Negotiated Rulemaking - 12/12/23 

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

 SESSION 3, DAY 2, MORNING

December 12, 2023

On the 12th day of December 2023, the

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

to 12:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, everyone. 

Welcome to session 3, day 2 of our negotiated rulemaking 

for school loan forgiveness. My name is John Weathers. 

I'll be co facilitating with Brady Roberts today from 

FMCS. I'd like to welcome everyone, the non-Federal 

negotiators, starting with civil rights organizations, 

Wisdom Cole.

MR. COLE: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello, Wisdom. India 

Heckstall.

MS. HECKSTALL: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello. From legal 

assistance organizations that represent students or 

borrowers, Kyra Taylor?

MS. TAYLOR: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Scott 

Waterman.

MR. WATERMAN: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. State 

officials including state higher education executive 

officers, state authorizing agencies, and state 

regulators of institutions of higher education, Lane 

Thompson.

MS. THOMPSON: Good morning.
3

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Amber 

Gallup.

MS. GALLUP: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello. State Attorneys 

General, Yael Shavit.

MS. SHAVIT: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Public 

institutions of higher education including two-year and 

four-year institutions, Melissa Kunes.

MS. KUNES: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Dr. J.D. 

LaRock? Okay, make a notation of that. Private nonprofit 

institutions of higher education, Angelika Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Angelika. 

Susan Teerink.

MS. TEERINK: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. 

Proprietary institutions, Kathleen Dwyer.

MS. DWYER: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Belen 

Gonzalez. 

MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. 

Historically Black colleges and universities, tribal 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

colleges and universities and minority serving 

institutions, Sandra Boham. Sandra, are you here? I'll 

make a note of that and alter it if and when she comes

in. My understanding is Carol Peterson is not going to be 

here today. I'd like to make a note on protocols. 

Protocol 5, paragraph A, absence is the equivalent of not 

dissenting, just as a reminder of that, in case we have a 

situation with that. Federal family education loan 

lenders servicers or guarantee agencies, Scott Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: Hey, good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Scott. 

Benjamin Lee?

MR. LEE: Morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Student 

loan borrowers who attended programs of two years or 

less, Ashley Pizzuti.

MS. PIZZUTI: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Ashley. 

David Ramirez. Student loan borrowers who attended fouryear programs, Sherri Gammage. Sherri? Thought I saw 

Sherri earlier. I'll make that note.

MS. GAMMAGE: Here. Here. Good 

morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Hi, Sherri. Okay. Good 

morning, Sherri. Sarah Christa Butts?
5

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MS. BUTTS: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello. Student loan 

borrowers who attended graduate programs, Richard Haase.

MR. HAASE: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Richard. 

and Dr. Jalil Bishop?

DR. BISHOP: Here.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello, Jalil. Currently 

enrolled postsecondary education students, Jada Sanford. 

Jada, are you here? Got that notation. Jordan Nellums.

MR. NELLUMS: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Jordan. 

And for U.S. military service members Mr. Vincent Andrews 

will not be present today. So, I've made that notation. 

Again, reminding everyone that absence is the equivalent 

of not dissenting. Consumer advocacy organizations, 

Jessica Ranucci?

MS. RANUCCI: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Ed Bolts. 

Ed, are you here? Individuals with disabilities or groups 

representing them, John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: Good morning, 

colleagues.

MR. WEATHERS: Morning, John and 

Waukecha Wilkerson.
6

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MS. WILKERSON: Good morning. Present.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, Waukecha. 

and the Federal negotiator, Tamy Abernathy?

MS. ABERNATHY: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning, and 

representing the Office of the General Counsel of the 

Department of Education, Soren Legaard.

MR. LEGAARD: Good morning.

MR. WEATHERS: Good morning. Without 

any further ado, I'm going to pass it over to Tamy for

any administrative business to start the day.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, John. Good 

day, negotiators. Here we are day two of session 3. Last 

evening, we provided you with an updated agenda. However, 

we will adjust the schedule as needed based on our 

discussion. Final consensus checks will be after lunch, 

however, thank you for the four proposed mandatory text 

changes we received from you last evening. We will 

discuss these proposals a little bit later. But I think 

right now, we should dive into the discussion on our next 

session of proposed regulatory text. If there is not any 

old business or administrative business, then we'll turn 

it over to FMCS. Are there any old business or 

administrative business that we need to discuss? Alright 

we'll turn it back over to you, John. Thanks so much.
7

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. My 

understanding of our agenda is that we're going to be 

initially looking at 30.89.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, sir, that is 

correct.

MR. WEATHERS: If you would like, go

ahead and present that. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Wonderful. Thank you 

team. This section lays out a separate policy for 

addressing negative amortization from the ones that we 

discussed yesterday. This section does not have set 

borrower eligibility requirements. It would waive up to 

$10,000 of the amount by which the borrower's balance 

exceeds what they owed upon starting repayment. We 

believe this provision would capture most situations of 

negative amortization for borrowers. This is regardless 

of whether the interest is capitalized. A borrower who 

has received the waivers under sections 30.81 or 30.82 

would not be eligible for a waiver here. We understand 

there were some suggestions to collapse this section and 

the one that follows with section 30.81 and 30.82. We see 

each of these proposals as being distinct and do not 

think it would be appropriate to combine them together. 

At this point, I'd ask the team to stop sharing and turn 

it back over to you, John.
8

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. So, 

the order in which we're gonna go right now is any 

questions, clarifying questions or things of that nature, 

then we'll take a temperature check and then any comments 

that the negotiators are interested in making at that 

point. So, any questions for the Federal team for the 

Department of Education at this point? Alright. I see 

Lane has her hand up. Go ahead, Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: Good morning. Thank 

you. My question on this part is where did the $10,000 

and $20,000 or rather the $10,000 cap come from? I'm kind 

of curious why that number was chosen.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: John? It's a level 

that we thought was appropriate to provide for all 

borrowers. And we have the ability for lower income 

borrowers to have additional relief. So that's what we 

did.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you. Any 

other clarifying questions as it regards to 30.89? Any 

other questions before we go to temperature check? Great, 

folks. Let's see our thumbs. Thumb up is a green, some 

sideways is you can live with it and obviously, thumb 

down is dissenting. So, let's do a temperature check on 

30.89. I see some thumbs down. Jessica and Angelika and 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

Wisdom, Kyra amongst them, John Whitelaw. Would any of 

you folks wish to make a comment as that relates to 

30.89? Got Kyra first. Go ahead, Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I'm happy to kick us off. 

I do not agree to this proposal for the reasons that Yael 

and others mentioned yesterday. It doesn't make sense for 

the Department to constrain its discretionary authority 

at these limits. In addition, as I mentioned yesterday, 

we see folks, I know we're gonna talk about the lowincome borrower's provision next, but I see low-income

borrowers who have accrued more than $20,000 in interest 

in capitalized interest beyond the original principal 

borrowed. And so, this just doesn't go far enough.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. Real 

quick administrative note. Ben Lee is coming in for Scott

Buchanan to the table. Welcome. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thanks. Listen, I said it 

yesterday. Kyra just summarized it well, but I can't 

agree to a provision that includes this cap. I think it 

makes- it constrains the Department's ability to address 

the actual harms consumers are experiencing. And I think, 

you know, certainly, we're aware of borrowers who have 

significantly higher accrued interest than this. It also 

doesn't make the most sense to me because the Department 

can draft the regulations in a manner that allows it to 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

respond to the situations that it's experiencing and then 

apply those regulations in a way that it thinks is 

appropriate in light of the circumstances that it's 

trying to address. So to the extent that the Department 

decides and I'm not commenting on whether or not this 

makes sense, but to the extent that the Department after 

its own analysis makes the decision that it wants to 

grant $10,000 of debt relief to all borrowers who fit the 

criteria under the section, it can do so without limiting 

its ability to provide additional relief to other cohorts 

of borrowers who should in fact get additional relief 

based on the extent of their accrued interest. So, my 

suggestion is that the Department remove the cap which 

serves no purpose other than to constrain its own ability 

to be responsive in a manner that I think is to the 

benefit of both borrowers and the Department. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. John Whitelaw.

MR. WHITELAW: Just a variation on 

that. We've heard both at this negotiation and in 

previous negotiations, the Department has said we never 

want to constrain our ability to do things, particularly 

when we have suggested things that would constrain their 

ability to do things. I don't understand why they would 

wanna constrain their abilities. I just don't understand 

why they wanna say, well, we're gonna limit ourselves to 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

10 k. I don't understand why they would do that. Taking 

away the cap doesn't mean they have to give people more 

than 10 k, and I think everyone acknowledges that. But 

why would they- why on earth would the Department want to 

limit its ability to provide greater relief when the 

circumstances warrant. That's why, while yes, clearly 

$10,000 is better than nothing. From my perspective, it's 

nowhere near good enough to support this proposal. Thank 

you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. 

Alright. Next, I see Jessica Ranucci. Jessica, you're 

still muted.

MS. RANUCCI: Sorry. Sorry.

MR. WEATHERS: No worries.

MS. RANUCCI: I just wanna echo what 

the other commenters have said and make two additional 

points. The first one is that I submitted language to the 

Department last night that would get rid of this cap. And 

if you get rid of the cap there's no point in having the 

four provisions. And so, I think that was the proposal in 

session 2. That's the proposal that I think makes the 

most sense and I think you have the language in front of 

you to do that. I'd also like to make a point about how 

this played out in the real world. I've been working with 

a borrower who reached out to me for help who was on the 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

wait list for public comment yesterday and didn't get an 

opportunity to speak. This borrower had obtained $64,000 

of loans, has been paying $200 a month for the last 20 

plus years, and just got a collections letter asking them 

to immediately pay $561,000. So, when we're talking about 

how interest and fees accrue on these loans, it's not a 

theoretical concept it's people who are making a good 

faith effort in paying their money like real expenses. 

This borrower said, look I didn't get braces for my kids 

because I had to pay this money towards my student loans. 

Borrowers are making a good faith effort, are paying 

money to their apartment and because of the high interest 

rate in the way that these loans balloon, it's just they 

can never climb out of this. And so, I think for 

borrowers, $10,000 of loan forgiveness just doesn’t makes 

sense as a Department policy.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. 

Alright. Moving on. Ashley, you're next.

MS. PIZZUTI: I'm just gonna echo what 

the others have said that it's just not enough. Every day 

a lot of my borrowers are still trying to navigate 

borrower defense and that's a whole other thing. But 

we're looking at people who have been paying their loans 

for 10, 20 years, and they have paid them every month, 

and yet they still owe- they've already paid off what 
13

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

their principal amount was. Their loans are still 80, 

120, some of them $200,000, where the majority of that is 

interest. And so, it's really hard for me to vote on 

something where $10,000 is a drop in the bucket for these 

people. And so, I can't in good faith vote on this.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you, 

Ashley. Tamy, I see your hand is up. Go ahead.

MS. ABERNATHY: Actually, I'm gonna 

put it down for now, I'll let others finish their 

comments and then we'll address it.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you, Tamy. 

Appreciate it. We'll circle back to you. Alright. Next, I 

see Wisdom. Go ahead, Wisdom.

MR. COLE: Thank you, John. Everyone I 

want to agree with my colleagues here on this call 

particularly around this interest cap. But I want to

speak to it from the perspective of the members of the 

NAACP as well as Black borrowers. You know, we've talked 

about this beforehand where for Black borrowers, the 

amount of student debt, that occurs, nearly doubles after 

graduation, and that's primarily because of interest. So,

by setting interest caps at this level, this doesn't 

provide an equitable solution to the members that I serve 

to Black borrowers. I want to turn our attention to some 

of the language that have been submitted by our 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

colleagues here on this call, as well as Senator 

Elizabeth Warren, who is asking for all the interest to 

be eliminated. I think by doing that, that allows a 

greater accessibility to the waivers that we're putting 

in hand. You know, I think we've been all here working 

our hardest, really submitting different proposals, 

discussing this so that we can get this right. And I 

think this is an opportunity for us to get it right.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Wisdom. 

Alright. Next, I have Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: I just want to speak to 

what both Wisdom and Ashley just said and just make the 

broader point, that I know that members of the Department 

understand. The context here to consider in viewing this 

provision is a history of unbelievable servicer failures 

and departmental failures that have resulted in borrowers 

being in the position that they're in right now. The 

solution that those borrowers need is not a small one, 

right? It's a significant one and it's a recognition of 

the circumstances that they found themselves in and the 

fact that they're not responsible for the breakdown in 

the system. This rulemaking is an opportunity to actually 

create a clean slate for people who have been struggling 

for years under the weight of their student loans. But 

frankly, also for the Department, who I want to 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

recognize, over the course of the last couple of years 

have been making real regulatory efforts to improve the 

servicing system in the context of student loans to try 

to prevent problems from happening in the future that 

happened in the past. But you really can't do that 

without providing people the relief that will address the 

problems that have already happened. This provision has 

the potential to do that. But with the caps of the 

Department put into the regulatory text after the second 

table, I'm disappointed that this provision really could 

have made a meaningful difference in people's lives, but

simply won't make the difference that it needs to really 

meet the moment.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Melissa, 

you're next.

MS. KUNES: Thank you. And first of 

all, I do wanna say thank you to the Department of 

Education. I realized you are making a very good faith 

effort to resolve this student loan crisis that we and 

our student loan repairs find themselves in in this time 

of crisis. And we all see this current measure as a stop 

gap to fix because we wanna fix this current issue and 

then move on to solve the real problems in the loan 

borrowing that have created these problems in the first 

place. So, knowing that the Department is making a good 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

faith effort along these lines, and I know I've heard 

Tamy say that they've picked these figures because 

they've seemed appropriate. Is there something that we're 

missing? Can you explain to us more from the rationale of 

the Department of Education why these caps are being 

imposed and why these particular figures are being 

picked? If there's something that we're missing in this 

conversation, I'd love to hear it because I do want to be 

considered a good partner in helping to fix this crisis 

so we can move on to ultimately fix the loan program that 

is broken for our borrowers. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Melissa. 

Quick administrative point. Scott Buchanan is coming back 

to the table for FFEL lenders servicers and guarantee 

agencies. Alright. Next, I have Richard Haase. Oh, Tamy, 

I see you've got your hand up. Pardon me, Richard.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, John.

MR. WEATHERS: If you'd like to 

respond? You bet.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, please. The 

Department understands that many of the nonfederal 

negotiators do not agree with the limits on relief. This 

proposal is consistent with our stance that we were 

considering a cap on this relief in the 2nd session. For 

that session, we had texts that talked about waiving all 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

or a portion of the amount by which a borrower's balance 

exceeds their original balance. This is the cap that we 

are proposing at this time, and we are not able to agree 

to remove the cap.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. I know 

that's addressing a lot of the issues that we're 

discussing right now. Richard, thank you for your 

patience. You're next.

MR. HAASE: Yeah. I just wanna 

reiterate. I think I've shared this concern in prior 

sessions too. I keep coming back as we talk about only 

tackling interest that exceeds the original loan balances 

to how short we fall in writing some of the wrongs that 

have been done unto borrowers. I have a colleague of mine 

who, she shared her story with me a few weeks ago about 

borrowing $90,000 for her college loans, losing her job, 

moving back in with her parents, raising her children as 

a single mom, and despite that, continuing to do 

everything that she was told to do when she was told to 

do it by the servicers who administered her loans. And 

over the course of more than 20 years, she paid back a 

150 - $160,000 by scraping again, by moving back in with 

their parents. The idea that someone like that could 

still carry a $70,000 balance at the end of all that 

effort, when the original loan was 90, is more than a 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

150, a 160 have been paid, and someone literally tried to 

do everything right, and great personal expense. I just 

feel like we missed the mark in helping those people. So,

this is why I still struggle to support anything that 

only focuses on what's left above the original principal 

balance and that neglects to recognize the real efforts 

that people have made to pay for their education as they 

were told to do so by their servicers.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Next, I have Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I also wanna just to add 

in the of not meeting the moment and not providing a 

solution that's appropriately tailored to the scope of 

the problem here. Legal aid attorneys across the country 

talk to borrowers who are absolutely panicked about their 

ballooning balances, who say, I have no idea how I'm 

going to do this, who are terrified about missing their 

student loan bill, and are making impossible choices to 

pay off that debt. And the unfortunate thing is that even 

if we're able to get them enrolled in an Income Driven 

Repayment Plan that has a low or $0 monthly bill, ther

borrower is still terrified about that ballooning balance 

that is still hanging over their head. They're still 

worried about what's gonna happen if the IDR plans don't 

exist anymore. For example, it makes them extremely 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

vulnerable to debt relief scammers who take advantage of 

this fear on the part of the folks that we work with. And 

so, again, I think there are more reasons to remove the 

cap here and I deeply hope that the Department considers 

them.

MR. WEATHERS: On an administrative 

note, Jalil will be coming in for Richard to the table. 

Welcome, Jalil. Next, I have Sherri Gammage.

 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sherri. I'm 

going to allow Tamy an opportunity to respond.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, John. 

First, the Department has made several attempts through 

previous negotiated rulemakings to addressed interest 

capitalization to remove that except where statutorily 

required. To also have new regulations around the SAVE 

Plan and IDR plans with the many efforts of onetime 

adjustments to correct borrowers' accounts where there 

were servicing errors. We also think that this policy 

addresses negative amortization for borrowers and through 

SAVE, they would not see their balance grow further 

because that plan does not charge unpaid monthly 

interest.

MS. GAMMAGE: I appreciate what you're 

saying. However, not everyone is going to qualify for 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

SAVE. It's not going to capture enough borrowers and 

that's where I'm going with my question. That's the 

underlying thinking behind that. I appreciate that you 

have the SAVE program, you've attempted to address 

negative amortization. However, this isn't broad enough. 

It's not going far enough and not everyone will qualify 

for the SAVE Plan which also has a cutoff date.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sherri. 

Moving on to, John Whitelaw. Go ahead, John.

MR. WHITELAW: I just wanted to mirror 

in some way what Tamy has said. I know that seems weird 

coming from me, but I want to mirror in the following 

sense. The Department has taken the position that we 

can't do any more than $10,000 or we're not going to do

more. We made a policy choice that we're not gonna do 

anything more than $10,000 for various reasons. When we 

hear that we're not moving off that, I think many of us 

negotiators are also deciding that that's just not 

adequate for us to support the proposal. And, you know, 

and if that's where we are, that's where we are. Well 

sometimes that happens with negotiations, but I think 

that the Department is obviously entitled to sort of 

stake out this position and stick to it. But you know

we're entitled to take out a position that $10,000 is 

just not good enough. So, I mean, I think if that's where 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

we are, that's where we are. In good faith people can 

disagree and I think we have a fundamental disagreement

so be it.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. Next, 

I have Lane. Go ahead, Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, John. I wanted 

to speak to the administrability of this provision. I 

know we had talked in previous sessions about how 

difficult it can be to kind of process certain programs. 

When I look at this, it appears to me that it would be 

very difficult to determine exactly who this would 

pertain to and then also actually get it to them. For an 

example, I have a borrower I'm working with right now who 

filed for a borrower defense to repayment during the 

pandemic pause and she currently accrues $1,000 a month 

in interest. So, if for some reason that borrower defense 

through a payment application does not get accepted, if 

that gets rejected, then she's going to have more than 

$10,000 in interest just from this first 10 months of 

repayment. I just really want to point out that based on 

servicers' past behavior around record keeping and

keeping track of where funds are going and how much is 

owed, I'm really concerned that $10,000 in interest would 

be difficult to determine and to get rid of.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. As an
22

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

administrative note, Sarah is coming in for Sherri to the 

table. Welcome, Sarah. Next up, I have Jalil. Go ahead, 

Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you, John. First, I 

want to start out by just echoing Lane's point about just 

operationally that there could be some difficulties here, 

as well with the caps and trying to determine again who's 

worthy of what amount of relief. would encourage the 

Department to think about ways to streamline and deliver 

this relief while taking all the lessons learned around 

the operational struggles and ineffectiveness that we see 

continuously play out. I also like to add your point 

Tamy, that you reminded us that with prior conversation 

from the Department about having some type of cap on 

relief that you have referred us to the SAVE Plan. In 

fact, many times when I've raised questions during these 

sessions, I've been sent the entire rulemaking documents 

from the SAVE Plan to review and I have reviewed them. I 

have come to understand the messaging from the Department 

of Education and the White House around SAVE. What I've 

learned is that in a lot of that messaging, it's been 

this selling point that SAVE caps interest. In the 

August 2023 Report from the White House that SAVE allows 

that borrower who borrowed $31,000 not to experience 

runaway interest. The examples that the White House gave
23

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

was that the borrower without SAVE will see their balance 

go up to 55,000, see their balance goes up by $24,000 and 

that's what SAVE is supposed to prevent. I think what 

we're asking for here is to take that same logic, the 

same selling point, the same pitching, and messaging that 

you all have been sending out around SAVE and apply that 

to these regulations. Allow borrowers to have their 

interest lower not only through SAVE but also 

retroactively borrowers who are right now sitting with 

$25,000 or $30,000 of interest. We're asking for that 

same logic that you applied around SAVE that caps 

interest in the future to apply it to borrowers who are 

currently sitting with balances where $20,000 or $10,000 

will do something, but it won't come close to doing what 

they need. And I think that this is not a request or 

something that's out of that field, but it really 

reflects the argument, the messaging, and the solution 

that the Department and the White House have been sending 

to borrowers going forward. I think the question now is, 

why can't we do that for all borrowers? If that's what 

we're saying should be the golden standard, which you all 

have continued to say it is, the golden standard. It's 

the safety net going forward. I think we're asking why 

can't we apply that retroactively? I do think the 

Department should answer why the 10 or $20,000? Is it 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

enough to just say that's what we chose. I think we 

should hear some evidence. Refer us to some data 

analysis, something that backs up that proposal in the 

same way we must send proposals with rationales and 

evidence and so forth.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you, Jalil. 

Tamy, I saw your hand up. Were you still wanting to 

respond?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. We do thank you 

for your comments. However, we have stated our position 

already and they're really at this point, you know, we're 

happy to hear all that you guys are continuing to say to 

us, and we'll listen to it, but we have set our position 

at this point.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. In 

light of that comment from Tamy, are there any additional 

comments that are covering new ground? Ashley, I see your 

hand up.

MS. PIZZUTI: It's not really covering 

new ground, but I just wanted to share my own personal 

story. I know that we have touched a little bit on 

servicer harm. My husband and I graduated in 2006. And 

while some of the story includes private loans which I 

know does not have anything to do with this. We graduated 

at the beginning of the housing crash and were not able 
25

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

to find anything above minimum wage. We were caller 

services. We were on the phone with them for less than 10 

minutes stating, we don't have income, we can't pay rent. 

They're like, that's fine, just take forbearance. No 

explanation of how the capitalized interest would 

compound daily. Each one of our loans in 2006 after 18 

months of forbearance ballooned by over $40,000 because 

of the fees that were added, because of the capitalized 

interest, and the fact that nothing was explained to us 

on how this would work or what we would end up owing 

after that forbearance. We had no idea that our loans 

were growing, and I know that I am not alone in this 

situation of having these outrageous loans just balloon 

to unbelievable amounts.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you, 

Ashley. Looks like I have Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: So, I just wanted to jump 

in and respond to Tamy's earlier comments about the 

prospective relief that the Department is offering 

through the SAVE Plan, the change in interest 

capitalization rules, and the IDR account adjustment, 

which do make some progress in responding to some of the 

problems. However, it doesn't change the fact that 

borrowers who are not yet at cancellation still have 

those ballooned balances from policy failures and 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

systemic failures and that is really what we're 

negotiating about here. That question of how will the 

Department respond and provide retroactive relief to 

respond to those failures? And, to the extent that these 

same failures occur in the future, does the Department 

have enough discretion to respond appropriately to those 

kinds of problems? So, I just wanted to respond to that 

comment.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. 

Alright. Next, I have Angelika. Angelika.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Thank you to the 

Department for looking into these regulations and trying 

to find a solution. But I must disagree with the limit. 

Tamy, you've mentioned wholeheartedly why the limit is 

there in your position and the Department's position on 

the limit. I only asked to rereview the limit from a 

different lens because as an individual who has practiced 

financial aid for 17 years, I don't think that limit is 

consistent with how we've seen interest applied to loans. 

Meaning that we're just going to see the student in the 

same position they were previously in by the next 

interest quarter. It's not where we feel it would be an 

unintentional fail, as we believe it will be, as one will 

believe that is a relief to the student, but it actually 

it's going to flatline within the next interest quarter, 
27

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

the next billing statement for individuals who are in a 

distressed position. Just to echo Kyra, I don't think the 

other repayment plans really will address it from another 

perspective.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Angelika. 

Sarah.

MS. BUTTS: I just wanted to emphasize 

that we're hearing from borrowers every day that they are 

experiencing distress and having a difficult time paying 

their loans. While we appreciate these efforts, it seems 

a stark contrast from the initial discussions from the 

last session to now and not knowing what the committee is 

going to do or what the Department's going to do around 

hardship. If this is the primary broad-based relief, I 

think it's going to be very disappointing to many of our 

constituent groups. We have borrowers who the interest is 

accruing starting when they're students. That's been 

stated repeatedly. We have other borrowers of all age 

ranges that are impacted by this some of them have 

actually paid their principal balance. So, in that case, 

all interest could be forgiven. It would be life changing 

for those borrowers and it's hard to see how these 

different borrowers are gonna be impacted positively by 

this policy. There are Parent Plus borrowers that feel 

left out and borrowers who are in default with the 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

interest accumulation. I wanna emphasize that one of my 

colleagues, Richard, submitted a proposal that really 

looks at the cost of living. Those borrowers are in high 

cost of living states where it's very hard for these 

policies to have any impact. We're asking on behalf of 

borrowers that you please reconsider and have a proposal 

that everyone can see some relief from it.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sarah. Next,

we have Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: Hi. I understand, Tamy, 

what you're saying that the Department did put the 

possibility of waiver of some but not all interest above 

the principal balance in the 2nd session. I could be 

wrong, but I don't remember hearing a single comment by 

negotiators in support of it. I know we've been talking 

about this for a while, but I haven't heard any comments 

in support of any provision here that has a cap on the 

amount of interest above principal that's waived. I know 

there's been a lot of comments in the chat and not 

everyone has gotten a chance to speak. I guess I just 

wanted to give a chance to ask my fellow negotiators, is 

there anyone here who supports the type of proposal that 

the Department is making that caps the amount of interest 

above the principle that is waived?

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. I'm 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

going to move to Lane. And if there's no other comment.

MS. SHAVIT: Well, I'm sorry. To 

follow-up on Jessica's comment, if you had an idea about 

how the negotiators could demonstrate whether or not they 

agree with the cap on interest?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. It wasn't meant to 

be a rhetorical question. I'm happy to just sit and wait. 

If someone does support this, I'd like to hear why you 

support it, and I think that if no one does support it, 

that's something the Department should pay attention to 

as he nonfederal negotiators.

MR. WEATHERS: I understand. I'm going 

to go to Cindy Jeffries, FMCS. Go ahead, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, John. Jessica, 

thanks for calling the question. We do appreciate it. For 

the protocols, it does state, to preserve time, 

negotiators should not repeat a previously made point 

when it is that negotiator's turn to speak. The 

Department has made their position clear. We took the 

temperature check that I think made it clear that the 

real problem here is the cap. Beyond that, unless someone 

wants to raise their hand and say, I support this, I 

think this is probably a good time to move on to the next 

topic. It appears that the Department has received your 

message loud and clear. They have responded twice so if 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

we could see or hear from anyone who is in favor of the 

cap, please raise your hand now. Otherwise, I think it's 

time to move on.

MS. THOMPSON: Cindy, can I just ask a 

question? That's why I've had my hand raised this time.

MS. JEFFRIES: Sure. Thanks, Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: My question is just for 

the Department. I don't expect an answer right now, but I 

would love to hear how this provision's gonna be applied 

to loans with missing or incomplete loan history? I don't 

feel like we've addressed that yet. Thank you.

MS. JEFFRIES: That's a good question, 

Lane. Thank you. Do you want to pop that in the chat just 

so that they have that in their minds when they're 

reviewing this, drafting that draft, if you will, for the 

NPRM period? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Okay. John, I'll 

turn it back over to you to move us on into the next 

topic.

MR. WEATHERS: Absolutely. Thank you, 

Cindy. And I'm going to hand it off to the Department. I 

believe we're moving on to 30.90.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, John. 

Screen sharer, share their screen please. This section 

provides a path for a low income borrower who is not on 

IDR to receive a waiver of up to $10,000 in amounts over 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

their balance upon entering repayment. We are defining 

low income here as under 225% of the Federal poverty 

guideline. The idea is that because these borrowers are 

not on IDR, they would have to provide their income 

information to us through an application. But this could 

pick up low income borrowers that are not otherwise able 

to sign up for IDR or are not on an IDR Plan. I'll turn 

it back over to you, John.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Alright. Any clarifying questions for 30.90? Kyra, I saw 

your hand.

MS. TAYLOR: Can the Department 

clarify why it's $10,000 here, but $20,000 for borrowers 

under an IDR Plan for low-income borrowers as opposed to 

the same for all low-income borrowers?

MS. ABERNATHY: These particular 

borrowers would get $10,000 and then another $10,000 so 

the amounts do work out to be the same. Does that help? 

Yes, that's great.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. And 

I'm showing that Richard is coming back to the table. 

Welcome, Richard. Alright. Any other questions or 

clarifying questions as it relates to 30.90 before we 

take a temperature check on this. Kyra, did you just 

leave your hand up? Okay, thank you. Alright. Any other 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

questions? Alright. Let's, move to a temperature check. 

Thumbs up, thumb sideways, thumbs down. Let's see some 

thumbs, please. I see some thumbs down. Kyra, Jessica, 

Wisdom, John, Sarah. Could we go ahead and start with 

those who have their thumbs down, any comments that you'd 

like to make? Richard.

MR. HAASE: Yeah. Hi. I submitted 

language yesterday. I recognize it was for part 30.81 

subparts (b)(2). But I have the same concerns here with 

any reference to 225% of the Federal poverty line being 

used as a litmus test for economic hardship for 

borrowers. That number is completely meaningless for 

broad swaths of the American public. In my position that 

I shared yesterday, the regulatory language that I 

submitted pointed out that according- where I live in 

Suffolk County on Long Island, the poverty line was 

identified as 55 1⁄2 for a single income household, whereas 

it's 27 1⁄2 . According to the FPL, it's literally half of 

what it cost here. Actually, I was doing the math on this 

a little bit earlier today in any state that has a $15 

minimum wage, the Federal poverty line is below minimum. 

If you're a $15 an hour employee working 40 hours a week 

for an entire year, you're making more than the Federal 

poverty line. So, I strongly oppose any language that 

uses that metric for determining because you're not 
33

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

helping tens of millions of people.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I just wanna note that 

this provision has the same problems that we've 

identified. As to all the other interest provisions, 

there shouldn't be a cap here, especially for low-income

borrowers. As I've noted previously, it should be full 

cancellation of the difference between the amount 

originally borrowed and the amount currently outstanding.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. Next, 

I have Ashley. Ashley, you're muted.

MS. PIZZUTI: I'm gonna echo what Kyra 

and Richard have said. I live in the Greater Boston area, 

so the poverty cutoff would eliminate the majority of my 

area. The interests needs to be wiped out and not have 

all these caps that only collect a small amount of 

people. It's not reaching enough people, and especially 

in my area or high cost of living areas, it's just not 

going to do anything.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Ashley. 

Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Using the Federal 

poverty guideline is a long standing approach. We use it 

in IDR. We think it is an appropriate use here. For 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

borrowers above the threshold, they get $10,000 under 

section 30.89, and 225% mirrors existing programs under 

the Higher Education Act, which we have improved from 150 

to 225% to capture more people.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. Next, 

I have John. Go ahead, John.

MR. WHITELAW: So, certainly, I think 

this is the list of problems we have with this, you know, 

it's the same as with the others. I just also wanna point 

out, and I know that I've been beating on this one for a 

couple of days. The problem is exacerbated by what we 

don't know if any of our concerns would be taken care of 

through a catchall hardship provision. So, for example, 

if a hardship provision said, yeah, we recognize the 

225%, but if you're in an area with high housing costs, 

that number is gonna, you know, we're gonna look at 

hardship differently. Then would we- would it solve our 

problem that we don't like using the Federal poverty 

guidelines? No. But it would make the- it would, it could 

depend on how hardship is defined significantly less on 

our concerns. But the problem is we don't know what 

hardship is at the back end. So, you know, all of our 

concerns are sort of front and center because we don't 

know to what extent that a catchall hardship provision is 

gonna take care of some of them. Which would allow us 
35

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

possibly to slough over some of the fundamental sort of 

philosophical disagreements we have with the Department 

in the sense that for some of us, if hardship took care 

of it, you know, we could- some of us might be able to 

set aside our philosophical disagreements over using the 

Federal poverty guidelines because we would, take the 

position that the hardship provision solve that problem 

for us. And so, I think the absence of a detailed set of 

provisions or, you know, proposed regulations on hardship 

really makes it difficult for us to overlook potentially 

some of our philosophical and other concerns with these 

provisions. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. 

Alright. I'm moving on to Richard. Richard, you're next.

MR. HAASE: Thank you. I think John 

makes a good point here. The FPL is used as some 

something of an objective measure for hardship. If there 

were other factors being considered, that might make this 

something easier to move on. But again, in the total 

darkness that we're operating right now, regarding 

hardship, which has clearly been established is a 

priority for this group, it makes it really hard to know 

when we're actually helping people that we all kinda came 

together to help. Right? I do wanna point out also to 

something that Tamy said in response to my initial 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

objection here where you said, you kinda pointed out that 

that percentage of FPL is language that's used in other 

places throughout the HEA and throughout the policies 

that are formed. Even other metrics like applied in parts 

of the SAVE Plan where, you know, an individual making a 

$125,000 or a joint filer is making $250,000. Those exist 

in regulation as well, and I think that they are 

infinitely more workable than the 225% of FPL. So, I 

again, kind of in the absence of hardship language with 

an income cap that kind of leaves out, you know, the 

entire East Coast, West Coast, and a number of states in 

the middle. And the cap on what we're willing to forgive 

an interest in people here again like we saw in previous 

articles. I just worry that, you know, the cohort we're 

failing to help here is Americans. I feel like we're 

missing way too many people with all of the constraints 

put in place on this attempt at helping. So, I would like 

to see us improve in those areas.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Tamy, I see your hand up, please.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you. We wanna 

reiterate that while we understand your desire to 

consider all of these regulatory provisions together. Our 

continued position is that we are discussing each of 

these items as distinct separate proposals. So, we do not 
37

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

have hardship regulatory text to share with you. So, we 

still want to consider each of these other provisions 

separate and distinct from hardship. We do understand 

where you're coming from, but we still wanna look at 

these as separate distinct policy positions.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. Moving 

on to Jessica.

MS. RANUCCI: I wanna lift up an 

exchange that Tamy and Lane have been having in the chat. 

So, I know that Lane asked about loans with missing loan 

histories. This is something that we talked about 

yesterday and I submitted language last night that 

essentially says, you know, ask the Department to add a 

provision that essentially says, look if the Department's 

records are missing where the servicers' records are 

missing such that we can't tell if someone would be 

eligible for a waiver, they should get the waiver. I 

think that that's really important. I don't think that 

any burden of missing records should fall on borrowers,

and I hope that the Department will adopt language 

similar to what I proposed. I would also say, Tamy, that 

I appreciate that your response recognizes that HEAL loan 

borrowers are included in this relief. I was gonna this 

yesterday, we got sidetracked, but I think HEAL loan 

borrowers are left out of a lot of relief and I noticed 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

that they're in explicitly in these provisions and were 

added to a certain other set of provisions. I think 

that's really important. I've been contact- I didn't know 

anything about HEAL loans until recently. I've been 

contacted by multiple HEAL borrowers and I think that 

those borrowers need relief too. And I think that, you 

know, to the extent your response suggests that there 

might some record keeping issues with the underlying HEAL 

loans, which, you know, were issued by banks that may not 

exist anymore, guaranteed by a Federal agency that no 

longer has authority to operate them. Like, I understand 

why there would be record keeping issues. I think that 

underscores a reason why you need to have a catch all 

that allows the secretary to, in his or her discretion, 

waive loans that are missing records.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. 

I've got John Whitelaw next. Go ahead, John.

MR. WHITELAW: Thank you. I just 

wanted to respond and again, this is a debate slash 

discussion that we had yesterday, we'll probably have 

again this morning. We'll probably have again this 

afternoon. I appreciate the Department's response that 

we, you know, that their view of these is we need to look 

at each one narrowly and in isolation. That is not the 

view of some of us and we, again, have a fundamental 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

disagreement of how to look at proposals. Our goal, well 

at least my goal, and I suspect it is shared by many 

different constituents is to come up with a set of 

regulations or proposed regulations that provides 

meaningful relief across the board to our constituency in 

a way that is fair and appropriate. And you can't look at 

each provision narrowly from our perspective because that 

doesn't necessarily tell you if there's going to be fair 

relief for our constituencies. So, my view is, I am 

looking at it more holistically than the Department would 

want me to look at it, but that's safe, which is fine. 

You know the Department has its views of how these should 

be looked at and I would like to say some of us have our 

views. And, again, there may be some irreconcilable 

tension between those two views. But I think that that's 

completely or that's such as life. We there are lots of 

areas where there are irreconcilable tensions. And I will 

say that from my perspective as both an attorney, a long 

standing legal aid on poverty attorney and a disability 

rights advocates. I am not looking at the package 

individually in some sense. I am looking at, is there a 

relief being provided to the constituency that I serve 

for in this negotiation? And I can't isolate out one 

package because that doesn't really tell me the answer. 

And, again, I appreciate that's not how the Department
40

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

wants me to look at it, but and I regret that we're in 

that position of tension, but there we are.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. Tamy, 

I see your hand is up. Would you like to respond?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. Thank you, John. 

Sometimes tension is good when you're in negotiations. I 

equate that to being a diamond that gets thrown into the 

fire and what comes out of that is something polished and 

new. So, hopefully, that would be the same thing that we 

can agree to throughout these negotiations. We have at 

least the disbursed balance amount, which is what we 

would rely on if we needed to. There are places where it 

gets more complicated, but for negative amortization, we 

think those are generally going to be a smaller number of 

borrowers as compared to the total. So, we would look at 

that disbursed balance amount.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. Lane, 

you're next.

MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, John. A couple 

thoughts. One is that without a hardship proposal I think 

I kind of have to assume this is what folks who are 

suffering from hardship are getting is this part here and 

I just don't really think it's sufficient. Mostly because 

of that record keeping issue. As an example, if somebody 

has a joint consolidation loan with somebody that they're 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

divorced from, it might be pretty difficult to figure out 

how much of that loan was above the $10,000 that was 

originally or was above the original disbursement amount, 

considering that two different people had the loans 

dispersed, it was later combined, and now one person has 

it. So that's just an example of a group that might be 

kinda difficult to determine how to apply a provision 

like this. The other thing I wanted to add is, you know, 

folks who have both Parent Plus and their own loans. That 

might be another group where it'd be really difficult to 

figure out how to apply a provision like this. And 

mostly, what I wanna kinda bring to the forefront here is 

that while these provisions are separate provisions and 

we're addressing them that way, I think it's also 

important to point out that borrowers are not 

experiencing these as separate things. Right? Borrowers 

experience this all as one phenomena. So, I think it's 

just important that we kinda keep that front of mind that 

while we're looking at how all of the kind of details of 

this might work behind the scenes that for the folks that 

this may actually impact, it doesn't really feel like a 

whole bunch of different things.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. Moving 

on to Richard.

MR. HAASE: I'll be quick. I put this 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

in the chat for the records as well, but I do want to be 

on record saying that I'm formally requesting that we 

replace any references in the regs to the 225% of FPL, 

change it to language that looks more like what we have 

for SAVE, where we're using the salaries of $125,000 or 

joint salaries of $250,000. I'm not just sharing 

thoughts, I'm really submitting those as a formal request 

for change. I still have concerns with the forgiveness 

caps and a bunch of the other things that are shared 

here. But I can't in good faith with our constituency 

group, go back and say that we are exempting all New 

Yorkers from getting any help. I think it's important for 

people who work in other parts of the country to remember 

that everyone struggles. In New York, there's this

practice of taxing Long Islanders to fund what happens in 

other parts of the state. And at the Federal level, 

there's this practice of taxing New Yorkers to fund what 

happens in other part of the country. The end result is 

that young people are fleeing my county and my island 

because they can't afford to live here anymore, all 

because people make faulty assumptions about how they 

live. So, yeah, I am adamantly opposed to the FPL here 

and I do want that on record.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Alright. Doesn't look like we have any other comments on 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

30.90. I will hand it off to the Department. It looks 

like we're next addressing 30.83.

MS. ABERNATHY: Alright, moving right 

along. Before we turn to the conversation we had on this 

topic yesterday, I wanna highlight a few things. In the 

last session, we proposed a waiver for loans that had 

first entered repayment 25 years ago. We've adjusted this 

language to include a new provision that provides a 

waiver for borrowers with only undergraduate loans that 

first entered repayment 20 years ago. We have also 

adjusted this language to reflect Jessica's good 

suggestion to base this waiver upon the date the loan 

entered repayment, which is simpler to follow. Finally, 

between what we circulated last week and what we 

circulated last night, we made some changes about how we 

treat consolidation loans. Our goal here is we do not 

wanna have borrowers who consolidated see their clock 

fully reset since some borrowers may have been paying 

loans for a long time before they consolidate it. And at 

the same time, we do not wanna forgive significant 

amounts of loans that are not as old. So, we are 

proposing to treat loans consolidated before we started 

this process differently from those consolidated after, 

where we might be picking up newer loans that we did not 

intend to include. For consolidations that occur after we 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

started this process, we are proposing to use the date 

that represents the midpoint between the date the oldest 

and newest loan in the consolidation entered repayment. 

That is our current best thinking of how to balance these 

issues. And we also wanted to respond to a few 

suggestions we heard yesterday. First, what is the 

inclusion of timelines for SAVE? The time that counts 

towards SAVE or IDR is not the same as what we are 

crediting here. We are talking about using the waiver 

authority here as opposed to the income contingent

repayment authority we used for SAVE. Here, we are 

looking at thresholds of 20 or 25 years based on what 

exists in statute. The idea is for many borrowers who 

have longer periods in payment today who might have 

already reached forgiveness had they been able to use IDR 

Plans when they first entered repayment. We do not think 

the same logic applies to SAVE where we just created 

those thresholds. The second issue is related to making 

this forgiveness ongoing as opposed to one time. We're 

not able to accept this suggestion at this time. We've 

been considering the items related to borrowers who are 

eligible but have not applied those whose programs or 

institutions lose aid because they did not provide 

sufficient financial value as the ones that are best 

suited for ongoing actions. The other policies, such as 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

the different ones related to negative amortization and 

this one, we see as one time actions to address issues. 

While we understand the concerns about this being a 

onetime action for borrowers in default, we do note that 

the account adjustment will apply to borrowers with loans 

held by the Department and that borrowers in default have 

an extra opportunity to get out of default through Fresh 

Start. Finally, we've received suggestions to similarly 

adopt shortened time frames for borrowers in certain 

categories, such as those who completed a bankruptcy or 

having received a Pell grant. We do not see a basis for 

adopting such a policy based upon what has been submitted 

so far. So, at this point, we'll stop screen sharing and 

turn it back over to you, John.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Alright, a couple quick administrative points. Sherri is 

coming back, as primary and Jalil is coming to the table. 

Welcome, both of you. Any questions? Any clarifying 

questions for the Department as to 30.83? Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: This is minor, but as to 

the second part about consolidation loans, I understand 

what you're doing. I understand why you wanted to 

bifurcate it. I was wondering if you could just talk 

about any basis for using July 1, 2023, as that date 

rather than maybe a date now or next year. I think the 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

Department's real encouragement for people to be 

consolidating right now to access some of the programs, 

including Fresh Start. Like you mentioned, the date 

didn't make a lot of sense to me, but maybe you have a 

reason for it.

MR. WEATHERS: Go ahead, Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, that's when we 

announced this negotiated rulemaking.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Alright, questions, clarifying questions as it relates to 

30.83. Jalil, I see your hand up.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. I just wanted 

the Department to speak more about proposals around 

particular categories. If there were students who 

receive Pell, other categories that many negotiators have 

identified as being distressed borrowers, can you explain 

a little bit more about why the evidence or proposals or 

rationales presented so far did not have what you 

described Tamy? As you know, did you not warrant those 

categories receiving relief or being carved out as target 

groups as you already did under SAVE where you carved out 

borrowers with 12,000 or less as a group that needs some 

type of quicker timeline to relief? 

MR. WEATHERS: I see Tamy has a 

response to that, Jalil. Go ahead, Tamy.
47

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MS. ABERNATHY: The rationale here is 

to rely upon the statutory thresholds for IDR. We don't 

see how you would use those proposals through that same 

framework.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Alright. Any other questions for clarification as it 

relates to 30.83? Anything at all? Alright. Why don't we 

go ahead and take a temperature check on this section? 

Let me see your thumbs. Okay, keep them up there for a 

moment so I can. I see some thumbs down. Scott, Sherri, 

Ashley, Jessica, Jalil. Those thumbs down. Any comments 

as it relates to 30.83? Jessica, go ahead.

MS. RANUCCI: I think, you know, I 

hope that you will reconsider that date for 

consolidation. I don't think that it makes the most sense 

but that's not the basis of why my thumbs down is. I'm 

just really concerned about the cliff. I think that this 

draws a line in the sand on July 1, 2005. I hope the 

Department will recognize the people who entered 

treatment on July 2, 2005, will be essentially in the 

same position as to needing the availability of this 

relief. And I submitted language. I know that others have 

submitted language that would allow the Department to do 

this, and I hope that you reconsider.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. I 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

next have Ashley.

MS. PIZZUTI: I too can't agree with 

this cliff. It separates people into being worthy and 

unworthy of this forgiveness just by an arbitrary date, 

especially since loans are often dispersed in September, 

sometimes there's late enrollment. So, you're separating 

two people into sections of who can have this loan 

forgiveness and change your life, but if you had taken 

this out two days later you're not gonna get it and that 

just doesn't make sense. Without any kind of rolling 

language where this can be rolled, then it just doesn't 

seem like it'll work.

MS. JEFFRIES: John, you're on mute.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Cindy. Thank 

you, Ashley. Next, I have Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: I have a borrower who 

most recently attended school in 1999. She reconsolidated 

all of her debt in 2006 at the instruction of the 

Department. There are no records for the loans prior to 

2006. So, under this provision, that borrower would still 

have the same amount of debt that she has today. She 

wasn't captured by the IDR adjustment, and she wouldn't 

be captured here. I know that's not the only borrower in 

that situation. There were several times that the 

Department pushed folks to consolidate their debts 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

together and there aren't always underlying records for 

what happened before that. So, I just really wanna point 

out that group missing or incomplete loan histories one 

more time. You know, I'm not sure how somebody who 

consolidated in 2006, 2007, 2008 would be helped by this 

even if they had started in repayments much earlier on.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. Next,

I have Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I'm really disappointed 

that the Department is not considering at least revising 

aspects of the proposed language that was provided given 

that it would remove the cliff. Tamy, you mentioned that 

borrowers with periods in default can opt into Fresh 

Start, but it's not just borrowers who are currently in 

default that need relief. It is also borrowers who have 

periods in default where they may have consolidated or 

rehabilitated, but that time in default will not count 

under the IDR account adjustment. And so, they are still 

looking at a longer period of repayment than the folks 

who would qualify for relief under this proposal and that 

is what we are concerned about, that those borrowers are 

more likely to default in the future. They're still 

looking at potentially years of times when they're going 

to be in repayment. Additionally, I am also concerned 

about the Department. I hear the Department's position 
50

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

around why it cannot provide a shortened repayment period 

here for borrowers who have a lower balance. However, as 

others have mentioned, it is distressing to me that there 

isn't a discrete piece of language that pertains to those 

borrowers given that we know that they default more often

given that we know that they're in distress, and given 

the fact that we don't have hardship language at the 

table here. With all those reservations, it's not lost on 

me that there are approximately 2,000,000 people who have 

had loans that are older than 20 years who will not get 

relief under the IDR account adjustment again because 

they have long periods of time in default and that they 

would be captured here. However, I strongly ask the 

Department to consider substantially revising this 

language.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. Next, 

I have Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. And I won't 

belabor the point because I think Kyra just said 

everything I wanted to say. The one thing I'll note is

the Department has asked in the past to see some proposed 

language to smooth this cliff and address the concerns 

that we're raising today, and the Department now has 

those proposals. So, please implore the Department to 

review them and reconsider this. This is an unnecessary 
51

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

hardship to impose borrowers who are in a category where 

they are especially vulnerable in the additional relief. 

Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Quick 

administrative note. It looks like Richard's coming back 

in, as primary, and I'm going to move on to Sherri.

MS. GAMMAGE: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Your next.

MS. GAMMAGE: I wanted to take my hand 

down because I agree with what Yael is saying and what 

many of the other fellow negotiators have said. My 

problem is that the this arbitrary is related to the 

arbitrary setting of a date for a cliff, and that it does 

not, again, help distressed borrowers, those who have had 

consolidations, and it just doesn't capture enough 

people, especially four-year borrowers who consolidated 

years ago and still have- would not be in a better place 

than they are now with this reg regulation.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sherri, and 

I appreciate the comment as to not repeating previously 

made points, harkening back to what Cindy said earlier. 

So, moving on. We've got John Whitelaw. Go ahead, John.

MR. WHITELAW: Just very briefly. It's 

the cliff. I am really on the fence on this one. And I 

think there are various proposals made about fixing the 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

cliff. I'm not sure that you would have to go to the best 

fix to get me on board with this one, but to get me on 

board, I think you gotta do something. This is one of the 

ones where I think it's finely balanced. I'm close to at 

least a neutral or a yes on this. I’m saying that my 

vote is completely dependent upon getting rid of the 

cliff in its entirety? No. But about something less bad

than where we are now.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. Next, 

I have Richard. 

MR. HAASE: Maybe kind of a similar 

sentiment to what John just shared. I know that there are 

multiple versions, multiple proposals in for this 

language. It doesn't need to be the best one, but I share 

the concerns that everybody else has shared before me 

about the cliff arbitrarily creating people who get a lot 

of help and people who get none at all. I think if you 

know if someone's fate could be decided by a coin toss, I 

feel like we must do a little bit better than that. I 

know that in a negotiation you don't get everything you 

want, but I must share a little bit of where I'm feeling 

right now. I know there were multiple proposals submitted 

regarding caps on the amount forgiven and interest. I 

know there were multiple proposals submitted to try and 

address concerns over the cliff. I know that there were 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

many proposals submitted to raise attention to multiple 

factors that define hardship for borrowers. And I know 

that, you know, I've shared in a couple of concerns over 

the income caps. Whether I treat those in isolation as 

isolated disappointments or lump them together in a way 

I'm being told not to do. I can't help but feel that if 

it's going to be hard for me to consider myself a 

moderate, reasonable person, I don't expect to get 

everything I want, but it's going to be hard to get 

behind some of those items. I feel like I'm just being 

totally honest. I need to see movement on not all of 

them, but any of them would be great. I'm having a hard

time, you know, putting my thumb in the air, and raising 

it in the favorable position when so many of these high 

priority items are just not where I think people need 

them to be. 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. I 

have Scott. Go ahead, Scott.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, thanks. I think 

beyond the sort of material legality issues here in this 

provision, I want to note that for a technical matter for 

the Department, the new language inserted here refers to 

Federal consolidation made on or after July 1, 2023. No 

such loans can exist under the law. As a technical 

matter, it might be stricken, for drafting clarity. So 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

just a suggestion for the Department.

MR. WEATHERS: Hey, Scott. Would you 

mind throwing that in the chat so we can preserve that? 

Thank you.

MR. LEGAARD: And thanks, Scott. We'll 

look at that.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Soren. 

Alright. Not seeing any other comments at this point. 

Gonna hand it off to Tamy. I see that we're through so 

I'll defer to Cindy at this point. Go ahead, Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks. Thanks, John. I 

think it might make sense at this point it might make 

sense to go ahead and take a combined lunch and break and 

return at 1 o'clock unless I hear any objections to that. 

Then when we come back at 1 o’clock we can promptly pick 

up with the discussion around 682.403, the waiver of the 

FFEL Program loan debt. Any thoughts on- any objections 

to that?

DR. BISHOP: I do have a question. 

I'm- this is Jalil. I'm wondering why the break right now 

rather than continuing the conversation till the 

scheduled lunch?

MS. JEFFRIES: First, there were no 

additional hands on this topic. Jessica now has her hands 

up. We're willing to continue the conversation as long as 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

there's hands and it involves new ideas or information 

for the Department. Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. I agree with 

Jalil. I mean, we don't have a lot of time today, and it 

seems sort of silly to waste 35 minutes here when we 

don't need to necessarily. Unless the Department is 

waiting on something with the FFELs, I would suggest that 

we just go ahead to do the FFELS now and that would save 

us time to dive into more substance after lunch. But, if 

the Department's not ready, that's fine.

MS. JEFFRIES: Right. I think the 

thought is too that we don't wanna break in the middle of 

a discussion. Alright? And it will require breaking in 

the middle of that discussion, especially if there are 

additional caucuses or anything like that that need to 

take place during that. So, that is why we're not 

suggesting that we move into the FFEL, so that it's not 

disrupted by the people's train of thoughts in the lunch 

process. Tamy?

MS. ABERNATHY: I did just want to- we 

did a little research behind the scenes. The last FFEL 

consolidation loan was made in 2010. Just wanted to put 

that out there for the committee.

MS. JEFFRIES: Thanks, Tamy. Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Yeah. I just would be 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

shocked if the FFEL discussion took longer than 34 

minutes, and the Department could persuade me that I'm 

wrong, but if people want to use this time differently, 

it would make sense to not just sign away these 34 

minutes for no reason unless the Department has a reason, 

I'd like to hear it. But if not, I would suggest we keep 

moving.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. Thank you for 

that, Jessica. And I do want to note that normally we do 

give you about a 20-minute break in the morning and again 

in the afternoon, and we did not do that yet today. So, 

Ashley?

MS. PIZZUTI: Tamy, can you just 

repeat that statement on the FFEL, last FFEL 

consolidation date again?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am. The last 

FFEL consolidation loan was made in 2010.

MS. PIZZUTI: And that was 

commercially held FFEL? Because I know that I 

consolidated a Direct Loan in 2015. 

MS. ABERNATHY: This is FFEL 

consolidation, so.

MS. PIZZUTI: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Got 

it. Thank you for the clarification.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am. Because 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

the FFEL program basically ended in 2010, you would have 

only been able to consolidate into Direct Loans from that 

point forward, but the last FFEL consolidation was in 

2010. Makes sense? Good.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jessica?

MS. RANUCCI: Look, I don't mean to 

push this, but I think what you hear from borrowers and 

advocates at the table is that we're here to really talk 

about these proposals. We care about them. We want to get 

the most out of this day as we can. I honestly think the 

same is true of the Department of Education, so I think I 

guess I would just put this to Tamy or your colleagues. 

If you really need this break, tell us you really need 

the break, but if not, is there anything that we can do 

to keep making progress right now? I don't wanna take a 

break for no reason.

MS. ABERNATHY: Personally, I think 

Cindy has mentioned it and clarified it appropriately. We 

have not had a break this morning. I don't believe we are 

permitted to start lunch earlier and end earlier because 

we've publicized to the community that we'll start the 

afternoon session at 1:00, and so starting that early 

might not be in the best interest of our public. We did 

not have a break, and I think it is appropriate at this 

point that we take a break and come back refreshed and 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

start with FFEL and then move through the rest of the 

afternoon. I believe we have adequate time to discuss 

FFEL and all the other issues that we need to discuss in 

addition to the hardship discussion that we've left time 

for as well.

MS. JEFFRIES: Jalil, something new?

DR. BISHOP: Yes. Can we take a 10-

minute break and come back and get into the conversation? 

I don't think we have adequate time to have a hardship 

conversation right now. And if there's a way to build in 

some time on the back end to expand that conversation, I 

just think we should aspire to that. So, can we take a 

10-minute break rather than waiting- till lunch?

MS. ABERNATHY: What we think would be 

appropriate, Cindy, is if Richard and the FFEL

constituency group had a caucus regarding joint 

consolidation- spousal joint consolidation at this time. 

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay, Richard Haase?

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. So, Richard, 

Scott Buchanan, and Benjamin Lee?

MS. ABERNATHY: Mhmm.

MS. JEFFRIES: Who else would be in 

that caucus?

MS. ABERNATHY: If they would like the 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

Department to be a part of that, we can. That would be 

Ben, myself, Soren, Brian, Toby, [inaudible], Brian 

Siegel.

MS. JEFFRIES: Can we hear from Scott 

or Richard or Ben on whether or not they'd like the 

Department in there and/or FMCS?

MR. BUCHANAN: I'll defer to Richard 

since I don't know what we're talking about.

MS. ABERNATHY: Spousal joint 

consolidation.

MR. HAASE: Yeah. I've received a 

message this morning encouraging that we do this, but I'm 

not entirely sure to what end either.

MS. ABERNATHY: We'll be happy to 

join.

MR. HAASE: Okay. Would I be able toKyra, would you be able to join our conversation?

MS. TAYLOR: Sure, I'd be happy to 

join.

MR. HAASE: Alright. Thank you. I 

don't know how to go into a breakout.

MS. JEFFRIES: We'll set it up here. 

So, I have Richard, Scott, Ben, Kyra and from the 

Department, we have Tamy, Ben, Soren, Toby. Help me out 

here, Tamy. Where did it go?
60

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

MR. ROBERTS: Well, she joined the 

room, but I think I can set it up.

MS. JEFFRIES: Are you okay, but we 

need to record who's in that room.

MR. ROBERTS: Right now, I have in the 

room, Richard, Ben, Ben Miller, Brian Siegel, 

[inaudible], Kyra, Soren, Tamy, Toby, and I'm just going 

through- Scott Buchanan.

MS. JEFFRIES: Okay. [Inaudible] Go 

ahead and cut the live feed for now. And, yes, when they 

come back from their caucus, we will get back together. 

Welcome back, everyone. The caucus has ended, and 

everyone is back in participation. First, I’m going to

ask if there's any report out that either party wants to 

do from the caucus. If not, we will go over the outline 

for this afternoon's session, and then we'll break for 

lunch. Okay. Not seeing any hands on a report out. What 

we'll do is we'll break from lunch. We will start 

promptly at 1:00 p.m., and we will go directly into the 

FFEL discussion. After that discussion, we will move to 

final consensus checks on the individual parts of the 

regulations. Once we complete that, we can take a quick 

break or not. It'll be up to you, and we'll move from 

there right into the additional hardship discussion, 

which will include allowing the one researcher. She will 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

present, and she will have slides to share with you, and 

then we'll wrap up. Okay? So, with that, have a nice 

lunch, and we'll see you- try to be back so that we can 

start promptly at 1 o'clock. Thanks.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Cindy.

 
62

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 2, Day 2, Morning, December 12, 

2023

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

may be present.

AM 

From P - Scott Buchanan - FFEL, Servicers, GAs to Everyone:

Benjamin Lee is coming to the table

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

agree with Yael and Kyra - caps are too restrictive

From P-Sandra Boham-TCU, HCBU, MSI to Everyone:

Agree with both of these comments

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private Nonprofit Institutions to 

Everyone:

Same as my comments yesterday. Agree with Yale and Kyra.

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

+1 — strongly agree with Jessica’s proposed regulatory language

From (A) Scott F Waterman Legal Assistance Org to Everyone:

I would like to hear from Dept of Ed why they insist on the limit 

in the Regs.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Agree this proposal fails to recognize the good faith efforts 

borrowers have made often for many years and at great personal expense

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1- strongly agree with Jessica's proposed regulatory language, 

Kyra and John's points. I could be moved to a yes if the cap on 

interest was more generous

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "Agree this proposal ..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Or rather, the cap on interest was removed

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on eliminating all interest.

From P - Scott Buchanan - FFEL, Servicers, GAs to Everyone:

Scott Buchanan is returning to the table

From P-Sandra Boham-TCU, HCBU, MSI to Everyone:

I could get to yes, if the caps were removed. the Department 

needs to have discretion so that it can address the issues in front of

them and not be tied by arbitrary caps.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I could get to yes, ..." with ���

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I could get to yes, ..." with ���

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

Replying to "I could get to yes, ..."

 

+1

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Removed a ��� reaction from "I could get to yes, ..."

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:
63

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

Reacted to "I could get to yes, ..." with ���

From A - India Heckstall, Civil Rights Orgs to Everyone:

Reacted to "I could get to yes, ..." with ���

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Melissa - if there is a non-arbitrary reason that $10K cap 

was chosen, it would be helpful to understand

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Richard, the amount a borrower has paid should be 

considered here

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Richard, the a..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Jalil Coming in

From (A) Scott F Waterman Legal Assistance Org to Everyone:

The Dept has still not explained why the limits have been placed 

in the regs. Is it political or do they think that the regs need to 

specifically have a number to better withstand a legal challenge?

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will be coming in as Primary for 4 year borrrowers

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sarah Butts coming in as primary for 4-year borrowers.

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil - continuity of programs and messaging is key

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jalil apply the SAVE regs to all borrowers!

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

I appreciate the stating of the DOE's position, yet isn't this 

supposed to be a negotiation rather than arbitrary procedure?

From (A) Scott F Waterman Legal Assistance Org to Everyone:

The Dept's refusal to explain why makes if absolutely impossible 

for there to be consensus.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

I agree with Sherrie. How is it OK to say “we already decided 

what we’re willing to do”?

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Scott - tough to reach consensus without data based 

solutions/explanations

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Kyra. How do we address the ballooned balances that 

resulted from years of systemic failure?

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Kyra. How do w..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Here is the report where the White House is bragging about saving 

interest for borrowers in the future which raises why they will not 

help current borrowers whose balances have ballooned in this 

regulatory session

 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/08/22/newstudent-loan-repayment-plan-benefits-borrowers-beyond-lower-monthlypayments/

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

 Reacted to "Here is the report w..." with ��

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Kyra. How do w..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Angelika's points. Interest can quickly accrue in the next 

year for those with larger loan balances, which is why it is a "give" 

and a "take back".

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Sarah B - Combining this artificial cap with a lack of 

insights regarding movement on hardship just fall way too short on 

really giving distressed borrowers the help we need, which is why 

we’re here

09:43:09 From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sarah B - Comb..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Temperature check

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Removed a ��� reaction from "+1 to Sarah B - Comb..."

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Sarah B - Comb..." with ���

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Negotiators have made their positions clear

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

how will this provision apply to borrowers with missing or 

incomplete loan histories?

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Richard coming back in for grad borrowers

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Richard, the 225% does not take into account regional 

differences in salaries and cost of living

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on Richard's proposal re: Accounting for high cost of living 

areas

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

Agreed on full cancellation

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

+1 for full cancellation of all interest as you plan to already 

do with SAVE

From A-Jordan Nellums-Currently Enrolled Borrower to Everyone:

+1 for full cancellation of all interest

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for full cancellation of all interest

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to Richard and Kyra - the FPL may be a useful metric for 

monthly IDR payments, but is not indicative of who needs relief
65

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

From Tamy Abernathy - Director, Policy Coordination Group, ED to 

Everyone:

For Lane - I would say that from 2005 onward we have the balance 

upon entering repayment, which we would use. For older loans, we have 

originally disbursed amounts. The places where we think it would be 

most challenging is a consolidation loan that includes a HEAL loan, 

which is going to be a small number of borrowers.

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 John - hard to know whether to agree or disagree with this 

provision without knowing whether there is additional relief available 

for people in hardship category

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 John - hard to kn..." with ���

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

+1 re: concerns about the limits in this proposal given that 

there is no hardship reg text. I’d also add this this is especially 

concerning in light of the lack of significantly revised regulatory 

language around compromise as well (as I discussed yesterday)

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for John's comments. Many borrowers are experiencing hardship 

and distress. They need relief and we are not convinced these 

proposals go far enough.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

The Department is correct that FPL is standard use. Capping it at 

225% is a policy choice and you have been presented with strong 

evidence that you should have went higher. Using the FPL again here is 

making the same mistake which is not holistically measuring material 

hardship

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Replying to "For Lane - I would s..."

 

Thank you Tammy. However this does not address the concern 

regarding borrowers for whom some or all of that information is 

incorrect or missing - is there a plan for that specific group?

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

That is what we are doing

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

+1 the need to have a catchall to include loans that are missing 

records

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

I’d like to formally request that the department replace the 225% 

of FPL to the 125K and 250K amounts used in other parts of the 

regulations

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 the need to have ..." with ���

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

+1 to needing a catchall for missing records

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to needing a catc..." with ���

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I’d like to formally..." with ���
66

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I’d like to formally..." with ���

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

+1 on needing a relief solution for missing records that places 

the burden on the Dept to provide accurate records and to cancel debt 

where records are not whole

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

Why not conduct a temperature check to see how many negotiators 

share the holistic or the segregated view?

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

+1 on borrowers experiencing these proposals as a collective 

whole, not one by one

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on borrowers expe..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on borrowers expe..." with ���

From P - Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on borrowers expe..." with ���

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

Reacted to "+1 on borrowers expe..." with ���

From John S. Whitelaw, (he/him) P- Students with disabilities to 

Everyone:

One example of why Poverty numbers are insufficient. Median 

rental price for !BR apartment is a little over $1,300. Using the 

shelter as 30% or income as a guide, that means need over 50k to live 

in Chicago. The fedral poverty numbers do no reflect actual poverty.

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "I’d like to formally..." with ���

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on Richard's proposal.

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

+1 On Richard FPL removal

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 On Richard FPL re..." with ���

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sherrie is coming in as Primary for 4-year borrowers.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Jalil coming in

From A- Sarah Butts, 4-Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for Jessica's comments. We do not want to limit borrower(s) 

access to relief because of arbitrary date/deadline.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Also can not support use of arbitrary date to create winners and 

losers here. We must remember that actual people’s lives are affected 

by what we do here, and telling someone, sorry, you borrowed a day too 

late to qualify does not pass the straight face test

From A-Susan Teerink - Private, NonProfit Institutions to Everyone:

Reacted to "Also can not support..." with ���

From P- Jessica Ranucci (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:
67

Negotiated Rulemaking – 12/12/23

To clarify the consolidation point, I would propose changing the 

date in 30.83(c)(4) from July 1, 2023 to at least January 1, 2024. I 

don't think that there any reason to tie that date to the start of 

this rulemaking.

From (P) Richard Haase - Graduate Borrowers to Everyone:

Rich coming back in for grad borrowers

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

Replying to "To clarify the conso..."

 

+1 to this - IDR adjustment is allowing folks to consolidate up 

until 1/1/24 at least, it would make relief more streamlined if this 

provision could at least match that date

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

Additionally, I am disappointed that we do not have discrete 

proposals that would target borrowers who did not complete their 

program (a population we previously identified as facing hardship due 

to their student loans and where the Department’s own data indicates 

are more likely to default on their debt), OR who have a history in 

default. Both populations could be partially captured by providing a 

shorter repayment period for borrowers who took out smaller balances, 

or by the Department adopting proposals that have been submitted 

during these negotiations.

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Agreed

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Agreed with Jessica

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Jalil coming in

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2 Year Borrower to Everyone:

I’m ok with waiting until lunch

From (A) Edward Boltz (Consumer Advocates) to Everyone:

iI('ve got COVID and would push through

From A-Jalil Mustaffa Bishop- Graduate Student Borrower to 

Everyone:

Can we take a 10 min break?

From P- Lane Thompson - state officials to Everyone:

so are we taking lunch now or not?

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

So when are we coming back?
68

Negotiated Rulemaking–12/12/23