years where they 

may be losing a portion of their other Federal benefits 

like Social Security income, etcetera. The Department has 

data, at least as to the most distressed borrowers, and 

so, I'm disappointed that there isn't a more discreet 

proposal targeted towards those borrowers. In addition, 

when we do discuss hardship, I would hope that a 

borrower's default status on their loans would broadly 

capture more people in default. But at a bare minimum, I 

am disappointed that we don't see a discreet proposal for 

defaulted borrowers in particular and extremely 

distressed borrowers in particular as well.

MR. ROBERTS: Thanks, Kyra. Wisdom.

MR. COLE: Yeah. Just wanted to agree 

with my colleagues just around the lack of transparency 

in terms of our discussion around hardship, I think, for 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

particular constituency that I represent, civil rights 

organizations as well as young borrowers. Many of the 

things that have been proposed so far, do not really 

speak to what we have shared in the sessions prior that 

allow a broader expansive view of how debt may be 

canceled or waived as we've talked about in these 

sessions. I think it's important for us to really 

understand how this will have implications, not just in 

the upcoming 2024 year but for years to come. 

Particularly thinking about students who are currently in 

college, thinking about different ways in which we are 

looking at hardship, understanding that we have talked 

and not really discussed, the understanding of financial 

hardship, educational hardship, social hardship, and how 

that plays a role within what has been proposed here. I 

think that, like, if we are going to really have a 

discussion about hardship I propose and ask If there's an 

opportunity for us to change the agenda, for us to have 

that conversation earlier rather than later.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Wisdom. To 

the question on the agenda, I think we're going to

provide an update on the proposed agenda after lunch. So, 

I think more to come on that. But I do want to turn it 

over to Tamy because I know you'd mentioned you had some 

comments.
61

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. I would like for 

us to call a caucus with Kyra please. The Department and 

Kyra. And then I think, Brady, make that a 15 minute 

caucus, and we can come back in, wrap up and then break 

for lunch.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. That sounds good. 

So just as a reminder for the caucus, they're not live 

streamed and any negotiator, while there's one caucus 

going on, can always follow second if they want to speak 

to some folks as well. So, we can go off live and I can 

make that move. Alright. Welcome back, everyone. Thank 

you for your patience during that caucus period. We are 

going to break for lunch now for the next hour and five 

minutes, and we're going to kick back off, at 1:00 p.m. 

to resume discussion on proposed regulatory text. So, 

with that, we will see you in a little over an hour and I 

believe we can go off live.

 

Zoom Chat Transcript
62

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 3, Day 1, Morning, December 11, 

2023

*Chat was copied as presented, as a result minor typos or grammatical errors 

may be present.

From Rene Tiongquico - U.S. Department of Education to Everyone:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-12-31/pdf/E8-

31176.pdf

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

Josh Divine will start off in for State AGs

From P- Richard Haase -Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Thanks Sarah B. It would be accurate to say that all data 

requests were “responded to,” not “answered” or “fulfilled.”

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

I would like to note that many individuals that attended trade 

school do in fact have student loan debt.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

I believe it is too late to add members. Further, I run two small 

businesses and I too have paid off all of my student loans

From P- Richard Haase -Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

I also have no student debt

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) P- students w/disabilities to 

Everyone:

Will the State AGs be bringing in a different alternate or 

proceeding with just the Primary.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Jalil coming in

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

Additionally, with regards to 30.1(a)(2) Is it true that the DCIA 

still allows the GAO to engage in collections? Or is that language a 

reference to 31 USC 3711(a)(2), the Comptroller’s compromise 

authority?

09:41:08 From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 on clarifying that 682.403 only applies to commercially-held 

FFEL loans

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

Replying to "+1 on clarifying tha..."

 

Yes. I propose changing the title of 682.403 to "§ 682.403 Waiver 

of FFEL Program loan debt not held by the Department" or similar so 

that the relationship between those two provisions with respect to 

FFEL loans is clarified.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

+1 that the cancellation caps are unnecessary and foreclose 

relief both now and in the future

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 that the cancella..." with ���

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica's point that if the Department lacks payment 

records, it should not continue collection
63

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

From P- Richard Haase -Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica’s point. Doesn’t make sense to collect on loans the 

department doesn’t have a clear sense or record of

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica’s point re: missing payment histories

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

The information provided focuses on income eligibility criteria 

without considering the financial implications for borrowers with 

multiple or advanced degrees. This oversight disregards the potential 

influence of additional degrees on borrowers' income levels and debt 

burdens, especially if they pursued graduate studies. Consequently, 

the text lacks acknowledgment of how pursuing further education, like 

graduate degrees, could affect individuals' debt, income, and their 

overall financial situation.

From Sarah Butts, A- 4-Year Borrowers (she/her) to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jessica’s poin..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Angelika

From P-Vincent Andrews-Veteran & Military Groups to Everyone:

Reacted to "The information prov..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Jalil coming in

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year to Everyone:

I support Yael on addressing servicer harm.

From Sarah Butts, A- 4-Year Borrowers (she/her) to Everyone:

+1 regarding Jalil's comments. We are representing many borrowers 

across the country who desperately need student loan debt relief. The 

negotiators have submitted proposals that would cover many more 

borrowers.

From P- Richard Haase -Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Richard coming back in for grad borrowers

From P- Kyra Taylor, Legal Assistance Orgs to Everyone:

+1 re: needing to add servicing misconduct

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights Organization to Everyone:

Agreed

From Sandra Boham to Everyone:

Agreed

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year to Everyone:

Agree

From Susan Teerink - Private, Non-Profit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jessica’s poin..." with ���

From P-Amber Gallup-State Higher Education Officials to Everyone:

+1 from State Higher Education officials group

From Susan Teerink - Private, Non-Profit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 re: needing to ad..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

+1 on servicer misconduct, especially when the Dept is fining 

loan servicers right now for misconduct
64

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/11/23

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

I'm also worried about the $20,000 limit and other content under 

review today. Mr. Cole consistently highlights the job market 

challenges faced by communities of color or marginalized student 

groups. These individuals often resort to pursuing graduate or 

advanced degrees to enhance their job market competitiveness. However, 

this choice can negatively impact their current situations, and they 

typically view these degrees as a last resort.

 

Cultural capital, encompassing knowledge, skills, and experiences 

acquired through social and cultural exposure, isn't equally 

accessible among different groups. Marginalized students might lack 

access to certain types of cultural capital, creating barriers to 

securing desirable job opportunities. Consequently, they may feel 

compelled to pursue graduate degrees to gain additional skills and 

qualifications needed to compete effectively in the job market.

From P-Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Regrettably, grant funding for graduate students is limited 

compared to the assistance available for undergraduate education. This 

scarcity of grants significantly affects marginalized students,

leading them to rely more on student loans to finance their graduate 

studies. This pursuit of higher education can exacerbate their student 

loan debt burden, resulting in financial challenges and potentially 

perpetuating economic disparities.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

+1 limiting cancellation to $10k/$20k when you have power to do 

more is directly inflicting racial harm on people of color

From Susan Teerink - Private, Non-Profit Institutions to Everyone:

 Reacted to "+1 limiting cancella..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage, 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Exactly, asking us to consider a vote on any part of the 

regulatory text without knowing or having some idea of the concrete, 

specific ways that hardship will be addressed or is reflected in the 

regulatory text does not help me as a negotiator make an informed 

decision. In addition, the agenda as written, makes the discussion of 

hardship appear as an "add on" and may be neglected if we run out of 

time at the end. I suggest we move the discussion of hardship up in 

the agenda prior to taking any formal vote on any parts of the 

regulatory text

From P- Richard Haase -Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree with Sherrie. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of voting 

on something that’s missing some of its most important parts.

From P-Amber Gallup-State Higher Education Officials to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agree with Sherrie. ..." with ���