Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

1

 

 

 

 

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 

STUDENT DEBT RELIEF COMMITTEE

SESSION 2, DAY 2, AFTERNOON

NOVEMBER 7, 2023

On the 7th day of November 2023, the

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

to 4:00 p.m.
2

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. WEATHERS: Well, folks, welcome 

back from lunch. We're continuing with our conversation 

about hardship. We had prompted you on question three 

before the break. Real quick, Tamy, anything that the 

Department wanted to address before we move forward with 

the discussion?

MS. ABERNATHY: Just that we've placed 

answers to some of the questions in the chat. So, if they 

could just take a look at that and let us know.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. And thank you, 

Tamy. And just as a note, Waukecha Wilkerson will be at 

the table in place of John Whitelaw for individuals with 

disabilities or organizations representing them for the 

afternoon. Just a reminder as to the discussion question 

that we're working with right now. How should the 

Department consider operational limitations in 

administering a hardship process, such as limited 

resources, the need to rely on other agencies or external 

parties to provide data, and the challenges in requiring 

borrowers to complete applications? The Department is 

really looking for specifics as to these questions in 

order to inform them on the next steps, so please keep 

them- that in mind, and we are going to endeavor to take 

a break at about the hour, hour and ten-minute mark. So,
3

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

we're- let's move forward. Wisdom, take it away please.

MR. COLE: Can the answers that were 

dropped in the chat be redropped again? They're not 

there.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. I'm sure someone 

from the Department can handle that. Thank you.

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes, I'll take care of 

it. Give me just a minute.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Comments, questions on question three?

MS. TAYLOR: I think it would be 

helpful for the Department to provide more detail about 

what it perceives its operational limits to be. I think 

it's hard for us on the outside to try to project what 

those limits are. So, to the extent you can provide 

additional details, that would be helpful for us.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay.

MS. JEFFRIES: I think we're going to 

have to give Tamy a minute because she's working on 

document questions.

MS. ABERNATHY: Ben is actually going 

to take care of that. So, if Ben would come on camera, 

that'd be great. Thanks.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Ben? 

MR. MILLER: As a big picture, I would 
4

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

say, you know, this discussion about hardship represents 

a new workstream for the Department. And so, as you're 

aware, the Department has been seeking funding increases 

for Federal Student Aid. And we are not in the position 

where we have significant resources to add large numbers 

of staff, either in-house or on a contract basis to do 

lots of additional work streams and so I think here 

really the emphasis is things that are application-based. 

If things are application-based, it would have to be a 

very streamlined application process with a general 

assumption that we do not have the resources to have, you 

know, hundreds or thousands of additional staff to do any 

paperwork received.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Ben. Just as 

an administrative point, Sarah Butts is coming in place 

of Sher Gammage at this point to the table. Thank you. 

Alright. Based on the clarification provided by the 

Department, any further questions, comments concerning 

number three? Question number three. Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. I think on 

this question around the- considering operational limits. 

So, if there's hardship that we have good evidence either 

from the Department or from outside research that 

borrowers are experiencing, but because of operational 

limits, lack of resources, lack of people power, whatever 
5

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

it may be, I also think that in itself should be reframed 

as a hardship. So if the Department is not able to follow 

through on some type of processes proposing because it 

doesn't have payment records or it doesn't have the 

people power to handle some piece, I think that in itself 

can also be framed as a hardship, because there's not the 

resources- the resources or the operational capacity to 

provide borrowers and hardship with what they need and 

can be another way to expand some of these relief 

policies. So, I'd also like us to consider hardship also 

being the lack of resources or limited resources that the 

Department of ED itself is declaring it has.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jalil. Just 

as a reminder, folks, if you have anything that you would 

like to propose, please do so in red-line form and submit 

to facilitators. Otherwise, questions or comments, please 

place into the chat for the Department's consideration. 

Thank you. Lane, you're next.

MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, John. Previous 

to this job, one of my jobs that I held was determining 

eligibility for a state-based program that had income and 

wealth caps. And I can tell you from personal experience 

that it is extremely difficult to try to confirm income 

and wealth for folks. So what I really want to urge is 

that an application similar to the one that came out last 
6

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

year for the 10 or $20,000 of relief where someone simply 

had to mark a box, you know, maybe there's a range of 

boxes for these different categories we've talked about, 

and there's no required documentation needed after that. 

And then in instances where people are concerned about 

fraud or where it may be suspected, there could be some 

kind of auditing on that back end. But I just really want 

to say that I think it is worth having an application. 

And administratively, I don't think it makes a lot of 

sense to have to confirm additional documentation along 

with that application.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. Sarah, 

you're next.

MS. BUTTS: Thank you. You know, just 

wanted to mention that it has been our experience that 

borrowers across the income continuum, and no matter 

where they are generationally, are struggling with 

student loan debt. And this happens across the income 

continuum. It happens in certain workforces. It impacts 

borrowers' ability to save for their basic needs for 

retirement, to have funds available for emergency. And we 

gave a number of examples in the last session before the 

break. But there are any number of kind of different 

subsets of borrowers that can benefit from this relief. 

So, we as a committee think are struggling because we 
7

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

know that borrowers need this forgiveness and that there 

are a number of different circumstances in which we've 

tried to highlight areas of focus, but we also do not 

want to have a complex problem. And we hope for 

automation. We also know the Department doesn't have a 

lot of this information, such as individuals who are 

providing service and are not a qualifying employer for 

some of the relief programs that are already existing.

MR. WEATHERS: Thanks, Sarah. Any 

other questions or comments as it regards to question 

three? Lane, please.

MS. THOMPSON: I just wanted to bring 

up the public commenter yesterday who mentioned changing 

jobs after believing that she was eligible for the relief 

under the Biden Administration's plan. You know, I think 

that having gone through that whole process, there's an 

error made and a subject line and an email that went out 

to folks, all of that, I just kind of want to raise that 

back up as being a hardship in and of itself. You know, a 

lot of folks thought that before they returned to 

repayment, their balance would be smaller. And even 

people who should have received relief haven't in a lot 

of cases. So, I really just kind of want to bring that 

comment back into the space. I think it's really 

important to think about the folks who jumped at that 
8

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

opportunity last summer.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you, 

Lane. Jalil, I noticed that your hand went up, then back 

down. Did you have anything you needed to add? Okay. 

Thank you. Alright. Anything as it relates to question 

three? Vincent, please.

MR. ANDREWS: Yeah. Just really 

quickly. I think specifically, related to, I guess a lot 

of these administrative hardships, a lot of the onus is 

going to fall on the servicer. So, I'm either wondering, 

like if any of these servicers might want to speak up and 

talk about what type of hardships might be alleviated 

through either some sort of communication or what can 

make their job easier to implement these policies? 

Because I guess from what I've heard over the last couple 

of days related to these topics, they just- they're 

solely relying on reading through these policies and 

making these determinations. And we've all talked about 

how they continue to make all these mistakes regarding 

who's eligible and who's not. I think we also need to 

think about how to streamline this process for servicers 

so that they also can be more effective in implementing 

these policies so that it's more fair, and it's not going 

to put people in circumstances that they shouldn't be in.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Vincent. To 
9

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the extent that you were asking a question, if you could 

place that into the chat, I'd appreciate that. Wisdom, 

please.

MR. COLE: Definitely echo business 

requests in terms of hearing from the servicers but think 

that the Department should think about how they are 

prioritizing resource allocation, ensuring that we're 

allocating resources efficiently by targeting high impact 

areas, as folks have said, streamlining the process. 

Think something that has been echoed in these 

conversations is the broader base that we think about 

these criteria, the more automation that is put into this 

process, the simpler it is going to be for the Department 

with the lack of resources that are available. Talking 

about establishing partnerships and data agreements with 

other government agencies and external parties to provide 

the relevant data that is needed, since so many of that 

data isn't available from the Department itself and 

thinking about ensuring that there is clear communication 

to the borrower, right? I think investing in 

communication channels that can support borrower to ask 

questions and seek assistance throughout any process is 

going to be supportive of the Department in terms of any 

operational limits.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. And I see 
10

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Scott, just real quick, to the extent that we're trying 

to inform the Department, if we could- if you have seen 

the word automation and heard the word automation and 

also streamline that phrase if there can be any expansion 

on that. Scott, please. 

MR. BUCHANAN: Sure. You know, I think 

from the servicer perspective, I think the Department has 

highlighted in this question particular sort of some of 

the challenges that they're going to face. I mean, as 

we're implementing multiple new programs, considering new 

things under this regulation, we have to be very mindful 

of the fact that oftentimes what we refer to as automated 

processes in terms of determinations become operationally 

at the servicer level, very manual processes. And I think 

that's something where the Department needs to look at 

what are the ways that they can take existing processes 

that happen today, leverage those, modify those in order 

to accomplish the end goals of the Department and what 

they're trying to achieve through this rulemaking 

process. It also highlights, I think, the challenge of 

dramatically expanding the- sort of the definition of 

what the waiver authority may or may not be here without 

congressional authorization and consequently, without 

congressional appropriation, means that we're trying to 

do more and more with less and less resources, and that 
11

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

becomes a real challenge. I think some of the discussion 

that's been highlighted here today goes back to what I 

suggested previously, which is that we need to be very 

thoughtful about not creating regulation that is overly 

complicated, that is virtually impossible for anyone to 

explain to borrowers. And so, they become confused by the 

reality of the regulation, especially when they rely 

today on tweets and other communications that are 

shorthands, but not full disclosures of the nature of 

these programs. And then they make financial decisions. 

We have this very issue previously with the prior 

announced debt relief plan that once again, was- you 

know, failed to pass legal muster. And we must reexamine 

that again today, lest we repeat the same issue that 

we've had before. The Department's got to be incredibly 

cognizant of that. And also making sure that as you're 

looking at all these programs, how do we prioritize them? 

Because in implementation, we also, I think, can all 

agree that we do not want to have programs that take 

years to implement as borrowers wait for whatever that 

relief is, if it can survive legal scrutiny, and the 

Department has a plan for how to allocate resources 

appropriately to deliver on that promise. And absent 

those additional resources and money, you can pass all 

the regulations you want, but borrowers will be left in 
12

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the position of having to try to understand when and how 

they're going to receive that potential relief again, if 

it does happen.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Scott. 

Melissa.

MS. KUNES: Thank you. And I sort of 

want to carry Scott's ideas just a little bit further. 

So, we all know that the Department is looking at a lot 

of large projects that they are currently implementing, 

including the return to repayment process, and they are 

flat funded to do so. And we recognize that, and we 

empathize with them. We do in our comments- have 

identified a lot of borrowers we would like to see relief 

and some of the thoughts around getting those borrowers 

relief are tied to automation. But we know that 

automation in and of itself takes resources and takes 

people and money to do that, to actually process the 

automation, to identify them as having being able to get 

the relief. So, I guess my question is, you know, we did 

have the proposal by the Biden Administration to forgive 

student borrowers the prior borrowing that they were 

allowed to apply for that did not come to fruition. There 

was a simplistic application for that. I'm presuming that 

perhaps the Department had allocated resources in order 

to follow through with that forgiving of the funding. So,
13

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

my question, I guess, is really back to the Department. 

We brought a lot of ideas up today. We recognize that 

they are going to be administratively burdensome for the 

Department to carry out, but there was a plan to cancel 

the borrowers’ funding that that we had collected 

applications for. So can we take those resources and 

allocate them to this particular, what we hope to be 

simplistic process of, as someone else had mentioned, 

simply creating another application process, collecting 

an assertation from the students that they are in this 

situation. And then would that be available and an 

opportunity to actually cancel the debt for those 

students who want to keep this simple, but we also know 

that simplicity sometimes comes with a price, and we want 

to make sure that we know what the price tag is. So, I 

guess my question back to the Department is, you indicate 

that you don't have the resources to do a lot of what 

we're asking to be done. What- have you thought about 

your priorities? And do we know from the Departmental 

level what actually you have available to you that you 

can offer to us to help use then those ideas to meet some 

of the requirements of waiving the funds of the students 

we've already identified. So, I sort of am turning this 

question back over to the Department. 

MS. ABERNATHY: So, generally, no. 
14

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

We're not talking about the broad-based debt cancellation 

that was shut down by the Supreme Court. We know that 

that was a one-time spending on an activity that we are 

not going to do. Our appropriations are set by Congress 

each year. We don't know what our allocation is going to 

be for this year or for future years. So, at this time, 

we cannot speak with any specificity on any more details 

about what our budget will be for any of the 

implementation activities or regulations that we 

formalize through the result of these negotiations.

MR. WEATHERS: Tamy. you're next.

MS. ABERNATHY: Oh, I thought you said 

Tamy. Sorry.

MR. WEATHERS: Waukecha, you're next.

MS. WILKERSON: Thanks. I just wanted 

to respond to a few comments that were made earlier about 

the length of time that it would take to implement some 

sort of debt forgiveness for borrowers. Currently, 

borrowers are waiting, I think years is fine because a 

lot of borrowers are waiting and still not receiving 

relief after death. So, I think that's something that we 

should really keep in mind that some relief in a few 

years is better than no relief ever. And then another 

thing that I wanted to circle back on a comment made was 

about a lot of borrowers are receiving their information 
15

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

from tweet, and I think it's important to be mindful that 

the regulation shouldn't be that complex. And they should 

probably be in plain language at the level of a tweet. 

Keep in mind reading comprehension skills of borrowers 

with disabilities or people with other issues who maybe 

have trouble understanding those regulations and how to 

navigate through them. So just wanted to add that piece. 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thank you. And I realize 

this is only addressing piece of the process here or of 

the questionMR. WEATHERS: I think we may have 

lost her. Let's keep moving on. I will inject her back 

into the line as necessary. Ashley.

MS. PIZZUTI: I just want to comment 

on resources to servicers and the burden that they are 

facing. Just from personal experience, again, I received 

loan forgiveness from the Sweet v. Cardona and have- so 

has my husband. Unfortunately, you know, those loans were 

supposed to be cleared off. They fell off Nelnet, which 

is both of our servicers. We had consolidated loans with 

them since 2020. As of this morning, which prior to, in 

August, those loans were removed from our credit. As of 

this morning, $45,000 was now put back on my husband's 

credit report reporting from Nelnet, even though Nelnet 
16

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

shows zero. But the Department of Education still has him 

in $12,000 of debt. So, there's a lot of miscommunication 

happening between the servicers and the Department of 

Education, as well as reporting to the credit bureaus. 

And there is a huge problem when people, especially in 

our situation, we run a small business, when 

misinformation is being put on our credit reports from 

the servicers. Every time we have tried to call our 

servicer, Nelnet, it's a two hour wait or more. I think 

the last time he tried to call Nelnet, it was a four hour 

wait just to get a simple question asked, and all they 

did was say, you need to call the Department of 

Education, it's in their hands. And when we've called the 

Department of Education trying to find answers, they 

bounce us back to the servicers. So, there's a lack of 

information coming from both the Department of Education 

and the servicers. They keep just pointing fingers at 

each other and go, oh, it's the Department of Education's 

responsibility. And the Department of Education says, no, 

it's your servicers responsibility. So moving forward, we 

want to implicate all of these new programs where in the 

last year, those who have received forgiveness and have 

actually been on the receiving end of this, there's so 

many issues that are coming up that, you know, how is the 

Department going to handle the influx of questions and 
17

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

how are they going to provide servicers, you know, the 

resources to try to answer these questions? You know, two 

hours, three hours, four hours on the phone means we're 

not working on our business. We're not taking care of our 

family. We're dealing with, you know, ridiculous wait 

times, you know? And this is just not me. This isMR. FRANCZAK: 30 seconds remaining.

MS. PIZZUTI: -you know, over and over 

again we're hearing issues from, you know, folks that are 

struggling with just trying to communicate with their 

servicers.

MR. WEATHERS: Ashley. Yael, we lost 

you and didn't really get any of your comment. I wouldreal quick, before you begin, in the interest of time, 

I'm going to, after your comments, move on to question 

four. Unless there's any objection from the Department. 

Yael, please.

MS. SHAVIT: Sure. And I apologize 

about that very poorly timed internet outage. One thing I 

wanted to say is, you know, with respect to some of the 

categories that we've talked about today of information 

that may allow us to identify loans that would be 

eligible for some amount of cancellation, the servicers 

absolutely do have the capacity to do queries across 

their databases when they need to. And I say this as a 
18

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

person who is very intimately familiar with this. They 

most certainly can do this to the extent that it may 

require some amount of, you know, creativity that's 

appropriate. And I will say more than that, in a time 

when, you know, there's been the need to turn things off, 

turn servicing back on, and learn information across 

different categories of debts, it should be just a basic 

requirement. In fact, I think it is a basic requirement 

that servicers be able to do this. And so, you know, I 

would push back on any notion that this- that the 

servicers can't take on some of the fairly 

straightforward work of identifying categories where 

those categories refer to criteria that are within the 

type of information servicers have about borrowers. And 

to the extent that change requests may be necessary to 

facilitate some of that, that is absolutely appropriate 

and should be a requirement for Federal contractors.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you very much. 

Administratively, Richard Haase is back in as primary at 

the table. I'm moving on to question four. And just a 

quick note about question four. I believe there might be 

a formatting error. Question four is, if the hardship 

process was based upon an application, what upfront

criteria should be put in place before a borrower could 

apply, given the significant operational limitations on 
19

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

an application-based approach? There's a section 

underneath that I think that probably should have been 

question five. I'll be asking that at a later time. So,

moving on to number four. Any specifics that can help 

inform the Department as to that question? Jessica, if 

you could hold on for a moment really quick, I'm going to 

move to Cynthia first.

MS. JEFFRIES: Yeah, I just want to 

give a friendly reminder to everyone that the focus is on 

these negotiations and the topics that we are discussing. 

So, although all your information is important and the 

Department certainly understands that, due to the time 

that we have allotted for this, we would kindly like you 

to keep to the topics at hand. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Cindy. 

Jessica, go ahead.

MS. RANUCCI: I am having a hard time 

understanding where this question is coming from. My 

instinct is to say absolutely none, every borrower should 

be able to apply for student loan debt relief. I think if 

the Department has some idea that makes sense, I would be 

very interested to hear it, but I'm not sure how 

productive a conversation we can have in a vacuum, 

because I'm not sure that this group is really in a 

position to say, oh, certain borrowers shouldn't even be 
20

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

allowed to apply for debt relief.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. 

Alright. Any other questions as it relates to question 

four? Comments, specifics to help inform the Department., 

please.

MS. THOMPSON: I just want to touch on 

accountability and prioritization a little bit. I have no 

idea what the contracting process looks like with 

servicers. I still am trying to understand what happens 

with an FSA and what happens at the servicers. I know 

there's a lot of moving pieces, and I also see a lot of 

debt that should have been or was discharged that's still 

being collected. I see borrowers who have loans that are 

paid off being reported late. So, all of this to say that 

there's a lot being done with student loans, right? 

Servicers do a lot. I question whether they are always 

prioritizing the same things that the Department or 

borrowers would like for them to prioritize. And 

similarly, one idea I have is some additional clarity for 

borrowers around the responsibilities of the Department 

versus the responsibilities of servicers. A lot of my day 

dealing with complaints is going back and forth from the 

Department to the servicer to the Department, to another 

servicer. So, I think that that would be just one other 

thing to consider is if- is there any way to draw more 
21

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

clear lines around whose work is which? And, you know, 

maybe that could simplify some of it.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. If you 

could add those specifics into the chat, that'd be much 

appreciated. Richard, please.

MR. HAASE: Yeah. I also think it's 

really important, just finishing up with this question 

here, not to use upfront criteria to preclude borrowers 

from applying for relief based on any assumptions that we 

are going to make here today about whether or not we

effectively hit all real hardship categories. I think 

it's important to point out and reflect here on 

overlapping trends, I think sometimes generational in the 

problems that we're identifying and the solutions that 

we're proposing. Borrowers have shared in a lot of the 

testimony we've heard, how crippling student loan debt 

has made it hard for them to buy homes, start families, 

launch businesses, pay for childcare, put food on the 

table. And I feel like a lot of the solutions that we've 

discussed require that either first, the borrower is 

already in a state of total crisis, or b, that they've 

already spent most of their adult lives trying to crawl 

out from their loan debt. So, I just think it's important 

to recognize that student debt across the board is a 

significant drag on the economy and on the middle class. 
22

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

It impacts all of the things that we cited above. So, I 

do think it's important that we not do anything on the 

front end to preclude people from applying for relief, 

because I think that there's a lot of need out there that 

we're not going to cover with all of the bullets that 

we've discussed. 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Alright. Any other questions or comments as it relates to 

number four? Okay. Thank you. We're going to move on to 

that- like I said, looks like a second portion of number 

four. I think there may have been a formatting error. The 

question is, the Department already offers Income Driven 

Repayment Plans to assist borrowers who are facing 

monthly financial hardships over an extended period. 

Should a hardship approach consider past, present, and 

future circumstances, creating an additional financial 

hardship? How could the Department account for past, 

present, and future potential borrower situations in a 

streamlined manner? Anything specific, comments or 

questions that can help inform the Department? Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I would just like to 

raise that the Department should not consider whether or 

not a borrower is enrolled in IDR as a basis to exclude 

them from debt relief. While we are incredibly grateful 

for the improvements to the IDR programs, not everybody 
23

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

will be able to benefit from them. So first, even under 

the improved criteria, the IDR plans are not affordable 

for everyone. They do not consider regional differences 

in the cost of living. In addition, borrowers who need it 

most may not be able to stay in it. While we appreciate 

the work that's been done to keep borrowers enrolled in 

IDR, there will still be borrowers who won't be able to 

enroll or stay enrolled in these plans, particularly for 

borrowers who have outstanding loans and who may not sign 

up for the- to have- to allow the IRS to share income 

data with the Department of Education. Further, some 

distressed borrowers will not file their taxes because 

they won't make enough money. And there are also 

borrowers in Puerto Rico who do not need to file their 

taxes. And so, they would not have that data and would 

have to provide additional documentation. Additionally, 

even borrowers who are able to enroll in IDR still 

experience other harms. We hear often from borrowers, 

even borrowers who are enrolled in IDR plans, that they 

are distressed by the volume of debt that they still have 

outstanding. We have borrowers who enroll in IDR plans 

who are still subject to debt scams, debt relief scams 

because they want to get out from the burden of that debt 

so badly. They are so afraid of having this outstanding 

amount of debt, and they're afraid that programs like IDR 
24

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

will not continue into the future. In addition, they 

still have fear about, you know, owing this debt period 

and the impact it can have upon their ability, as Richard 

said previously, to get a lease, to get a car loan, to 

get a mortgage, etcetera. So, I would strongly discourage 

the Department from considering someone's IDR eligibility 

as a basis to exclude them from the relief that they're 

considering here.

MR. WEATHERS: Richard.

MR. HAASE: Yes. So regarding future 

circumstances and questions about future potential 

borrowers, I want to reiterate the position that was 

shared yesterday and that I think has come up a little 

bit again today that we strongly propose- we strongly 

advise removing the July 1st, 2025, deadline and the 

regulatory text that we looked at yesterday so that we 

can help current generations and future generations of 

borrowers. And I think also in terms of streamlining, it 

could be valuable for the Department to look at ways that 

it can baseline and predict future hardships, looking at 

functions like debt to income ratios similar to what are 

used in the program, and other sectors of work that 

traditionally create hardships where the cost of the 

programs exceed the revenue people can expect from that 

work.
25

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Just a reminder, folks. If you have anything you'd like 

to put into proposal form, please do so in red line and 

send to your facilitators. Otherwise, questions or 

comments into the chat section. Lane, please.

MS. THOMPSON: This is maybe a little 

out of left field, but one thing I wanted to put out 

there in terms of past, present, and future borrower 

situations is the actual year in which somebody graduates 

from their graduate or undergraduate or two-year program. 

The reason I'm saying the actual year is that there's 

pretty clear data that people who graduated from college 

around the Great Recession, during COVID, and a couple 

other times are really struggling to repay that debt. So 

similar to looking at cohort default rates, are there 

years of graduation in which people are finding 

themselves particularly impacted and that could be used 

kind of in the future as well, right? If some other thing 

comes up and can say, okay, this year also is one of 

those years. So, just a thought.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. 

Questions, comments on that second part of number four. 

Anything specific to help inform the Department? Kyra?

MS. TAYLOR: Given that this is also 

following from our discussion, in- with regards to the 
26

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

prior question, in terms of operational limits, etcetera, 

I would just note that requiring that a borrower show 

that they've experienced past, present, and will 

experience future hardship may complicate how the 

administration processes these applications, and it may 

add unneeded complexity to the applications that the 

Department has to use to determine eligibility for 

relief.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Wisdom.

MR. COLE: Yeah, speaking to future 

borrowers' potential situations, I think there has to be 

criteria established to trigger an automatic review or 

adjustment in response to life events, financial changes, 

changes in income, family size, marital status. You know, 

these are things that deeply impact people's ability in 

the future to be able to continue to repay. I know we've 

talked about streamlining documentation and verification 

and leveraging of technology that can allow for 

integration with other agencies to verify income and 

financial information. And just thinking about ways in 

which the Department can also consider past financial 

circumstances that continue to impact the future.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Wisdom. And 

as a note, Jalil Bishop will be replacing Richard Haase 

for student loan borrowers. And Jalil, you're next.
27

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

DR. BISHOP: Thank you. I just want to 

underscore what I think many of the other negotiators 

have shared is that the presence or being enrolled in an 

IDR plan shouldn't be considered as an answer for folks 

experiencing monthly financial hardship. I think that, 

again, in my own research, again, which was majority 

participants who were enrolled in IDR, they're still 

reporting issues around being able to afford basic needs 

from housing, food, childcare and even having a savings 

account. We also know that even from research such as 

Ben's- Ben Miller's research at CAP, that a lot of that 

work showed that even with many borrowers, particularly 

Black borrowers, who we know often struggle the most with 

student loans, even when they were enrolled in IDR, they 

still were experiencing some of the issues around 

default, growing balances, and so on. So, I'd like us to 

also highlight that work as evidence where if remember, 

Ben, you called for bigger and bolder solutions beyond 

IDR. And I think when we're trying to navigate and think 

about how to provide relief to borrowers, that we really 

use the evidence that we have around how these plans have 

failed to function and not make borrowers go through 

other hurdles that they are- that we've already tried 

out, other policies and programs that we've already tried 

out and seen a large level of dysfunction. So I just 
28

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

think there's so much here to remind us that things 

should be automatic, that if we are going to do 

application, it should be a self-report, that if we are 

going to try to verify, it should be something that 

happens on the back end after cancellation, and that we 

should make sure there's not limits on cancellation so 

that future, current, and past borrowers get the relief 

and the support that they need. So just really don't want 

IDR to be a barrier for people getting cancellation. And 

I also don't want the Department to treat SAVE or IDR as 

a solution when both the Department and the 

representative for loan servicers are saying you both 

don't have enough funding to actually operationalize the 

level of relief and support that borrowers need. So, in 

sum, if you don't have the money, if you all are telling 

us that you can't actually support borrowers at the level 

they need, that again should be a part of how we approach 

hardship. That should be a main component of how we 

define hardship, is that you all actually can't run the 

student loan program at a level that is adequate and 

meets the needs of borrowers.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. A couple 

administrative notes. Jordan Nellums coming back in for 

currently enrolled. Sher Gammage- Sherrie Gammage also 

coming in for student loan borrowers, four years. 
29

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Reminder we're on that second part of the question for 

and looking for some specifics to inform the Department. 

Melissa, please.

MS. KUNES: Thank you. So to address 

the issue of preventing future hardships, one of the 

hardships that has been cited thus far is the ballooning 

amount of loan that a student has on the books because of 

interest capitalization, interest applied during periods 

where the student is already experiencing hardship, and 

this may not fall under the waiver authority, but will 

look to the lawyers to help figure out if it can, but in 

the future, if a student does apply for a forbearance or 

a deferment, they're already in a crisis state where they 

cannot afford to pay their loan. Can we not apply 

interest during that timeframe, so those future payments 

don't balloon for the student and I throw that out there 

as a suggestion. And again, I'll let the lawyers decide 

if that falls under the waiver capacity or not.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Melissa. 

Anything else as it relates to past, present, and future 

potential borrower situations. Okay. I am going to, in 

the interest of time, move on to number six. Number six 

is, IDR plans are based on Federal poverty guidelines, 

which vary by family size. The Department uses the 

Federal Poverty Guidelines as an indicator of the amount 
30

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

of income needed for necessities that should be protected 

from student loan payments, such as food and housing. How 

should the Department determine whether the Federal 

poverty guidelines are, or are not, a reasonable 

approximation of a particular borrower's necessary 

expenses? Specifics to help inform the Department, 

questions. comments? Questions or comments on number six. 

Richard.

MR. HAASE: Yeah. I just want to point 

out that any Federal guidelines regarding income and 

poverty levels, I don't think that they're going to be 

adequate. Cost of living varies so greatly across the 

country. You know, I'm looking at the data right now, the 

idea of a family of four in a lot of states in this 

country living off of $30,000 is- it's completely 

unsustainable. I think if there's going to be a metric 

here, it has to be regionally defined somehow.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Remember, if you have anything that you would like to 

propose, please do so in red line form to your 

facilitators, questions, or comments in the chat. 

Anything else as to question six regarding Federal 

poverty guidelines? Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I'd just like to second 

what Rich said, that the Federal poverty guidelines do 
31

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

not account for regional differences in the cost of 

living. In addition, they fail to account for expenses 

like childcare costs, medical costs, etcetera that can 

vary widely from person to person. And so, they are 

generally under-inclusive, unless you're capturing so 

much above the Federal poverty guideline that then it's a 

question of why would you use that calculation in the 

first place? By way of example, the child tax credit goes 

up to, I believe it's 400% of the Federal poverty 

guidelines, etcetera.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: I agree with both of 

the previous commenters. There's generally an area median 

income that's determined by the state or by counties that 

could be used instead of the Federal poverty level. The 

other thing I wanted to say here, I'm sure that this is 

not going to be changed, but I just would like it to be 

put on the record that the term discretionary income and 

the way it's used in the Income Driven Repayment Plans is 

very confusing for, I would say, 100% of the people I 

speak with, because by using the term discretionary 

income, people assume that there's a more complex 

calculation being done in terms of their expenses and 

their cost of living and all of that. So the amount of 

time that I spend just explaining to people that 
32

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

discretionary income is not actually what you have left 

at the end of the month, but is rather a percentage of 

the amount that you earn over the poverty line really 

just adds a level of confusion that I don't know is 

helpful or necessary. Just wanted to comment on that 

term. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: John.

MR. WHITELAW: Thank you. I just 

wanted to echo what Kyra said and the others about the 

Federal poverty guidelines and to put them in 

perspective, to sort of- to- you know, so that folks know 

what numbers we're talking about. Federal poverty 

guidelines for 2023 for a family of 4 of 30,000. They 

are- that's 100% of poverty for a family of four, not 

taking into account regional variations. The number- you 

are living in desperate poverty if you are at the poverty 

guidelines and there are people who- you know that is so 

far below, quote, hardship, that the points that were 

made earlier I think were well, well taken. And I think 

it's important to know when we talk about the poverty 

guidelines, what actual dollars we're talking about. So,

it's- you know, we can look it up, but I think, you know, 

to understand for a family of four, it's 30,000. For a 

family of two, it is under 20,000. You know, if you're at 

the poverty level, you are in destitution.
33

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, John. 

Additional questions or comments as it regards question 

six? Question five. My apologies. Tamy, were you trying 

to say something? No?

MS. ABERNATHY: No, my document has it 

right. So, I'm just going look at my document and you 

look at yours. I have us on six and we have two more to 

go after this. That's what I show.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. I appreciate 

that. Thank you. Jalil.

DR. BISHOP: I have a question for the 

Department in trying to understand just kind of the use 

or the justification around the Federal poverty line. So,

I believe under SAVE, it's 225% of poverty. And in 

reading the final rulemaking under REPAYE, a lot of that 

explanation was around people experiencing less food 

insecurity. So, can you all provide a little bit more 

clarification of how you use the Federal poverty line, 

and kind of how you reach the 225% just so we can get a 

sense into just, I guess, the logic of how you process 

this?

MS. ABERNATHY: All that information 

is in the final rule, the notice to the final rule that 

was published so there's extensive conversation between 

the NPRM and the NFR for the Income Driven Repayment 
34

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Plans. I would point the negotiators attention to those

documents for them to review all that.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. 

Sherrie.

MS. GAMMAGE: I have a comment and a 

question. From my perspective, the Federal poverty 

guidelines may be a good measure if you're at the lowest, 

lowest, lowest income possible, say, for a family of 2, 3 

or 4. But even there, they're insignificant- they're 

insufficient in that they don't take into account the 

associated cost of living, as my peers have pointed out, 

in regional differences. Also, they don't take into 

account in a meaningful way for me as a person this- for 

people living on Social Security as the majority of 

seniors are, especially as it applied to the 750 you have 

left to live on. People can't live on that. And so, my 

question is, why can't the 225% under SAVE be used across 

all programs?

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sherrie. 

Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: We want to remind 

everyone that under the SAVE program, we protect 33,000 

for a single individual and 67,000 for a family of four. 

Those are pretty telling numbers that we, under the SAVE 

program, are protecting for those borrowers.
35

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you, 

Tamy. Sherrie, could you put your question into the chat, 

please? I'm seeing that David Ramirez is coming in for 

Ashley Pizzuti for student loan borrowers- borrowers two 

years or less. And David has his hand up. Go ahead, 

David.

MR. RAMIREZ: Yeah. I just want to 

also reiterate the poverty guidelines also don't account 

for the disparities in financial aid given between two 

year and four-year institutions. The real cost of 

attending a community college is greater because we 

receive less in assistance and are also likely to haveare less, much less likely to have access to student 

housing and therefore have to pay higher in rents 

depending on where the community college is located. And 

we also have to spend much more money on transportation 

costs. And so, all of these things are not factored into 

the real cost of attendance when our financial aid 

packages are created. And I also wanted to elevate that 

community college transfer rates within two years are

less than 3%. And so most community college students have 

to spend four, five years before they're able to 

transfer. And therefore, by the time they get to a fouryear college, they're no longer eligible for Pell Grant, 

they're no longer eligible for most of the state 
36

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

financial aid that people are given. And so, they have to 

incur a lot more debt. And that's not accounted for.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thanks. I just wanted to 

briefly respond to Tamy and, you know, I assume that 

you're sort of highlighting those numbers because people 

have been talking about the poverty line itself, which is 

lower than what SAVE protects, but I actually want to 

note that the fact that through this- the IDR rulemaking, 

it was necessary to have a lot of discussion about how 

the poverty guideline itself was insufficient and SAVE 

needed to protect more income than IDR had previously 

been protecting, is indicative of the fact that the 

Federal poverty guideline is woefully inadequate and 

that, you know, thresholds increasingly don't protect 

enough income for individuals to actually meet their 

needs and live a life free of the hardships that are 

imposed by student debt. So, you know, I think a lot ofI know you directed Jalil back to the NPRM and NFR, but I 

will note that there was a lot of discussion during the 

rulemaking as well about some of the complexities and 

difficulties with reliance on the Federal poverty line. 

And I think for the purposes of what we're trying to 

achieve here, I think those problems are especially 

pronounced.
37

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Yael. 

Wisdom.

MR. COLE: I definitely agree with 

Yael, but definitely want to speak to this from the 

perspective of Black borrowers facing unique challenges 

and disparities in income and wealth and accessing 

educational and economic opportunities. I think there's a 

couple of key factors that should be considered or taken 

into account. First being the racial wealth gap. Black 

borrowers are more likely to have a lower household 

wealth than their white counterparts due to historical 

and systemic disparities. This wealth gap has affected 

their ability to cover necessary expenses. The Department 

should acknowledge that the Federal poverty guidelines 

may not adequately account for the wealth disparities 

faced by Black borrowers. The second example being 

employment and income disparities. Black borrowers often 

face a higher rate of unemployment and underemployment 

and wage gap when it comes- compared to white borrowers. 

And so, when evaluating the adequacy of the Federal 

poverty guideline, yet to recognize that Black borrowers 

may have a lower income and less financial stability, 

which can result in the difficulty of meeting basic 

living expenses. The third example is educational 

disparities. Black borrowers may have disproportionately 
38

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

impacted by predatory lending practices and for-profit 

institutions, leading to higher levels of student debt. 

The Department must consider that Black borrowers may 

have a greater need for debt relief, as they may be 

carrying a heavier debt burden relative to their income. 

The fourth example being neighborhood and housing 

disparities. Residential segregation and housing 

discrimination has resulted in Black communities often 

having fewer affordable housing options, and so the 

Department has to recognize that Black borrowers may face 

higher housing costs relative to the income due to 

limited housing choices.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Wisdom. 

Alright, we're at that point where we are going to take a 

break. If there's nothing else, Cindy, please go ahead.

MS. JEFFRIES: I just want to reach 

out to the people who signed up or are on the waiting 

list for the public comment, period. If you are listening 

on the live stream, please note that we are about an hour 

away from commencing on that, so we ask that you sign in 

prior to your start time or your assigned time and 

waiting list, sign in about 15, 20 minutes before either 

your start time or wait list. We would greatly appreciate 

it. One last reminder along that lines, if you log into 

this meeting with a different name than what you 
39

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

registered with, we need to confirm who you are. So, if 

you know how to change your name once you log in, please 

do so. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Cindy. And 

if there's nothing else, Tamy, anything before we take a 

break? Okay.

MS. ABERNATHY: We're good.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Reminder, we've 

got two questions left that we're going to cover. The 

next question is which of the items proposed by 

negotiators above in the summary from session one are 

most indicative of a hardship that would not otherwise be 

captured by an existing Federal program, such as Income 

Driven Repayment, total and permanent disability 

discharges, or something else? That's the question that 

we're going to be addressing when we come back. We're 

going to take- it's 11:58, I'm in the mountain time. It's 

2:58 or 1:58 in eastern time. We're going to be coming 

back in 15 minutes at approximately 2:15. Thank you. 

Thank you, folks. Welcome back. We are continuing our 

discussion as it relates to hardships. Before we broke, I 

read a question. I'll reread it. Which of the items 

proposed by negotiators above in the summary from session 

one are most indicative of a hardship that would not 

otherwise be captured by an existing Federal program, 
40

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

such as Income Driven Repayment, total and permanent 

disability discharges, or something else? That's the 

question that we're discussing at this point. Remember, 

we're- the Department is seeking specifics to inform its 

decisions moving forward. Just as a quick administrative 

note, we're going to be taking a break before public 

comment, which is beginning in approximately 45 minutes. 

Persons who are on the list, please sign in well abovewell before your assigned time slot. Questions, comments 

about the- what I just asked? Kara, please.

MS. TAYLOR: In many of the topics 

that the negotiators have already raised during session 

one and session two, we've identified folks that fall 

outside of the limitations of the existing statutory 

discharges. There are plenty of folks who are disabled 

that do not qualify for a total and permanent disability 

discharge. There are plenty of folks that attended a 

closed school that may find that their income failed to 

enable them to repay their debt, who completed their 

program so they're ineligible for a closed school 

discharge. And that's to say nothing of all the folks 

that we talked to who have no idea that they're eligible 

for any of these forms of statutory discharges. I speak 

to folks who have been in repayment for a decade or 

longer on debt that had they known that they were 
41

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

eligible and that they had to apply, or had they been 

able to successfully navigate at times a very long 

application on their own, they could have discharged 

their debt and saved them- saved themselves from years of 

financial hardship. And so I would discourage the 

Department from using the existing statutory discharges 

as a basis to exclude particular types of relief here, 

which I hope that I'm wrong, but it appears to me that 

this question is indicating, because too many people are

totally unaware that they're eligible for these forms of 

relief. They will not apply. And even though we are 

incredibly grateful that the Department has increased its 

ability to provide automatic relief to borrowers under 

the Borrower Defense Regulations, the closed school 

discharge regulations, false certification, total and 

permanent disability, etcetera, there will always be 

people who are missed despite being eligible who would 

still need to apply. 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. I see 

Ben has responded in some form in the chat. Lane, please 

go ahead.

MS. THOMPSON: When I read this 

question, I feel like it's framed in a way that says that 

folks who are eligible for these programs aren't using 

them, and similar to what Kyra said, maybe some folks 
42

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

don't know they exist, but I wanted to kind of add on to 

that for people who have applied for programs and been 

deemed ineligible and in some cases were actually 

eligible for those programs, borrowers who have payment 

history that was lost in transfers so that they may 

actually be eligible for one of the existing programs, 

but they cannot access it. So one thing I wanted to kind 

of throw in here as a possibility is people who have 

been, you know- have filed complaints with the 

Department, people who have filed complaints with their 

state ombuds, who have worked really hard to try to gain 

access to relief they believe they're entitled to and 

kind of what's the recourse for those people?

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. 

Additional questions, additional comments? Anything else 

to add? Ashley, please.

MS. PIZZUTI: When I asked this in the 

first session, I never really got an answer as far as 

what the Department is doing to educate the public on 

these programs. What kind of social media outreach are 

they using? Is there a specific Instagram account or 

TikTok account that's for some of these policies? I know 

personally, every single day I get emails and people 

trying to join our Facebook group and our Reddit group. 

You know, as far as Borrower Defense goes, they had no 
43

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

idea that they are eligible for Borrower Defense and only 

recently heard about the Sweet v. Cardona. So, I think 

that there is a failure on the Department for outreach in 

letting people know that these programs exist and that 

they're eligible for. I know that, you know, there is the 

Schedule C list. Nobody was contacted for Sweet v. 

Cardona. No one from the schools were contacted that you 

might be eligible to participate in this lawsuit. It's up 

to the individual to seek out whether or not they might 

be eligible for these programs and not the other way 

around.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you, 

Ashley. Ashley, which of the items proposed by 

negotiators above in the summary from session one are 

most indicative of a hardship that would not otherwise be 

captured by an existing Federal program? Anyone want to 

add to that question? Questions, comments about that 

question? Richard, please.

MR. HAASE: I just want to add that 

there was a group missing from this bullet that comes up 

in all of our conversations. I'm not saying that it is 

the greatest indicator here, but it is important also to

remember the borrowers who have the missing or broken 

data or who have been misguided, misinformed, or misled 

by the servicers. I think that that's an important group 
44

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

here. Again, not saying it's the first and foremost among 

the bullets, but I did notice that it was missing from 

that list. So as long as we were referring back to it, I 

thought I'd bring that up here.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you. 

Thank you, Richard. Anything else to add to this question 

before I move on? Wisdom, please.

MR. COLE: For this question, right, 

to even talk about the expansion of this list, correct? 

So, in expanding- I think that was a head nod I saw, in 

expanding the list, I think that things that should be 

added or another group is first-generation college 

graduates. You know, oftentimes they end up helping up 

members of their family and become of their family 

ecosystem. And so, I think that's something that is able 

to be easily captured, especially as folks are filling 

out the FAFSA, filling out college applications, 

something that's easily identifiable because it's- also 

is comprised of immigrant families, right? And 

recognizing that there are immigrants from countries who 

are also facing continual financial hardships that can be 

identified through this group of people. I know we have 

representations from HBCUs, MSIs, and HSIs. I think 

that's also a critical piece that ties directly into 

those who receive Pell Grants. You know, oftentimes HBCUs 
45

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

receive less funding than other institutions, and so 

people are forced to take out more loans, including 

Parent PLUS Loans. And so, I think these are things that 

can also be included within that list as well.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Wisdom. 

Cindy.

MS. JEFFRIES: Wisdom, I think I'm 

going to try to answer your question. I'll- I think the

questions this afternoon have been developed by the 

Department to get additional specifics and ideas that 

could expand the Secretary's ability on waiver decisions. 

So, I think you're spot on with that. This particular 

question, I think, is asking you to- the negotiators to 

look at the list of ideas that you generated in session 

one, in the summary that is included with this hardship 

issue paper, and let the Department know if there are any 

of those that are most indicative of a hardship that 

wouldn't otherwise be covered or captured by an existing 

Federal program. I don't know if that helps or not.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Cindy. 

Richard.

MR. HAASE: Yeah, I think we 

understand the distinction between adding to the list and 

trying to identify which is most indicative. I do think 

it is next to impossible to identify which one would be 
46

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

most indicative of people experiencing hardship. I feel 

like we've spent the last 4 or 5 hours talking about how 

hardship manifests itself in so many different ways, 

across so many different metrics. So, I think it would be 

really, really difficult to pinpoint one of these 

bullets. That said, I do think continuing to look at the 

importance of loans that exceed a certain age or that 

predate 2010, I think is going to- is going to be an 

important bullet for us to look at.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Richard. 

Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: I just want to second 

Richard's call that it is- it's tough for us to rank 

which category is experiencing the most hardship versus 

who is experiencing the least. I will say, in my 

experience, the borrowers that we work with who fall 

across these categories are watching their ability to 

provide their- to pay for their housing, to pay for their 

food, to pay for their medication, be endangered by the 

existence of their student loan debt. They're unable to 

pay for childcare, they're unable to pay for 

transportation, they're unable to get a lease in some 

cases, or they're unable to get a job or to pass a 

security clearance to get various jobs. I mean, the ways 

in which hardship manifests for people varies, and it 
47

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

varies across each of the categories that we've 

identified. We can identify that it is more likely for 

people within these categories to experience these forms 

of hardship if they fit within these criteria. But to say 

that one group is experiencing more hardship from 

another, I think is an almost impossible task for us to 

be able to accomplish today.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. Sher, 

please.

MS. GAMMAGE: Yes, I tend to agree 

with Kyra in that it is impossible because if you look at 

the bulleted items, people could have actually received a 

Pell Grant, attended an institution that's closed, and 

have significant child or dependent care expenses, 

medical expenses, file for bankruptcy, didn't finish 

their programs and are over a certain age. So to put us 

in the position of choosing one that is most- has the 

most press seems a little unrealistic because the people 

who fit the hard definition of hardship, as I was 

thinking of it as we were coming up with this list, 

actually span across these categories that are here. 

Right? And I know that, you know, even going back to the 

gainful employment piece that we talked about earlier 

today, you know, there are groups of people who fit these 

particular categories, the ones that I just named, who 
48

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

are also not underemployed or whose degree is not 

matching what they're doing today because the nature of 

the job that they trained for has changed or that the 

institution or the system in which they work has also 

changed. And what comes to mind immediately for me is 

adjunct faculty. People go and get PhDs in order to be 

able to teach but the situation at in Higher Ed has 

changed tenure. Now, I am aware that there is- that 

adjunct faculty can apply for relief if they work on an 

average of 30 hours, which equates to three credit 

classes per year. But often folks aren't able to do that 

either, because institutions, especially small liberal 

arts colleges and even larger institutions are shifting 

and downsizing. So again, to reiterate, to choose one 

category when people may meet multiple indicators of 

hardship within the categories that we identified, it 

seems an insurmountable task. The other group that's not 

represented on this bulleted list is formerly 

incarcerated borrowers whose earning income, their 

potential for future income, and who may get jobs but are 

underemployed because they- because of the public's 

perception of what having a felony record means.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sher. Lane.

MS. THOMPSON: I want to share a 

borrower story. This is someone I worked with quite a few 
49

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

years back when I was a student loan counselor, and she 

was an elderly person who received retirement benefits, 

and that was her only income. So, she had defaulted on 

her student loans at one point. And the reason she had 

defaulted, she definitely qualified for a $0 Income 

Driven Repayment Plan, but the reason she defaulted is 

because she had a brain injury. So, she didn't remember 

that she had to recertify her income. It was just one of 

the most difficult borrower situations I've ever worked 

on because she was on the verge of homelessness, because 

she needed to figure out how to get out of default on her 

student loans. So, you know, a group that I think is 

pretty obvious, but that we maybe haven't really touched 

on here is people who have been in default. You know, a 

lot of these opportunities are not available to people 

who've been in default. I know that Fresh Start allows 

people to get on to SAVE, but we're still looking at 25-

year repayment for that. So, you know, in that case that 

I mentioned, she had Federal benefits offset, she was 

over the age of 65, she had a disability, and she had 

Parent PLUS Loans and loans of her own. So, I just wanted 

to use that to kind of illustrate the ways that these 

categories do cross over into each other, and also that 

some things like defaulted loans with Federal benefits 

offset are always indicative of pretty serious hardship.
50

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lane. Kyra.

MS. TAYLOR: And I just wanted to 

strongly support Lane's call that defaulted borrowers be 

added to this list. I repeatedly during the first session 

and this session, I've discussed ways that the Department

could provide relief now to defaulted borrowers using 

existing data, or using the data that shows that these 

borrowers have been in default for a long time and are 

still not making progress on paying down their debts. And 

as Lane said, default in and of itself is an indicia of 

hardship.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Kyra. 

Alright, if there's nothing else, I'm inclined to move on 

to our last question. Alright, last question. What 

thresholds or standards should the Department use for the 

items above to determine if a borrower is experiencing 

hardship? Just a reminder to our people watching those 

that are going to be public commenters, please start 

thinking about logging on. What thresholds or standards 

should the Department use for the items above to 

determine if a borrower is experiencing hardship? 

Questions, comments that can- and specifics, please, 

specifics for the Department to be able to inform them on 

their next steps? Alright, and I see that Jalil has come 

in. Please go ahead, Jalil.
51

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

DR. BISHOP: I think, you know, 

returning to my earlier comment, I, you know, this and 

through- and thank you, Ben, for directing me to the 

sheet. I see a major concern around how the Department is 

going to move forward and defining what you call the 

distressed borrower or material hardship. I'm worried 

that- there was a threshold used in the last rulemaking 

that said that a borrower making an hourly rate of about 

$15 basically doesn't have hardship. So what that means 

is that someone still at this 225%, a person making $15 

and 20- $15.28 because they can, in theory, afford food, 

we then are using a claim that they don't have hardship 

or that or since they're not behind on the bill, they 

don't have hardship. But the promise of student loan debt 

was not that you just get to live and be able to feed 

yourself. It was that you get to have a thriving- a life 

that you are able to have social mobility. So I think 

some of this is that we need to really come back to how 

the Department is defining material hardship, which based 

on the last rulemaking, it was at 225% because in theory, 

those people could still feed themselves, but there was 

no evidence that they, at least that I'm seeing, that 

they could still have savings accounts, that they could 

still contribute to retirement, that they could still 

save for college so that they didn't have to take on 
52

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Parent PLUS Loans or prevent their children from taking 

on loans, that they could do other things that we define 

as having a thriving life, which is again, was the 

promise of student debt. The promise of student debt 

wasn't take out a loan and then you can feed yourself so 

that you don't die. It was that you have a thriving life. 

And right now, the threshold, and at least in how 

material hardship was defined in the last rulemaking 

brings the definition so narrow that really the only 

person who- the only way we can understand relief is, 

well, if you can feed yourself, then you're fine. Even 

though we have so much evidence from both the Survey of 

Consumer Finance, from the qualitative research, that 

borrowers are struggling even when they can feed 

themselves, and even that's debatable still at $15.28. 

So, I just think a part of this, too, is for the 

Department to understand that we have evidence of how you 

defined material hardship in the last rulemaking, and it 

is really, I think, problematic. And when we think about 

racial justice, it is a grave injustice to have marked it 

at 225% when thinking about all we know about how our 

economy plays out along uneven gender and racial lines. 

So, I just want to put that here, that we don't have to 

guess how you define hardship, because we do have 

evidence of how you defined it before. And I think it is 
53

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

a serious justice issue that I'm going to mark here, for 

the record, because we should be doing more. You should 

be doing more than just saying these people can eat and 

pay bills. We should be defining it as the original 

promise. Student loans and education should contribute to 

a thriving life, not just an existing life.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jalil. The 

last question, thresholds or standards, specifics please. 

Reminding you if you have any proposals and specific, do 

so on red line to your FMCS facilitators, questions, or 

comments in the chat. Specifics to this question to help 

inform the Department, anyone? Anything else the 

negotiators would like to add? Jessica, please.

MS. RANUCCI: Hi, sorry to take us 

back to this, but I just wanted to respond to something 

Tamy put in the chat, like all the way at the beginning 

of the session as to the GE acknowledgment. I'm really 

concerned about how this would play out in reality, and I 

just want to think about it from a borrower's 

perspective. So it's been like almost two years since the 

GE rulemaking, but my recollection is that what would 

happen is that a borrower if this- if a program fails one 

year of certain metrics, then any borrower would be 

required to do an acknowledgment, understanding that the 

school has failed that metric, but may or may not be 
54

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

allowed to continue in the Title IV participation based 

on things that haven't even happened yet, things that are 

years into the future, and that essentially at that 

point, that acknowledgment, while it may or may not, I 

don't know what the Department's planning, say that that 

would give up the future ability to waive the loans, it 

would functionally- to- for the Secretary to apply waiver 

authority with respect to the loans for the program if 

that program were to lose Title IV eligibility under GE. 

I think whether or not you told the borrower that that's 

what's happening, that's what's effectively happening. 

And I think that that would put a borrower in a very 

difficult position of having to decide whether to 

continue attendance in a school that may or may not lose 

eligibility for the program that they're in, or to give 

up some possibility and relief in the future if that 

happens. And I don't- I'm not sure, I think if the 

Department wants to keep that in there, I'd really like 

to hear next time how it would play out from the 

borrower's perspective, nuts and bolts, because I have a 

lot of concerns about putting the borrower in 

essentially trying to make an impossible choice and Tamy, 

I understand what you say, we're using the word waive in 

two different ways here, and it is confusing and I 

totally understand your comment, but I just, I really do 
55

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

think that that's concerning and I just want to put it 

out.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jessica. 

Yael.

MS. SHAVIT: Thanks, Jessica. And I 

apologize, I had missed Tamy's comment earlier, but I see 

it now. And I hear you on the technical nature of the 

term waiver, but I don't think there's any way around 

reading the regs unless I'm really misreading the 

proposed regs where, you know, subsection three says the 

borrower did not submit an acknowledgment. And that's a 

condition for debt relief under this provision. So, it is 

in fact functioning as a waiver. And whether or not you 

call it a waiver, it is an impediment to relief. And I 

think what we're all saying and have said- I shouldn't 

say we're all, but those of us who have mentioned this, 

is it should not function as an impediment to relief 

given the purposes of this section, which are, of course, 

different than the statutory purposes and the regulatory 

purposes of the GE rule. So, you know, I just want to 

second Jessica's point, but also maybe clarify that while 

I know you're- I see what you mean with respect to the 

word waiver, the fact remains the same.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Tamy.

MS. ABERNATHY: Jessica, would it be 
56

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

possible for you to expand a little bit? We heard you say 

staying enrolled and one of our questions is, do you have 

the same concern for prospective and current students? We 

just want to get clarification around what you're asking. 

And we're not understanding quite the timeline that you 

mentioned. You said something about eight years. So,

could you- would you circle back so that we can clearly 

understand exactly what we need to research and get back 

to you on, please? Thanks so much.

MS. RANUCCI: Sure. And again, I- it's 

been years since we all were in one of these Zooms, so I 

apologize if I'm misunderstanding or misremembering the 

purpose of this acknowledgment, but my understanding was 

that this acknowledgment would happen upon a program's 

failure of one year of metrics that would not 

automatically lead to a loss of Title IV eligibility. It 

would basically say, basically, you're on notice that if 

things progress in a certain direction, the school maythe program may lose eligibility. But if things progress 

in a different direction, the program may not lose 

eligibility. And you're just here to know these two 

possibilities are in the future. And that essentially at 

that point, the borrower is basically required to 

acknowledge that they understand that that is a 

possibility for the future, and that this language would 
57

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

essentially mean that if things went poorly and that the 

program continued to go in that direction, that the 

borrower would lose entitlement to this relief. And so, I 

agree with you. I'm not completely sure about the timing. 

And it's been years and I apologize, but I think that I 

am concerned about both prospective and currently 

enrolled students, because I can't imagine what such an 

acknowledgment could possibly say that would make it 

clear to the borrower what they're giving up in a way 

that would be direct and fair and transparent and allow 

the borrower to make an informed choice. And I honestly 

am not sure that any borrower would sign an 

acknowledgment that would give up their entitlement to 

relief, but the entitlement to relief would only come 

years later. And then, like, I just don't see how this 

plays out in practice. And I think if you want to keep it 

in, I would like an explanation from the Department of 

exactly what that timeline is and exactly what the words 

are going to say and how this makes sense to borrowers, 

because I frankly don't see it. I can't really explain 

it.

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you so much for 

that clarification. Let us look into that and we can 

circle back at a different time. Thanks so much.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Thank you. We 
58

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

are going to endeavor to take a break prior to public 

comment. Public comment is coming up at the top of the 

hour. Wisdom, anything specific to address to the last 

question that we're considering right now?

MR. COLE: Yeah. You know, to the last 

question around threshold or standards, I think it's 

important for us to really think through the promises 

that were made to borrowers, right? The minimum of 

$20,000 being canceled for those who are recipients of 

the Pell Grant and Pell Grant being one of the indicators 

that was proposed as well. I think that the standard 

should just be that they are Pell Grant recipients. You 

know, we know that 75% of HBCU graduates are Pell Grant 

recipients. I myself am a Pell Grant recipient. We 

represent members across this nation who are Pell Grant 

recipients. And recognizing that already being an 

indicator for the need or support to be in higher 

education, I think that if there has already been a 

standard that has been set for an equity lens, right, 

that the need to cancel student debt at a different rate 

for those who are Pell Grant recipients, that must be 

considered, that must be engaged as a minimum threshold 

for those who are to receive this potential waiver.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Wisdom. 

Scott will be our last commenter prior to taking a break 
59

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

before public comment. Go ahead, Scott.

MR. BUCHANAN: Sure, and mine actually 

might be sort of well-timed with that then, sort of mine 

is more administrative in nature here. You know, our 

constituency is really focused on role of providing 

technical, operational and sort of legal feedback on 

specific proposals. So, it would be really useful for the 

Department to provide, you know, sort of revised regs 

language as soon as possible. And I can fully appreciate 

the challenge that both the Department and the General 

Counsel's office are under, given sort of the time 

constraints and all the things that are still open ended, 

and especially because I think the Department has just 

received one actual proposal for language for the text so 

far, you know, after all these conversations. But, you 

know, obviously the text is the thing here, right, that 

we need to react to, provide feedback on, and it's got to 

be robust. It's got to be clear. It's got to be detailed. 

And it's also got to be scoped so it doesn't conflict 

with or exceed the authority under the statute, which 

otherwise risks the entire package. And I think all of us 

will need plenty of time to look through that final text. 

So, you know, getting that as soon as possible would be 

great. I wonder, maybe, Tamy, if you could sort of remind 

us all of sort of the timeline of when you need proposals 
60

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

in and then also when the Department anticipates being 

able to get through all that, because, again, I'm very 

empathetic to y'all's challenge to do all of this in such 

a short time, since we have so many outstanding items 

that we don't have language for yet. 

MS. ABERNATHY: Yes. Thank you so 

much, Scott. I would be happy to remind everybody. I will 

say, per our protocols, we guarantee that we will get reg 

texts to you one week before in the advance of 

negotiations. If at all possible, you know, we will do 

our best to circulate that before that period of time. 

But we can- there are very many moving pieces and parts 

for us. So, the best thing that you guys can do to help 

us is to get your proposals to us no later than Tuesday 

the 14th. That will certainly help us. I think, you know, 

expecting you to just in the middle of these 

negotiations, throw those proposals together and get 

those out in official response to us is a little 

aggressive timeline, but we are giving you until Tuesday 

the 14th. If you can get those to us, we will begin 

immediately working. The minute these negotiations are 

over, we start work on all of the deliverables that we 

need to have pulled together for you guys for- in advance 

of our next session, but I cannot guarantee that it will 

be before one week in advance of the negotiations. And, 
61

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

you know, I hope that you guys respect that there's a lot 

that goes into us preparing these for you. And we really 

need all the time we can to make sure we get it right 

before we give it to you guys. But we- you have our word. 

We're doing the very best we can and will do everything

in our powers to get that to you as soon as possible.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. And we 

are done with this section of the afternoon. We are going 

to be coming back at 3:00 eastern for public comment. 

We're on break until then. Folks that are signed up for 

public comment, please start signing in. Thank you. 

Welcome back, folks. We are now at our public comment 

period, as yesterday we have expanded it to one hour. A 

reminder to folks that are in queue for or on the list 

for public comment. Please get signed in as soon as 

possible. Please understand that your identifying- we're 

identifying you based on how you registered, so keep that 

in mind. You will have three minutes for public comment,

and you will get a 30-second reminder. Alright, who's 

first?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Nancy Altman, who is the president of Social Security 

Works.

MR. WEATHERS: Nancy, can you hear me?

MS. ALTMAN: Yes. Can you hear me?
62

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: I can hear you, Nancy. 

You will have a- thank you for coming in. You'll have 

three minutes for public comment. You will be given a 30-

second warning. Your time starts now.

MS. ALTMAN: Thank you so much. And as 

you said, my name is Nancy Altman. I'm President of 

Social Security Works. You know, most people think of 

student debt as an issue just concerning young people. 

But a substantial proportion of older people are 

struggling with student debt as well. In fact, the number 

of older Americans with student debt jumped 500% in just 

the last two decades. And as 10,000 baby boomers continue 

to turn 65 every single day, that number will continue to 

skyrocket. Despite the stereotype of wealthy seniors in 

gated communities, most seniors live close to poverty. 

They're just one shot away from falling into poverty. 

About one out of three seniors rely on Social Security 

for virtually all of their income, and those benefits are 

extremely modest, averaging just around $20,000 a year. 

And those with outstanding student debt are generally the 

poorest, with incomes well below the average. A 

disproportionate number are single Black women, who, on 

average have the lowest income, with the lowest Social 

Security average benefits of around $14,000. As you know, 

student debt cannot easily be discharged in bankruptcy 
63

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

despite great hardship. Senior borrowers are twice as 

likely to be in default. As a general matter, Social 

Security benefits are beyond the reach of creditors. Like 

other income held in trust, Social Security can't be 

garnished by financial institutions and other private 

creditors. But since 1996, when the law was changed to 

allow it, the Federal Government can garnish Social 

Security benefits. And it does. The number of retirees 

and people with disabilities who have a part of their 

modest Social Security checks taken to pay off student

loans, often decades old, has more than tripled. And 

that's the fate of today's young people if you do not 

provide relief. The nation is facing a retirement income 

crisis. As important as Social Security is to today's 

beneficiaries, it will be even more important to those 

who follow. You can help alleviate that crisis by doing 

all within your power to alleviate the ongoing student 

debt crisis, which affects every generation.

MR. FRANCZAK: 30 seconds remaining.

MS. ALTMAN: Thank you. I've just 

concluded.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Nancy. Who's 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I just admitted 

Ernest Ezeugo, who is here representing the Lumina 
64

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Foundation.

MR. WEATHERS: Ernest, welcome. This 

is your opportunity to make a public comment to the 

negotiators. You'll have three minutes with a 30-second 

warning. Your time starts now.

MR. EZEUGO: Thank you so much. Good 

afternoon. I want to thank the Department of Education 

and the committee for hosting this comment period. My 

name is Ernest Ezeugo. I'm a Strategy Officer at Lumina 

Foundation, a private foundation committed to making 

opportunities for learning beyond high school available 

to all. We applaud the administration's work in providing 

relief to student loan borrowers so far, and we wish to 

share two key considerations for the current rulemaking 

effort. First, we support the Department's proposal to 

reduce loan balances for borrowers who have seen their 

debts grow over time due to negative amortization. This 

is especially important for addressing the racial equity 

implications of student loan debt. Research has shown 

that this problem is acutely harmful for borrowers of 

color. For example, one report found that most Black 

borrowers owe more on their loans than they originally 

borrowed more than a decade after entering repayment. The 

Department has asked whether other criteria should be 

added to the- to limit this type of relief. In response, 
65

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

we echo the sentiments of negotiators. A growing balance 

is an indication that a borrower is struggling to manage 

their loans. Borrowers often see their loan balances grow 

because they enter deferments or forbearance to get 

through a period of hardship. In other cases, borrowers 

on Income Driven Repayment Plans see their balances grow 

because their incomes are low, their balances are high, 

or both. Borrowers in these circumstances need and 

deserve relief, and we urge you to avoid placing any 

undue limitations on that relief. Secondly, we encourage 

the Department to consider providing relief to student 

loan borrowers who did not earn a degree. Students 

balancing work, caregiving and financial responsibilities 

are more likely to leave college without a credential 

than their peers. Many of these students borrow to pay 

for college, and when they can't complete, they're often 

left worse off than when they first enrolled. Their loans 

make it harder to reenroll in college and earn a 

credential, and not having a credential limits their 

access to good paying jobs that would otherwise help them 

pay down their debt. This is a perennial problem only 

growing in scope. The latest National Student 

Clearinghouse data reports that 40 million plus Americans 

attended some college but left with no credential. 

Furthermore, recent Department of Justice guidance on 
66

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

bankruptcy claims recognizes that borrowers who take out 

loans for a degree that they don't complete are unlikely 

to see their financial circumstances improve over time. 

In other words, Government has already associated not 

having a credential with financial hardship.

MR. FRANCZAK: 30 seconds remaining.

MR. EZEUGO: Thank you. But that 

reality is largely unaddressed by the existing student 

loan system. The administration has a moral and economic 

imperative to address burdensome student debt, and is 

right to consider bold, flexible, expansive, and creative 

strategies to do so in this rulemaking. Thank you for 

your time.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Ernest. Who 

do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted 

Christina Fields, who is here representing herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Christina, can you- no, 

she's still connecting to audio. Christina, can you hear 

me?

MS. FIELDS: Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: Fantastic. I can hear 

you as well. This is your opportunity to give a public 

comment to the negotiators. You'll have three minutes 

with a 30-second warning. Your time starts now.
67

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MS. FIELDS: Okay. Thank you. My name 

is Christina Fields. I'm a resident of Rochester, New 

York, in one of the highest poverty neighborhoods in the 

United States. In 2021, I was stuck living with the 

alcoholic abusive father of my infant daughter, and I was 

convinced I couldn't financially make my life work on my 

own. I'd been hiding from my student loans for about a 

decade, working low wage jobs, barely able to pay my 

bills. When the student loan forgiveness program was 

announced, I applied, was approved, and relied on that 

approval to change my life. I got approved for a mortgage 

based partly on that loan forgiveness, found a cheap 

house in a bad neighborhood, bought it, left my abusive 

ex, took my infant daughter, and moved on to reclaim my 

life. With the looming threat of my student loans 

returning, I'm not sure I'll be able to make my financial 

life work. I receive no child support, and the reality of 

owning, heating, and maintaining a 100-year-old home is 

really starting to sink in. I'm asking that you please 

honor the promise made to forgive Federal Student Loans 

for those like me already approved. It would make a 

significant difference in my ability to live how I 

choose, stay off of public assistance, and realize the 

American Dream. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Christina. 
68

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Folks that are in the queue or on the list, please take 

this opportunity to sign on as soon as possible. Thank 

you. Who do we have next, Brady?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Sabrina Calazans, who is the Managing Director for the 

Student Debt Crisis Center.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Sabrina, can 

you hear me?

MS. CALAZANS: I can hear you. Can you 

hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: I can. Fantastic. This 

is your opportunity to make a public comment to the 

negotiators. You'll have three minutes with a 30-second 

warning period. Your time starts now. 

MS. CALAZANS: Okay. Hello. My name is 

Sabrina Calazans, and I'm the managing director at the 

Student Debt Crisis Center. SDCC is a nonprofit 

organization with about 2 million supporters nationwide, 

and they work to amplify borrower voices and needs to end 

the student debt crisis once and for all. I'm a student 

loan borrower, and I have about $30,000 of student loan 

debt. It wasn't until I started working in this space and 

heard borrowers’ stories that I realized how, within 

households and families, there are often multiple 

generations impacted by student debt. My own family is an 
69

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

example of that. My sister has about $23,000 in student 

debt, and my dad has about $11,000 in Parent PLUS Loans. 

In many cases, multiple individuals have to take on debt 

to get their loved ones into college. I graduated in 

2019, and my sister in May of this year. President 

Biden's original plan of canceling up to 10 or $20,000 

per borrower would have been life-changing for my family. 

Both my sister and I were Pell Grant recipients, and each 

of us would have had $20,000 canceled each. She would 

have had almost all of her debt canceled, and I would 

have had two-thirds of mine wiped away. My dad's Parent 

PLUS Loan also would have been fully canceled. The joy 

that we felt following the President's announcement and 

the submission of our applications for debt cancellation 

quickly turned into fear and frustration a few months 

later, following the injunction and the terrible decision 

made by the Supreme Court. So many families like mine 

hoped and dreamed of a reality where we no longer had 

student debt or where the burden would be less. And as a 

first-generation American and college graduate, the plan 

to cancel student debt would have made a huge difference 

in my household, where there is no generational wealth 

and where every single paycheck matters to get us to the 

next week. Unfortunately, my story is not unique. Last 

month, I also made my first student loan payment and 
70

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

along the way, I was placed into an administrative 

forbearance without ever being told why, and received 

confusing, conflicting information about auto debit that 

left me uncertain about whether I had successfully made a 

payment or not. If it hasn't been easy for me, and it's 

my job to help others navigate the system and the 

existing programs, then what hope is there for the folks 

who don't work with experts, who don't understand the 

complex language, who don't have easy access to the 

internet, or who are not tech savvy, and who have been 

failed by their servicers time and time again. We need to 

do better, and we need to cancel student debt. Broadbased student debt cancellation is necessary for millions 

of Americans, but especially for the first-generation 

studentsMR. FRANCZAK: 30 seconds.

MS. CALAZANS: -women, low-income

folks, and communities of color that are all 

disproportionately impacted by this debt. Cancellation 

could result in the start of families and businesses' 

basic needs being met, or simply removing millions from 

this harmful system. We urge you to consider debt 

cancellation for all student loan borrowers. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sabrina. 

Brady, who do we have next?
71

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, I just admitted 

Satra Taylor, who's here representing herself.

MS. TAYLOR: Hello, everyone. Can you 

hear me okay?

MR. WEATHERS: Satra, yes, I can hear 

you and I can see you now. Thank you. This is your 

opportunity to make a public comment to the negotiators. 

You'll have three minutes with a 30-second warning. Your 

time starts now.

MS. TAYLOR: Awesome. Good afternoon. 

I am Satra D. Taylor and I come to you all today as a 

current doctoral student at The University of Maryland 

College Park. I believe in the power of education so much 

that I decided to get a terminal degree studying the 

subject matter. Yet, as of lately, I have grown deeply 

disappointed in how the United States higher education 

system has moved further and further away from former 

President Lyndon B. Johnson's intent when signing the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, which was so that no 

student would be denied a chance to participate in higher 

education due to financial limitations or socioeconomic 

status, but would instead know the path of knowledge was 

open to all that had the determination to walk it. The 

current gatekeeping occurring within the United States 

higher education system by the wealthy was never the 
72

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

intent. Yet here we are, requiring public servants and 

citizens to take time out of their demanding and taxing 

lives to support and stand firm in their belief in debt 

cancellation. When is enough, enough? When will the 

stories, the data, or the hardship illustrate a narrative 

enough for the liking of those in power to cancel student 

loan debt? Listen to us when we say canceling up to 

50,000 in student loan debt would significantly reduce 

the racial wealth gap and lift the burden of the student 

debt crisis for millions. Listen to us when we say the 

original plan to cancel student debt relief in the amount 

of 10,000 and 20,000 thousand for Pell Grant recipients 

should be the start, not the ceiling. Listen to us when 

we say while we welcome the saving on valuable education 

repayment plan, it is not the end all, be all. There are 

graduate borrowers, hello, Parent PLUS borrowers, 

borrowers who did not complete their program. Borrowers 

receiving public assistance, incarcerated borrowers, and 

more, still facing hardships with the cards that the 

powers that be dealt. It's time to shuffle the deck of 

cards. I want to thank you all for taking the time to 

listen to my comment as you all work diligently to 

establish a rule related to the modification, waiver, or 

compromise of Federal Student Loans. I yield back my 

time.
73

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Satra. A 

reminder to those that are on the list. Please get signed 

in sooner than later. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Elizabeth Turner. It looks like her video doesn't work, 

but I believe her audio does.

MS. TURNER: Hi, can you hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: Elizabeth, we can hear 

you. Thank you for coming in for public comment to the 

negotiators. You'll have three minutes with a 30-second 

warning. Your time begins now.

MS. TURNER: Okay. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak today. My name is Elizabeth Turner. 

Here's my story. I applied and was approved for student 

loan debt forgiveness in the fall of 2022. This relieved 

a huge financial burden for me by completely eliminating 

my student debt. Soon after I was approved, my father 

fell ill, and he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 

the winter of 2022. He needed to undergo surgery and 

chemotherapy right away, and this put a huge strain on my 

family, not only financially, but practically as well, 

because my mother was already stretched too thin as the 

primary caregiver for her elderly mother, who had 

Alzheimer's. I made the difficult decision to quit my 

full-time job in favor of a part-time job with more 
74

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

flexible hours, which would allow me to step in as a 

secondary caregiver as needed. I knew that this was risky 

because I would be taking a significant pay cut and would 

no longer be able to put money into savings. However, I 

felt comfortable doing so because I knew that I did not 

have to pay back my student loans. I was completely 

unaware at the time that the constitutionality of Biden's 

Debt Relief Program was being ruled upon by the Supreme 

Court, and like many other Americans, I was blindsided by 

the Supreme Court's decision to overturn debt relief. I 

began applying for jobs immediately and even applied for 

an Income Based Repayment Plan. But after applying to 

over 100 jobs, I have been unable to find secondary 

employment and have no backup plan in the case that my 

Income Based Repayment Plan application is denied. I am 

college educated, I work hard, I support my family, I 

donate to charity when I can, and I volunteer for several 

local nonprofits. I am a good person. I did not find 

myself in this situation because I am lazy or stupid. I 

simply made the difficult decision to prioritize my 

family's well-being over my own financial security. And 

my biggest mistake was to trust that the Government would 

provide a safety net for people in need. I am ashamed to 

live in a country where wealth is prioritized over the 

health, safety, and livelihoods of its citizens. The 
75

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

fundamental truth is that we live in a country where good 

people like me have to choose what's more important, 

spending time with a dying loved one or being able to 

afford both rent and food. Student debt relief was a 

lifeline for those of us who are drowning, and that is 

why I'm sharing my story and begging those in power to 

fulfill their promise to the American people. That's all 

I have to say. Thank you for listening.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Elizabeth. 

Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Jonathan 

Macedo, who's here representing himself.

MR. MACEDO: How you doing?

MR. WEATHERS: Jonathan, hello. Thank 

you for coming in to comment to the negotiators. You'll 

have three minutes with a 30-second warning. Your time 

begins now.

MR. MACEDO: Hello, my name is 

Jonathan Macedo and I wanted to thank everyone here. I'm 

here because I wanted to propose a rule that caps the 

amount of profit the Government can make on each 

individual student who makes payments under an IBR plan. 

I graduated from BU in 2007 with a finance degree which 

attended on almost a full ride. I then went to UM's law 

school in 2010, financed mostly by Grad PLUS Loans. I'm 
76

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the first in my family to get a bachelor's degree and 

first for grad school. I'm here because I've borrowed 

about 120,000 for school. As of today, I've repaid about 

150 to 170,000. But despite paying more than what I 

borrowed, I still owe 286,000 and I'm more than double my 

principal. And I'm in the top 1% of student debt 

borrowers. Every time I tell people what happened, the 

knee jerk reaction, that's unfair. I should tell someone. 

I've tried. Every time I've talked to Navient or 

Advantage, they always say that interest is set by 

Congress. There's nothing that they can really do. The 

biggest mistake for me is that in 2007, when I took on 

the debt, I thought I could easily swing the debt because 

I saw what the schools were posting as expected pay. What 

I didn't project was the Great Recession and how it 

changed, everything changed the world midway through 

school. It hurt my job prospects and it really kind of 

impacted my job, you know what I could make. What ended 

up happening- what ended up happening is that after 

graduation, it took about 6, 5 to 6 years to be able to 

afford what I thought was going to be able to make right 

out of law school. My debt ended up ballooning, and the 

interest expense turned into about 2,400 bucks a month. 

That's interest expense, not interest in principle. So,

what ended up happening ever since then is I've been able 
77

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

to pay the interest, maybe pay a little bit of principal. 

But every time something happens, I take ten steps back 

and I get further indebted to the Government. My issue is 

I wasn't really available. The SAVE programs weren't 

available. I didn't come from generational wealth, and 

I'd not been in this predicament if I could have just 

found work during the Great Recession. So, what I wanted 

to propose is to kind of make a solution for some of 

these people. I know I'm not the only one that the 

Government's made money off of. Just to have the 

Department of ED release lists of where they've made 

profit off of people, and for those people to get 

targeted for hardship relief or something, either based 

on their income or based how much money the Government 

has made off of them. And that was it. So, thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jonathan. 

Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Tammy 

McCarthy, who's speaking on behalf of herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Tammy, can 

you hear us?

MS. MCCARTHY: Yes, I can. Let me get 

my video going here. 

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tammy. 

Hello. Thank you for coming for public comment directly 
78

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

to the negotiators. You'll have a three-minute period 

with a 30-second warning. Your time begins now.

MS. MCCARTHY: Okay. Thank you so 

much. I appreciate you guys giving me the time to speak. 

I understand that this meeting is not specifically about 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness or IDR forgiveness, but I 

think it's important because many people have been left 

behind. I am very thankful that I received my Public 

Service Loan Forgiveness last February, but I'm 

continuing to advocate for others who have not yet 

received student loan forgiveness. For example, people 

with school Chapter 13 bankruptcy and default 

forbearances have been left out of the Hold Harmless 

provision of PSLF and IDR waivers. Please allow borrowers 

to retroactively buy back this time. I also know people 

who have loans that were left with a balance after part 

of their loans were forgiven due to servicer delays. 

Please ensure that these borrowers with hanging loans are 

also given student loan forgiveness. Lastly, please 

expedite the processing of loan forgiveness for borrowers 

with spousal joint consolidation loans. It has been over 

one year since the law allowing borrowers to separate 

their joint consolidation loans was passed. According to 

the Education Department, the law cannot be implemented 

before late 2024. Meanwhile, these loans continue to 
79

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

accrue interest and impact people's credit scores. This 

is unfair and needs to be fixed. Thank you so much for 

your time and consideration to help grant student loan 

forgiveness to more borrowers. I know in my case it was 

very much life changing. Thank you so much.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tammy.

MS. MCCARTHY: And that's the end for 

me. I appreciate it. You guys have a good- have a good 

rest of your day.

MR. WEATHERS: You too. Thank you. 

Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Next up we have Dawn 

Holland, who's here on behalf of herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Hello, Dawn.

MS. HOLLAND: Hi. Good afternoon.

MR. WEATHERS: This is your 

opportunity- good afternoon. This is your opportunity to 

make public comment directly to the negotiators. You'll 

have a three-minute period with a 30-second warning. Your 

time begins now.

MS. HOLLAND: Okay. Sounds good. My 

comment is in reference to veterans as the mother, 

daughter, sister, and aunt of active US service members 

and veterans, I wanted to advise on the possibility of 

loan forgiveness assistance for veterans who have served 
80

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

beyond four years, have been honorably discharged, but 

have not found a job with a salary that can provide 

enough funds to pay for their student loans. Veterans 

give up so much for our country and for our families that 

their student loans should be forgiven, or the PSLF 

waiver that expired on October 31, 2022, should be 

reinstated, extended for longer period of time, or become 

a permanent solution for our veterans. The other thought 

that I wanted to present is that, also as a caregiver of 

a veteran, which is my parents, monies that would 

originally go to student loans to pay back those student 

loans, a lot of times those funds have to go to the care 

of not only our elderly parents, but for those veterans 

that are unfortunately in a situation that they need that 

assistance, the financial assistance. So those are the 

things that I wanted to bring forth when we're talking 

about, you know, student loan forgiveness, is that always 

the circumstances may not be the individual's situation 

that they can't pay. It comes to certain circumstances 

where we are looking for the care of family members or 

veterans, and/or veterans with those monies to go, to 

make sure that those veterans and those elderly folks are 

getting their needs taken care of. So that's the comment 

that I wanted to present.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Dawn.
81

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MS. HOLLAND: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: And thank you for your 

family's service.

MS. HOLLAND: Thank you. Hard thing, 

but we got to do it.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you. Brady, who 

do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted 

Elizabeth Briere, who's here speaking on behalf of 

herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Elizabeth, welcome to 

public comment directly to the negotiators. You have a 

three-minute session with a 30-second- warning.

MR. ROBERTS: Elizabeth, if you 

wouldn't mind turning off the live stream, because 

there's gonna be a bit of an echo. But we can hear you.

MS. BRIERE: Okay? Alright. Sorry 

about that. It's off.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. And your time 

begins now, Elizabeth.

MS. BRIERE: Okay. Thank you. Good 

afternoon, members of the committee. My name is 

Elizabeth, and I appreciate your allowing me to share my 

thoughts on potential improvements for individuals with 

bankruptcy, student loans, and prior economic hardships 
82

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

not otherwise addressed by the current student loan 

system. Specifically, I'd like to focus on improvements 

for PSLF individuals with a history of bankruptcy. To 

illuminate the area of concern, I will share a brief 

history of my journey with bankruptcy, student loans, the 

challenges with the current rules disallowing 

forgiveness, and how individuals like me have slipped 

through the cracks of the current forgiveness system. In 

2011, I experienced an economic hardship and needed to 

declare chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under this ruling, I was 

told my monthly payments to my trustee would include and 

satisfy my student loan payments. As a condition of my 

bankruptcy repayment program, I was directed to pay these 

loans to the trustee, not the student loan servicer. 

Under this guidance, I made 60 prorated student loan 

payments to my trustee over the five years. These 

payments should qualify under the PSLF limited waiver 

rules. To quote Studentaid.gov limited waiver website, 

periods of repayment where payments were late or for less 

than the amount due also count. Technically, I met the 

requirement less than the amount due since I paid a 

prorated amount. I asked for reconsideration of the 

bankruptcy rules for the limited waiver applicants where 

student loan payments were made during chapter 13 

bankruptcy. Next, I looked into the IDR one-time account 
83

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

adjustment because of the forbearance rule. I was forced 

into forbearance during the bankruptcy even though I was 

technically paying on these loans. According to the IDR 

rules, bankruptcy forbearance does not count for this 

adjustment. Lastly, I've researched the option to buy 

back some of these months in bankruptcy for PSLF even 

though I already paid a prorated amount, as noted before. 

However, I am also denied forgiveness through buy-back 

because these months are labeled bankruptcy forbearance, 

and this forgiveness option excludes bankruptcy buy-back. 

As you can see, the class of borrowers like me are left 

with no options by the system and are denied forgiveness 

after multiple attempts with different programs. Instead 

of defaulting or deferring, many of us tried to do the 

right thing with the guidance we were given. So, I'm not 

here requesting a brand-new proposal. I'm asking for 

minor revisions to the current program. So those who went 

through chapter 13 bankruptcy have options too, like the 

limited waiver or the other options mentioned earlier. I 

appreciate your time and hope you will consider helping 

individuals like me. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Elizabeth. 

Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Jeremy Belanger, who's 

here representing himself.
84

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Jeremy- or 

thank you, Brady. Jeremy, can you hear me?

MR. BELANGER: Yes, can you hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: I can, loud and clear. 

Jeremy, this is your opportunity to make public comment 

directly to the negotiators. You will have three minutes 

and a 30-second warning. Your time begins now.

MR. BELANGER: Okay, well, my comment 

is very brief. I was just curious if the Department had 

considered definitions for the phrase totally, I think 

it's totally and permanently disabled for purposes of 

student loan forgiveness. I know there's one section 

related to being determined unemployed by the Secretary 

of the Veterans Affairs, but it seems like there could be 

a broader definition. I am a veteran. I have a 

[inaudible] disability. Luckily, I do have a job, but 

there are times in which it can be stressful, 

particularly for other veterans. So, I just wanted to see 

if the Department had considered any expansion of that 

definition to include possibly other veterans or other 

forms of disability.

MR. WEATHERS: Jeremy, this is an 

opportunity for comment. There's not a question and 

answer period.

MR. BELANGER: Yeah, I guess would be-
85

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

my comment is that whether- I'm trying to think how to 

phrase it, then- I would just- I would comment that I 

think the Department should look at expanding that 

definition so it's not so narrow.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Anything else 

you'd like to add at this point?

MR. BELANGER: Nope. That's all I 

have. Thank you so much.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you very much, 

Jeremy. Appreciate it.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, who do we have 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just 

submitted Terry Dodd, who's- he is speaking on behalf of 

himself.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Brady. 

Terry, can you hear me?

MR. DODD: Yes, I can hear you. Can 

you hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: I certainly can. Terry, 

this is your opportunity to make a public comment to the 

negotiators. You will have three minutes with a 30-second 

warning, and your time begins right now.

MR. DODD: Okay, well, I'm Terry Dodd. 

I'm 42 years old. I have about a little over $13,000 in 
86

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

student loans and I still have about maybe about another 

nine years to pay the student loans and I just want some 

kind of relief, some kind of break. Because, I mean, I've 

been paying these student loans for since back in 2006, 

and it just kind of ridiculous how I've tried to, you 

know, balance my work life and my- I guess you could say 

my work life and my personal life and I just pretty much 

trying to make ends meet. And it just seems like- how can 

I put this? I just want to live a student loan debt-free 

life, but it just seems like I can't. You know, without 

me going through all kinds of changes with the student 

loan providers and everything. I just wish Congress would 

just, you know, get it together, you know, cut the 

borrowers a break of some kind. You know, instead of 

bickering and fighting, fighting, you know, thinking it's 

going to- how can I put this? It's going to put a dent in 

their wallet, you know, because the student loan 

borrowers also the taxpayers too. So, think about the 

student loan borrowers, because I'm sure I'm not the only 

one that's going through this, you know, because 

eventually I want to get married, and I just don't want 

this hanging over my head. You know, and I just wish 

there was some kind of magic wand. I just wish to just 

make these student loans go away. But it just seems like 

I can't, and I'm- and I mean, eventually I want to go 
87

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

back to school, but I'm not going to sign up for more 

student loans, because by the time I get done paying the 

current student loans I got, I'm going to have some more 

student loans. And by the time I get done paying the 

other student loans off, I'll be old as my grandparents 

and they're like 80 years old, 80 and 81 years old. So,

when I do go back to school, I'm going- I'm just saving 

up money. I'm just going to wind up paying out of pocket. 

This is just completely ridiculous, and it just seemed 

like nobody realized how big of a problem this was until 

recently. So, I just hope to God that Congress makes some 

kind of effort to get some kind of resolution passed as 

far as these student loans go. And that's all I have to 

say.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Terry.

MR. DODD: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Brady, who do we have 

next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Matthew Ray, who is here speaking on behalf of students 

defrauded by the University of Phoenix.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Brady. 

Matthew, I see that you're muted. Can you hear me? 

Matthew, can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: If you want, I can. I 
88

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

can work with him during the next speaker if that's- if 

that's okay? 

MR. WEATHERS: Sure.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I will admit 

John Acuros, who's here representing himself. 

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Matthew. I think 

Brady's going to help you with that. John, can you hear 

me?

MR. FRANCZAK: Brady, has John been 

admitted?

MR. ROBERTS: Yeah, so I admitted him, 

but he's still in the waiting room, so he needs to- if 

you can hear this, accept the log-in once you get the 

zoom message that you're being admitted. Let me admit our 

next speaker while I work with John and Matthew. Our next 

speaker is Lynn Pollitt, who's here representing the 

organization Do Us Part, which is a grassroots 

organization regarding spousal consolidation.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you. Lynn, 

can you hear me?

MS. POLLITT: Yes, I can hear you.

MR. WEATHERS: I think you're going to 

have to turn your audio off for the public sector 

section.

MS. POLLITT: Oh, gotcha.
89

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: We're getting a little 

feedback. Okay, there we go. Lynn, are you still there?

MS. POLLITT: Yes, yes, I am.

MR. WEATHERS: You disappeared. 

Alright. 

MS. POLLITT: Oh, hang on. Yeah.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. I think we're all 

good. Lynn?

MS. POLLITT: Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Lynn, this is 

your opportunity to make a public comment to the 

negotiators. You'll have three minutes and a 30-second 

warning. Your time begins now.

MS. POLLITT: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Lynn Pollitt, and I'm part of 

another group with hardship that hasn't been identified 

today. Those of us with joint consolidated loans, I have 

a consolidated loan with my ex-husband. And even though 

the loan program ended in 2006, the hardship to those of 

us has not ended and we experienced those hardships in 

every aspect of our life. I was a single mother of two 

when I went back to school seeking a way out of poverty. 

I worked three jobs while going to school full-time, 

received Pell grants, graduated summa cum laude as the 

first college graduate in my family. I ended college with 
90

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

32,000 in my original school loans and I have been paying 

for 26 years and I have paid over 68,000, and yet now I 

still owe 50,000. I did remarry in 2002. Nelnet contacted 

us about consolidating our loans, but nothing was 

mentioned that we would not be able to separate those 

loans in the event of a divorce, and we did eventually 

divorce. After our divorce, I had to take out three 

separate protection orders against him. He harassed, 

stalked, and threatened to kill me. He would do just 

enough to intimidate me, but not so much that he would be 

arrested. And the irony is that I was the director of the 

Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence program in our 

community. I ended up having to move out of state to get 

away from him, leaving my children and grandchildren. My 

marriage may have ended, but being tethered to an abusive 

man through these student loans has not ended. I'm now 70 

years old, on Medicare. I have dedicated over 50 years of 

my life to public service and nonprofit work. I finally 

retired this past May as a Charter School Principal. I've 

moved back to be closer to my family as I have cancer 

again for the second time in the last four years, I 

barely make ends meet between Social Security and my 

pension, and my student loan payments are 25% of my net 

income. Now, not only am I living with cancer because 

I've moved back, I'm now living with a fear that this man 
91

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

will discover through our joint Nelnet account that I've 

moved back and he will have my address again. Even though 

the law was passed to allow us to separate our loans, we 

still need a mechanism to do so, then we can consolidate 

into direct loans and have equal access to relief. At the 

minimum we need, and I'm asking, is for administrative 

forbearance that is easily obtained, non-capitalizing, no 

interest while waiting for the ED process to separate our 

loans. Thank you for listening, I appreciate it.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lynn. Brady, 

who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: I believe Matthew is 

ready if he wants to come off of mute. Perfect.

MR. WEATHERS: Great. Matthew, can you 

hear me?

MR. RAY: I can, thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Fantastic. This- you've 

got- this is your opportunity for public comment. You 

have three minutes with a 30-second warning. Your time 

begins now.

MR. RAY: Thank you for allowing me to 

speak today. Today, I would like to speak on behalf of 

not just myself, but also hundreds, if not tens of 

thousands of students at University of Phoenix who have 

probably gone through the same exact thing, which was 
92

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

that back in, you know, starting from early 2000, all the 

way up to as recently, we wanted to find a way to be able 

to get education because we were working, you know, 9 to 

5 jobs. We have other obligations that prevented us from 

being able to work our lives into this schedule of 

typical college schedules. So today I am speaking in 

favor of group discharges on University of Phoenix loans, 

as well as all other for-profit colleges or universities 

that have defrauded student borrowers through the 

deceptive practices, whether it's through advertising or 

different tactics to try to have everybody enroll with 

high-dollar, you know, tens of thousands of dollars in 

student loan debt that is practically going to be 

impossible to pay back once the- once, you know, even 

after graduation and excuse me, even after graduation and 

where these degrees or certificates that we studied for 

are not accepted by- on the wide range with employers. So 

and we also think about this also has impacts that where 

individuals are going homeless, they're not able to get 

basic necessities such as keeping a roof over their head, 

purchasing a home, or even purchasing a vehicle that is 

reliable and dependable for them to continue to even just 

go to work and working in a job. I myself have 

experienced where my Bachelor's degree that I obtained 

from University of Phoenix is not accepted. I have been 
93

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

passed up on many job opportunities that I felt that I 

would have qualified for had I gone to a typical state 

university and obtained the same degree. I've also been 

able to, thankfully, get some type of certifications 

through different entities just to help me with being 

able to keep my job and trying to grow that way. I just 

think that group discharging is the only way to go. If we 

already have proof that these universities. Thank you. If 

they- if we already have a lot of proof and the 

Department of Education is aware of them or aware of that 

proof, I think that group discharges should be made 

because I think it's just wasting everyone's time to go 

case by case from each student when all the students are 

coming with the same type of evidence. I appreciate your 

time today. Thank you very much.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Matthew.

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Sabrina 

Barger-Turner, who was here speaking on behalf of her 

organization, Homeless and Human.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Thank you. 

Sabrina, can you hear me?

MS. BARGER-TURNER: I can.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Welcome to the 

public comment before the negotiators. You'll have three 

minutes with a 30-second warning. Your time begins now.
94

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MS. BARGER-TURNER: Good afternoon, 

fellow citizens. I speak today to advocate for student 

loan debt relief as a crucial step towards addressing the 

homelessness crisis and preventing individuals from 

falling into its grasp. Student loan debt is a major 

impediment to stability or wellness of any kind, 

including housing stability, job stability, medical and 

mental and physical wellness, financial stability, and 

beyond. By working with nonprofits, religious 

organizations, schools, and other similar entities to 

identify people living homeless or on the verge of 

homelessness would benefit from student loan debt relief, 

we can improve the lives of an unknown number of people 

in our nation. Student loan debt is an overwhelming 

burden for millions of Americans, negatively impacting 

credit scores and creating significant barriers to 

housing. It is the second largest source of household 

debt in the United States. As borrowers struggle to meet 

their monthly payments, their credit scores suffer, 

making it difficult to secure housing. Also, a high debt 

to income ratio resulting from student loan debt can lead 

to automatic disqualification or higher security 

deposits. As such, individuals with poor credit scores 

due to student loan debt may be limited to substandard 

housing options or forced into unstable living 
95

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

arrangements such as temporary shelters, couch surfing,

garages, hotels, barns, vehicles, tents, and the streets. 

These circumstances perpetuate the cycle of homelessness 

and hinder individuals’ abilities to regain stability. 

These individuals often face difficult choices regarding 

their limited financial resources. A report by the 

National Alliance to End Homelessness highlights that 

individuals with student loan debt are more likely to 

prioritize loan payments over other essential needs, such 

as housing, health care or food. This prioritization 

perpetuates the cycle of homelessness as individuals 

struggle to meet both their basic needs and loan 

obligations. Furthermore, student loan debt 

disproportionately affects individuals from low-income

backgrounds and communities who also experience a much 

higher level of homelessness and poverty. These 

individuals often have fewer financial resources to repay 

their loans, leading to a heavier debt burden and higher 

risk of default. Relieving this debt can help alleviate 

the financial strain and provide a more level playing 

field for these individuals. It is our duty to support 

policies that alleviate the financial burdens of our most 

vulnerable citizens and create pathways towards a 

brighter future for all. Uplifting one of us uplifts all 

of us. In conclusion, addressing student loan debt is 
96

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

crucial for tackling the homelessness crisis. By 

providing relief, we can rebuild credit scores, remove 

barriers to housing and empower individuals to regain 

stability and show up for themselves, their families, and 

their communities in meaningful ways. Student loan debt 

relief for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing 

homelessness is a critical next step to creating a more 

equitable and prosperous society for us all.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Sabrina.

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Courtney 

Barry, who is here speaking on behalf of herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Brady. 

Courtney, can you hear me?

MS. BARRY: Yes, I can. Can you hear 

me?

MR. WEATHERS: Sure can. This is your 

opportunity to give public comment directly to the 

negotiators here today. You'll have three minutes with a 

30-second warning, and your time begins right now.

MS. BARRY: Hi, so I'm here to talk 

about or to request some group discharges for the 

Borrower Defense, especially for the post class. There's 

been several instances of issues where the school that I 

attended, specifically the Chicago School, has been 

deceptive for students. And I think to right that, it 
97

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

would be appropriate to kind of do a group discharge as 

there's a amount of evidence that had been submitted and 

I know there are others in that same boat, and that to 

have that group discharge, I think personally would 

really change a lot for me and speak of financially 

because it's been a very large debt that I've accrued and 

that is continuing to accrue you know, kind of as it's 

trying- not even attempting to be paid off, but it's 

slowly being kind of, you know, paid down. But I think 

it's just with the amount of applications that I know, 

that I've spoken with, others who have gone to the 

Chicago School and who have also applied, it would just 

seem timely and appropriate to do a group discharge if 

the school was found a fraudulent.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Courtney.

MS. BARRY: Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Have a great day.

MS. BARRY: Thanks. You too.

MR. WEATHERS: Who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I just admitted 

Charles Cobble, who is here representing himself.

MR. WEATHERS: Charles, can you- oh, 

you're still connecting.

MR. ROBERTS: He should be able to 

hear you now.
98

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Charles, can you hear 

me?

MR. COBBLE: I can.

MR. WEATHERS: Fantastic. This is your 

opportunity- welcome, and this is your opportunity to 

make a public comment directly to the negotiators here 

today. You'll have three minutes with a 30-second 

warning, and your time begins right now.

MR. COBBLE: Good afternoon, everyone. 

My name is Charles Cobble. I'm a disabled Army veteran, 

licensed clinical Social Worker, member of Disabled 

American Veterans and the National Association of Social 

Workers. I am also a student loan borrower, and I just 

want to thank you all for taking the time to listen to my 

comment as you all work diligently to establish a rule 

related to the modifications, waivers, or compromise of 

Federal Student Loans. I wanted to tell you my story. I 

borrowed $122,000 to finance my undergraduate, but mostly 

my graduate education, which is required to be an LCSW or 

Licensed Clinical Social Worker. And despite nine years 

of on-time payments, often working multiple jobs to make 

my payment on time, I now owe over $170,000. Upon 

completion of my degrees, I started my student loan 

repayment journey with Nelnet as my service provider and 

enrolled in an Income Based Repayment Plan. Then, after 
99

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

three years of sending verification forms of my public 

service, employment, and income, I learned that Nelnet 

could not administer Public Service Loan Forgiveness and 

I would have to transition my loans to FedLoan. This 

information was not freely offered by the Department of 

Education, or Nelnet at the time I entered repayment, but 

only after I made inquiries to Nelnet regarding my 

qualifying payment count was this information revealed. 

The transition to FedLoan, to say the least was 

cumbersome, and many of the qualifying payments I had 

made with Nelnet were lost and required me filing several 

requests for audits and providing copies of my payment 

history. This process was never completed by Nel FedLoan. 

In July of 2022, my loans changed servicers to MOHELA, 

and as this transition finally had my payment count in 

alignment with my payment history, I had hoped for better 

customer service. In August of 2023 as the pandemic 

payment pause was coming to an end, I logged into MOHELA, 

ensured my contact information was current, and enrolled 

in autopay, with my first payment scheduled in October as 

instructed by the Government. Then, as I was expecting my 

first payment to resume, I received a notice that I had 

been placed on an administrative forbearance by MOHELA, 

with no explanation as to why or what implications this 

had on my loans.
100

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. FRANCZAK: 30 seconds remaining.

MR. COBBLE: I have tried multiple 

times to contact MOHELA with no success. Even the VA has 

not been able to help me navigate these numerous hurdles. 

And as a first-generation college student from a bluecollar family, I have worked my way through my education 

but still have accumulated substantial debt. I appreciate 

any and all assistance you can provide to make education 

possible and accessible for more people like me and the 

many others in this country trying to better themselves. 

Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Charles, and 

thank you for your service. Brady, who do we have next?

MR. ROBERTS: We had John briefly, but 

I don't know if he's going to- if he was able to connect 

to audio. I can keep working with him while we hear from 

our next speaker, who is Patrick Donohue, who's here 

speaking on behalf of Student Loan Justice.

MR. WEATHERS: Patrick, can you hear 

me? Oh [inaudible]. Patrick, can you hear me?

MR. DONOHUE: Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: Fantastic.

MR. DONOHUE: How's my sound?

MR. WEATHERS: You sound great. Okay. 

This is your opportunity to make a public comment before 
101

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the negotiators. You'll have three minutes with a 30-

second warning, and your time begins right now.

MR. DONOHUE: Very good. Thank you. 

Good afternoon. There seems to be a cynical and 

uninformed thought on the street and even in the halls of 

Congress that a loan is a loan, and borrowers, if they 

agreed to terms, are therefore responsible and need to 

repay their loans. Conversely, we could say that the 

Government is also responsible for providing a fair and 

equitable method to finance higher education. So, thank 

you for this opportunity to address the group. To me, 

student loans are neither loans nor are they for 

students. They are grants to the universities and states 

passed through the students' hands, hyperinflated by 

capitalized interest, weaponized by removal of bankruptcy 

protections, and then demanded back by the Government. I 

see two basic differences that I feel have not been 

adequately addressed from day one, the FAFSA. Almost 

anybody can get a student loan, whether they are truly 

qualified or not. The FAFSA asks for income and assets 

but does not inquire about existing debt as other loan 

agencies would. It merely checks for adverse credit 

history. How else would I be denied a $3,000 credit card 

by the credit union, but be granted almost $90,000 in 

Parent PLUS Loans over the years for four kids who we 
102

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

have put through college? Secondly, we know it is 

basically impossible to include these loans in legitimate 

bankruptcy proceedings without proving to the Department 

of Education and the ECMC that it would be caused- that 

it would cause undue hardship. Such requests are 

routinely denied. Understandably, Uncle Sam wants to 

protect his loans and taxpayer monies, but he has to play 

by the rules. And as I imagine most people here know, the 

student loans are the only loans subject to these 

restrictions. We can say this undue hardship clause is in 

violation of the Constitution, article one, section eight 

authorizing uniform bankruptcy laws. In addition, 

borrowers must contend with the poor performance and 

unreliability of student loan services and until 

recently, the lack of oversight on loan services. Then, 

of course, comes the bureaucratic nightmare of Income 

Driven Repayment Plans and Public Service Loan 

Forgiveness Plans. With the recent policy change, 

interest is no longer capitalized on the SAVE program if 

payments are on time and current. While this is a current 

and welcomed development, it is still conditional and 

slanted in favor of the government. If the Department 

truly wished to get to the root of the problem, it might 

recommend that the undue hardship clause be repealed. 

This would stop lending with impunity and enforcement of 
103

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

undue hardship is also an option. As laws lose strength, 

they no longer remain enforceable. The Department should 

step away from the process and let bankruptcy courts 

decide on their own, as they are charged to do. I believe 

if you do not vet on the front end, you have no standing 

to make judgments on the back end. This is a backwards 

and inside out way of doing business. Unfortunately, the 

current policies still discourage rather than encourage 

getting or furthering an education. As we know, there's 

still more work to do and a fundamental shift is 

necessary. As long as the system exists, the problem 

persists. Thank you very much.

MR. WEATHERS: Have a good day. John, 

can you hear me?

MR. ROBERTS: We admitted John.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay, great. And this 

looks like it's probably the last one.

MR. ROBERTS: Unfortunately, his audio 

is not connected.

MR. WEATHERS: John, can you hear us?

MR. ROBERTS: He's not going to be 

able to. It looks likeMS. JEFFRIES: Brady, let's go ahead 

and let in Joann. We only have two more that are signed 

in, Joann and Lorraine.
104

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Are we going to 

do both?

MS. JEFFRIES: I would say yes if

that's okay with everyone.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Alright.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. I'm going to 

keep trying to work with John offline. But in the 

meantime, I've admitted Joann Mercedes, who's here 

representing herself.

MR. ACUROS: Hello?

MR. WEATHERS: John?

MR. ROBERTS: Here we go.

MR. ACUROS: Hey, I'm here.

MS. MERCEDES: Hello. Hello.

MR. ROBERTS: Hold on, Joann, we'll 

get to you next, but I think [inaudible] over to John.

MR. WEATHERS: We're trying to 

navigate some technical issues. John, can you hear me?

MR. ACUROS: Yes.

MR. WEATHERS: Okay. Finally, John. 

Welcome. This is your opportunity for public comment 

before the negotiators. You'll have three minutes with a 

30-second warning, and your time begins right now.

MR. ACUROS: Hi, I was wondering if 

there's hardship programs for our universities to apply 
105

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

for because I felt like I was a prisoner of a hardship at 

UC Berkeley and UC Berkeley put my name on the internet 

from 2008-2011, if you see John, call the police. The 

police are expecting the call. And so, my name was put on 

there in a derogatory way, and I didn't find out until 

2011. And apparently- I tried to notify the university, 

but the person I contacted at the media department said 

that they wouldn't be able to help me. And I left, and 

she ended up calling the police like the website said to 

do. It was a UC Berkeley social media post on a Berkeley 

website, sponsored by the university. So, I ended up 

going to jail for two weeks, and I was very compliant. 

And they treated me with a vial, they called it a 

vaccine, but it was an experimental drug at the facility, 

a medical facility at Santa Rita Jail. And they said that 

I was a flight risk. They told me that they were going to 

inject this into my arm, which they did. The orange vial 

said mRNA and all the mRNA that I worked with at UC 

Berkeley in the laboratories have always been supervised 

by a doctor. It was a very dirty environment in this 

medical facility. There was no doctor. So, I was just 

wondering about hardships at schools like UC Berkeley 

have gone through, very dehumanizing. And I feel like 

people who've been this dehumanized don't really have 

hardships. Hardships are ups and downs, more so the downs 
106

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

and trying to survive. Yeah, trying to survive isn't much 

of a hardship. I feel like more like I got kicked off the 

ship. I wasn't allowed on campus. They put a stay away 

order on the UC Berkeley campus. I didn't have the 

resources to graduate. Couldn't benefit from my 

simultaneous degree. I had to drop out of my simultaneous 

degree. I was wanting to be a Doctor in Sociology, so I 

only got half of my degree program finished, and I wanted 

to buy Bitcoin in 2010 and Social Security wouldn't let 

me. So, I had- I had ability to saveMR. WEATHERS: Your time is up. Thank 

you for your comment.

MR. ACUROS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Have a good day. Thank 

you.

MR. ROBERTS: We did admit Joann, and 

she is on if she wants to get off mute.

MR. WEATHERS: Joann?

MS. MERCEDES: Can you hear me?

MR. WEATHERS: I can hear you. I can't 

see you. Alright, Joann, thank you for being here to make 

a public comment before the negotiators. You'll have

three minutes and a 30-second warning. Your time begins 

right now.

MS. MERCEDES: Thank you. Thank you to 
107

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the Department of Education and the negotiators for 

dedicating their time improving the student loan system. 

A time [inaudible] feels investing in yourself and trying 

to become useful members of society is a death sentence. 

My hope is that this new rulemaking committee addresses 

the issues that were so prevalent and become- and 

solutions become evident and help millions of us. I know 

this role making committee is addressing broader problems 

and IDR, PSLF are not being addressed, but many of us 

went through a rulemaking committee as well and still 

have issues that have not been resolved. In my case, 

despite having more than 14 years in public- as a public 

servant, the Department of Education says that I still 

need to pay two more years. I have not seen mentioned 

defaulted in chapter 13 barrels that were left out of all 

waivers and not- and in all mentions of forgiveness and 

even in this new rulemaking committee. [Inaudible] 

payments on new loans where were forgiven. But us, 

because we had a default on chapter 13 with actual high 

payments, were left behind. Real money went into these 

loans, in my case, as a life event, I defaulted in 2017 

and my taxes were garnished, a total of $8,000, which was 

comparable with my Income Based Repayment for two years. 

I hope these default payments were counted, or at least 

rehabilitation forbearance, which were over 500 a month 
108

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

for ten years. The reason why rehabilitation forbearance 

payments are not counted is beyond me. I have struggled 

with this student loan system and trying to find answers. 

Due to the statutes of default and chapter 13 

forbearance, we can even use time to buy back these 

periods. It feels like a punishment. Please, if someone 

proposed some kind of change to help us, especially since 

in good faith we rehabilitated our loans. Before 

consolidating, a lot of us have FFEL loans. These loans 

went through multiple services and errors were made, 

especially coding our loans- and coding our loans against 

our will with the school deferments and other types of 

deferments and not properly informing us. Many of us made 

payments, but nothing of that comes before forgiveness, 

because these records are all over the place and not 

accurate, and the burden is to prove- it's on us to prove 

that these were not. We're basically at the mercy of 

MOHELA or someone doing a reconsideration request that 

never answers to approve and realize the mistake that 

other services made, which seems to be happening at 

random. Prior 2013, there were no forms to weigh, for 

example, school deferments, and if you requested it by 

phone, it was useless and services was. Thank you. And 

services would place variables in deferments at their 

leisure. And this is not acceptable. It's not acceptable 
109

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

that we still having all these issues. And we went 

through a rulemaking committee and still having all this 

issue and we cannot get forgiveness. Thank you so much.

MR. WEATHERS: Thanks Joann. Folks, 

thank you for staying over. We have one more person who 

was in line to comment. We're going to go ahead and let 

them in and then this is our last public commenter for 

the day.

MR. ROBERTS: I just admitted Lorraine 

Galvis, who is here representing herself.

MR. WEATHERS: Alright. Lorraine, can 

you hear me?

MS. GALVIS: Yes, I can. Thank you.

MR. WEATHERS: Fantastic. Lorraine. 

Thank you. You're our last public commenter for the day. 

You'll have three minutes with a 30-second warning, and 

your time begins now. Thank you.

MS. GALVIS: Thank you so much. I want 

to thank the committee for this opportunity. I am 

speaking on behalf of myself but am also a licensed 

professional. I don't have any undergraduate student 

loans, but I do have Grad PLUS Loans from having attended 

law school. When I graduated law school, my loans were 

179,000, and in six years, those ballooned to 228,000. Of 

those 228,000 during COVID, I paid back 37,000 while I 
110

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

was also undergoing chemo and radiation for breast 

cancer. I'm a two-time breast cancer survivor, and I 

should have been using my disability benefits to pay for 

medical care and my bills. But honestly, most of this 

money went to student loans because there was a pause 

during COVID, and I found an opportunity to make a dent 

in how much I owed and I just want to highlight to the 

committee the predatory nature of these loans. I never 

could have imagined getting cancer, but at the same time, 

I, you know, am one of those entrepreneurs and Grad PLUS 

recipients who have actually made good faith efforts to 

pay their loans back. And I just don't see that the 

system recognizes that or tries to support people that 

are actually trying to pay back their loans. And I want 

to make sure that this population and this group, which 

is mostly entrepreneurs, we're often in a class where we 

don't qualify for forgiveness, we don't qualify for a lot 

of the programs, but we do want to repay our loans. I was 

being serviced by Great Lakes, and I was told by Great 

Lakes at the time that I was not able to make a payment 

toward my principal because I had to pay back 52,000 in 

interest first. And I would like to see if the committee 

would be able to find some relief for folks that did make 

payments during the COVID- during the COVID pause, 

because they should have been treated as excess payments. 
111

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Of my 37,000, only 27,000 went to interest and 10,000 

went to principal. So, you know, I'm just hoping that 

there can be some relief. I feel like many of the things 

that I wanted to say have already been shared with this 

committee, and I'm very grateful for that. But I just 

wanted to highlight some of us that may be overlooked by 

some of these plans with the administration that we don't 

necessarily qualify.

MR. WEATHERS: 30 seconds remaining.

MS. GALVIS: Thank you so much for 

your time. That's all I wanted to say.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Lorraine. 

And that brings us to the end of the public comments.

MR. ROBERTS: We do actually have one 

more late attendee, if that's okay. So, I believe he'll 

be our final speaker. And that's Representative César 

Aguilar, who represents Arizona's 26th District.

MR. WEATHERS: Welcome, Representative 

Aguilar, thank you for coming here to make a public 

comment before negotiators. You'll have three minutes 

with a 30-second warning, and your time begins right now.

MR. AGUILAR: Awesome. Yeah, so State 

Representative Cesar Aguilar from Arizona, I represent 

Legislative District 26, which encompasses Central and 

West Phoenix. I also am the former Executive Director for 
112

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the Arizona Students Association, which as a college 

student, I used to sit on the board of the United States 

Student Association, which we worked really closely with 

the Department of Education and the White House on 

reforming higher education and student loans. I represent 

a very young district in the state of Arizona. And most 

of the families that live in my district look just like 

me within 30 years of age and up to, you know, 40 years 

old. And it's a lot of young people with a large amount 

of student loans. Nearly 900,000 Arizonans would have 

benefited from student loan cancellation, with President 

Biden's plan to cancel student loans, which is 12.4% of 

Arizona state population. The average student loan in 

Arizona is about 33,396, and we are the 15th highest 

number state with the number of borrowers in the country 

who would have seen a huge economic financial relief with 

the cancellation of student loans. So, I just wanted to 

come in here and please- or talk to you all and ask for 

your support and making sure that you're thinking of 

Arizonans when you're setting these rules. Arizona is a 

very free market system type of state, where we've had 

many private colleges come in and then close down, and 

many of those students end up in my district having to 

end up paying these college debt off. And they end up 

leaving these institutions with a degree that doesn't 
113

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

hold much weight with an institution that no longer 

exists within a degree that didn't really give them the 

tools to do their job. And also, many of these 

institutions promise them a network where they could go 

and get another job that helps them land a job. And so 

many, many of these institutions have been very predatory 

to our constituents. And we just want to make sure that 

we're heard in the state of Arizona and that we're 

holding these institutions accountable, but also thinking 

of them when we're setting rules on student loan 

cancellation from the Department. And thank you and sorry 

for coming late. I was- I got the email for 3:30 and in 

Arizona we're in- we're at 2:00. So, a couple hour 

differences.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, 

Representative Aguilar. And that concludes our public 

comment for session two. Tamy, was there anything that 

the Department wanted to address?

MS. ABERNATHY: Thank you, John. We 

certainly want to thank all of our negotiators, our 

public, for making comment, all of the behind the scenes 

from the logistical team and the ED side, my PCG, the 

policy coordination group side, and all of those that 

have participated during these negotiations for the last 

couple of days. You've given us so much to think about, 
114

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

and we look forward to providing you with amended 

regulatory text around these issues. We hope to have all 

of your proposals to us by the 14th, so that we can 

actively turn those into amendatory text for your review. 

We wish you a wonderful evening. Thank you again for such 

robust conversation around such important issues. We look 

forward to continuing to work with you on the third and 

final session, and we hope that everyone has a blessed 

rest of your evening.

MR. WEATHERS: Thank you, Tamy. And 

with that, we are adjourned until our December session, 

and have a good day.
115

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Zoom Chat Transcript

Student Loan Debt Relief Committee - Session 2, Day 2, Afternoon, November 

7, 2023

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

may be present.

From P-Sherrie Gammage-4-Yr Borrowers to Everyone:

Discharge and/or waiver of loans of the remainder repayment 

amount for the primary caregiver who has taken out a Parent Plus loan 

for child and Pell for themselves after making payments for 10 years. 

Under the current regulations, the financial burden of the repayment 

of student loan debt falls more heavily on the custodial parent, 

usually female with lower overall lifetime earnings and not males who 

typically have higher earnings. Rationale: Addresses inequality and 

burden of debt for women as caregivers and providers for their 

families and disparate income impacts and overall ability to care for 

their families. This data is available to the Dept of Ed in the annual 

certification for IDR and contingent repayment plans

From P-Sherrie Gammage-4-Yr Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Section Vouchers; lv..." with ���

From Tamy Abernathy - Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

ED to Everyone:

We wanted to respond briefly to a few questions from yesterday 

that were posted in the chat. There were two questions from Sherrie 

related to reaching out to individuals related to borrower defense. As 

noted during the first session, we are not negotiating the 

Department's outreach strategies, but rather considering when it might 

be appropriate for the Department to discharge a borrower's loan when 

we determine they are eligible. There was also a question on 

institution-held Perkins. We will not be providing text on 

institution-held Perkins. The Department does not have a mechanism for 

compensating Perkins loan holders for a loan that is being discharged 

the way we can for commercial FFEL. The only way we have of making 

payments to Perkins holders is through consolidation into Direct 

Loans. Therefore, we do not have a process for including them here.

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

Tammy I don’t see anything in the chat— did you already add those 

answers?

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

Can they be dropped again?

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

You can’t see the previous chat after you come in.

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

My alt David is going to take over for a bit

From Sherrie "Sher" Gammage to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will take over as primary for 4 year borrowers

From Tamy Abernathy - Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

ED to Everyone:

We wanted to respond briefly to a few questions from yesterday 

that were posted in the chat. There were two questions from Sherrie 

related to reaching out to individuals related to borrower defense. As 
116

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

noted during the first session, we are not negotiating the 

Department's outreach strategies, but rather considering when it might 

be appropriate for the Department to discharge a borrower's loan when 

we determine they are eligible. There was also a question on 

institution-held Perkins. We will not be providing text on 

institution-held Perkins. The Department does not have a mechanism for 

compensating Perkins loan holders for a loan that is being discharged 

the way we can for commercial FFEL. The only way we have of making 

payments to Perkins holders is through consolidation into Direct 

Loans. Therefore, we do not have a process for including them here.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sarah Butts will take over as Primary for 4 year borrowers

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

When will responses to questions and requests for information 

from today be shared?

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jalil's comments, re: hardship because we lack data/measures

From Tamy Abernathy - Director, Policy Coordination Group, 

ED to Everyone:

Please note the student acknowledgement referenced in 34 CFR 

668.605 is not a waiver of discharge, as some of the comments 

suggested. This is a new part of the GE reg that was recently 

published. When that regulation is fully implemented, some current and 

prospective students will have to acknowledge via the Department's 

website that the program that they're enrolling in may not meet 

affordability standards under the new GE regulation.

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

+1 Jalil- Resources limitations should increase a presumption of 

relief

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Jalil

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jalil

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 Lane’s idea to go automatic where possible, then a application 

that does not require certification but instead relies solely on selfreporting

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

+1 Lane's comment

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

+1 re: Lane’s comments

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

+1 Automation

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

+1 Automation

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

Challenges related to creditworthiness and employment: Student 

loan credit reporting can hinder individuals from securing employment 

in their chosen field, with a salary sufficient to afford loan 

repayment.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:
117

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

+ 1 Sarah. And it also inhibits a current or future parents 

ability to save for their children's education which would lessen the 

need to borrow as much in the future for technical or academic study

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+ 1 Sarah. And it al..." with ���

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

I'm generally interested in the constraints of servicers, and 

wondering how we might streamline the communication between the 

Department and Servicers to develop clear guidance on new policies.

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

The department can invest in technology solutions that can help 

automate data collection, processing, and analysis.

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

Entering is (P) for grad borrowers

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Richard has it

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 for Melissa's idea of re-using the form/process from the 

relief that borrowers did not receive in 2022

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

Apologies--I lost wifi access. Were folks able to hear my 

comment?

From Brady Roberts (FMCS Facilitation Team) to Everyone:

We were not- John will re-prompt you for comment

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on wait times to reach servicers.

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

Servicer wait time is always hours, often leading to getting 

disconnected before a conversation ever takes place

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on wait times to reach servicers

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Servicer wait time i..." with ���

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on wait times to ..." with ���

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 on wait times being too long

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

I want us to think about Lane’s and others’ proposals:

1. Automate where you can

2. Use an application where borrowers self report and then cancel 

their debt based on their self report of hardship

3.Figure out what data/audit processes you need on the backend 

and then claw back unjust/fraudulent cancellation (which will probably 

be rare)

4. Do not put any limits on cancellation/relief policies (e.g. 

July 2025) 

Define hardship as any borrower who has student loan debt in a 

system where the Dept of Edu and loan servicers are declaring they do 

not have enough funding to properly run the system

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:
118

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Reacted to "I want us to think a..." with ��

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

+1 to Jalil’s comments above

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I want us to think a..." with ��

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

Reacted to "I want us to think a..." with ��

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

+1 to Yael's comment

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

+1 re: yael’s comment—servicers can and do query categories of 

borrowers and provide relief

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Yael's comment - technology allows for some of this

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Does “upfront criteria” mean eligibility?

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

+1 — every borrower should be able to apply for debt relief

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Jessica's comment - I am struggling to understand what 

other criteria would be needed before application

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to Jessica's comm..." with ���

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

+1

From David Ramirez to Everyone:

+1 every borrower should be able to apply

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Also I have yet to hear a comment from a negotiator that is off 

topic. It may be useful for you all to clarify what you mean by the 

off topic comments.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil. Could the department give an example of "upfront 

criteria" they have used in the past to help more narrowly focus our 

ideas on and about question #4?

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Lane's comments regarding continued problems with servicers 

and impact on borrowers. Borrowers do not have an effective mechanism 

to address these issues.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "We were not- John wi..." with ����

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

+1 to Lane on clarifying the responsibility of DOE and Servicers

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Lane, It would be nice to get clarity on the different 

responsibilities, the gen public would probably appreciate it as well

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Richard's comments.

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

additional clarity for borrowers around what is the 

responsibility of the department, vs. what is the responsibility of 
119

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

the servicer could help reduce work loads for both the department and 

servicers

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

Having Student loans is there own hardship

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Having Student loans..." with ���

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Richard, having to deeper in the hole to be considered for 

relief isn’t as productive

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

also, servicers do a lot (collecting payments, applying them, 

reporting to credit bureaus) maybe reprioritizing some of the 

contracted funds that ED send toward cancellation could help with 

servicer capacity.

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

It no longer considers IODR enrollment for bankruptcy 

discharge, so should not for those outside

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Cost of living in specific areas is a significant challenge for 

many borrowers.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Kyra on exclusion from waiver/discharge based on participation 

in IDR plans

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 Kyra on exclusion..." with ���

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

Regarding future circumstances, the it’s important to remove the 

July 1 2025 deadline proposed in yesterday’s text, so we can help 

young generations of borrowers.

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

Sherrie mentioned earlier that age, heath, or disability can be a 

key identifier for the Department to account for "past, present, and 

future" hardship in a streamlined manner

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Sherrie mentioned ea..." with ���

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 Richard, The removal of limiting language such as “July 1, 

2025” is key to keeping younger gens in mine when creating 

regulations

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

So that we don’t have to come back and do this all over again in 

10 years

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

+1 to not coming back and doing this again in 10 years

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

+1 to removing the July1, 2025 language

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Jalil coming in

From A - Jordan Nellum - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

Jordan coming in as primary

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:
120

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Sherrie is coming in as P for 4 year borrowers.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Sherrie coming back in as Primary for 4 year borrowers

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Research on why IDR is not enough: 

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/continued-student-loancrisis-black-borrowers/ 

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

From Ben’s research : “Such worrisome results, even with the 

availability of IDR, suggests that repayment plans that reduce monthly 

payments are a necessary but ultimately insufficient tool for 

addressing loan default. This is especially true for Black borrowers, 

who are already more likely to use IDR yet still experience higher 

default rates. While lowering payments can help borrowers, the 

paperwork to enroll and reenroll in IDR plans can still be a 

barrier.17 In addition, the continued accumulation of unpaid interest 

while on IDR may make these plans feel like short-term solutions with 

negative long-term effects”

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

+1 Melissa, including in-school deferment for not incorporating 

interest

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil's comment on existing problems with IDR/ICR which set 

a president for considering past and present. IDR and SAVE currently 

have issues with verification and figuring out loan repayment

From P - Kathleen Dwyer - Proprietary Institutions to Everyone:

+1 Melissa

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Agree that assistance/supports for student who are having to use 

forbearance or deferment is proactive.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for Richard's comment on regional differences

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

Agree with Richard. Low-income in San Francisco is $125K

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for regionally /state based measures that account for cost of 

living and inflation

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

+1 on regionally. COL in MA, NY, CA is going to be very different 

from KY, AL, etc.

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

Federal poverty guidelines do not account for significant 

regional cost of living differences

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

+1 using area median incomes defined by COUNTIES, even more so 

than state

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

The types of federal loans that students are eligible is also 

predicated on income amounts. We might consider more generous 

allocation of subsidized loans for borrowers in high income areas.

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:
121

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Coming in

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

I think for many locales, using federal poverty guidelines would 

be a higher bar to set than bankruptcy

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

The office of personnel management has plenty of regularly 

updated dated on regional cost of living used to pay federal 

employees, and that information might be useful in determining 

guidelines regarding differentiation in living costs

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "The office of person..." with ���

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

Switching with David for a moment

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 for David's comments. It is also much more expensive to attend 

college part time, while working.

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

+1 to Yael’s comment

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Thank you, Yael

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Yael's comment - the increased floor on protected income is 

reflective of how the FPL is not a sufficient metric

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Could the protected income under SAVE be applied across all loan 

programs? How does the dept justify the all but $750.00 garnished for 

seniors, especially for the 114,000 seniors who had social security 

offsets in (garnishments) in the last year?

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

225% of $30,000 (fam of 4) FPL is $67,500. Using Long Island as 

example, experts define poverty at $55,000 for fam of 4. 225% of that 

is $123,750. Using federal number, in this region, effectively helps 

no one

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

Another easily used income gauge would be Census Bureau Median 

Family Income By Family Size, which is more reasonable and based on 

state factors. 

https://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20230401/bci_data/median_income_

table.htm 

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

factors can be taken into account:

1. Racial Wealth Gap

2. Employment and Income Disparities

3. Educational Disparities

4. Neighborhood and Housing Disparities

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

I have a data request. The department claims it has already run 

analysis on material hardship. I would like to see hardship data on 

borrowers 225% above the FPL. 

From the Dept’s final rule making: 
122

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

“For instance, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis at 

this time for a regulation that protects 400 percent of FPL. We have 

reviewed available research, looked into signs of material distress 

from borrowers, and see nothing that gives us a reasoned basis to 

protect that level of income.”

From Ben Miller - Department of Education (he/his) to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data request..."

There's a table in the final rule showing the analysis about the 

reason why we picked 225% versus a higher threshold. We used the 

survey of consumer finance to identify indicators of hardship that 

would not be available in existing administrative data. So there's no 

data to provide here.

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

Replying to "I have a data request..."

Reiterating position that 225% of FPL helps very few people in 

many parts of the country

From Ben Miller - Department of Education (he/his) to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data request..." 

Sorry not SCF, the SIPP

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data request..." 

Ben can you tell me the table number?

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

Examining the intersection of two specific scenarios: individuals 

who have borrowed from both the Direct PLUS program and have student 

loan debt from the Direct Student Loan program, which is 25 years or 

older. Previously, we are considering Pell Grant recipients. It's 

worth noting that graduate students are not eligible for Pell Grants, 

but some of them exhibit low-income status as evidenced by their 

Expected Family Contribution (EFC) or Student Aid Index (SAI). These 

graduate students are striving to enroll in graduate programs to 

enhance their competitiveness in the job market. However, due to prior 

loan debt, they may have to rely on Direct PLUS loans to cover their 

tuition and educational expenses.

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data reques..."

Congress, in the Bankruptcy Code, found a rational basis for 

treating people with below median income based on the the Census 

Bureau from those that have income above the median. ED could 

rationally do the same for student loans

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

There are also many borrowers that did not complete their 

programs who do not qualify for a closed school discharge

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 first generation college graduates.

From Ben Miller - Department of Education (he/his) to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data reques..."

We linked to it in the final rule and it was posted in the NPRM. 

Table 1: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-28605/p-157 

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:
123

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

additional groups that are not addressed by other types of relief 

- priorities: people over a certain age, have completed a bankruptcy, 

have loans that pre-date 2010, have a disability but are not eligible 

for TPDD

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Kyra's comments on the variety of hardships experienced by 

borrowers.

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

Agree impossible to rank hardships and we’ve established many 

ways hardship presents itself for borrowers

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 Kyra's comment that hardship exists across these categories, 

making it hard to prioritize

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

Borrowers are impacted by multiple hardships identified in these 

categories that create the overall hardship with is student loans

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Borrowers are impact..." with ���

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

Reacted to "Borrowers are impact..." with ���

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

Reacted to "Borrowers are impact..." with ���

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

+1 Kyra's comment about hardship across categories

From A - Jordan Nellum - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

+1 to Kyra’s comment that hardship exist across many of the 

categories

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Replying to "I have a data request..."

Thank you

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

Resharing the memo on incarcerated student borrowers +1 Sherrie

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

+1 on the need to provide relief to incarcerated borrowers

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 on incarcerated borrowers and is a racial justice too

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on Lane's comment on the intersectionality of hardship 

measures for many student loan borrowers

From P-Carol Peterson HBCU, Tribal Colleges & Minority 

Serving to Everyone:

+1 on incarcerated borrowers

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

There are many veterans in the higher end of the disability 

range, 50% +, who have substantial work limitations or restrictions, 

and the threshold for forgiveness is 100%.

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Coming in

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

Replying to "There are many veter..."
124

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

+1 to this - disability discharges proportional to the ability to 

work would be meaningful

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 to this - disabil..." with ���

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

From the report ED just shared: By contrast, a threshold of 225 

percent of the poverty guideline represents an hourly wage of $15.28 

in 2022 for a single-person household. At this level, the REPAYE plan 

would continue to protect the amount a single minimum-wage worker with 

no dependents would earn in every State in 2023. This means that 

the expectation is that, even with the benefit of the education 

provided by student loans, a borrower earning just slightly more 

than minimum wage in 25 states no longer faces a hardship.

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 Jalil's comments re: borrowers need relief and many have 

hardships that cannot be narrowly defined.

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

Utilizing OCR Discrimination Case Reports to Examine Withdrawal 

Rates of Marginalized Students for Student Loan Hardship or 

Discharge:

One approach to consider is leveraging the reports delivered by 

the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that detail discrimination cases. 

These reports can provide valuable insights into the withdrawal rates 

of marginalized students and help us assess their eligibility for 

student loan hardship or discharge.

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

+1 on Jalil’s comment re: needing to anchor cancellation in the 

purpose of the Higher Education Act

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on Jalil’s comment..." with ���

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 JALIL

From P-Yael Shavit-State AGs to Everyone:

+1 to Jalil

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

+1 to Jalil

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

+ 1 to Jalil THRIVE

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

+ Jalil

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

+1 Thrive not just survive

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

“From the report ED just shared: By contrast, a threshold of 225 

percent of the poverty guideline represents an hourly wage of $15.28 

in 2022 for a single-person household. At this level, the REPAYE plan 

would continue to protect the amount a single minimum-wage worker with 

no dependents would earn in every State in 2023.[17]”
125

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

The text I am referring to. Please improve the definition of 

hardship. It is should not be you can afford food. It should be that 

you can afford a thriving life defined as key indicators that we all 

know from research: savings account, buying a home, retirement 

contributions, etc.

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

+1 regarding the need to strike the acknowledgement language in 

proposed 30.80(f)

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

+1 , Pell Grant reciepients

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+ 1 Pell Grant recipients

From P- Wisdom Cole, Civil Rights to Everyone:

To be clear all Pell Grant recipients should be eligible for 

hardship relief

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

My parents received Pell. I received Pell. My siblings received 

Pell. And across us all—our family carries over $500,000 in student 

debt. $500k balance=Income and wealth extraction that stops our 

ability to build wealth, plan for retirement, and respond to 

emergencies.

From P - Lane Thompson - state agencies to Everyone:

+1 to Yael and Kyra - we would like to waive the requirement to 

sign a waiver forfeiting the right to waive student debt

From (P) Jada Sanford - Currently Enrolled to Everyone:

Most people I know that are currently enrolled have received 

Pell.

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

All borrowers 65+ who have been in repayment for at least 15 

years be considered for waiver/disbursement of balances owed. If on 

IDR, they may not live to make an additional 10 years and if on IDR 

given the way in which interest is calculated and capitalized will not 

fully pay the debt

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

Reacted to "All borrowers 65+ wh..." with ���

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

I agree, I think if it's a group that deserves to get from under 

loans the easiest and fastest it is 65+ because it inhibits their 

ability to prioritize health, retirement, or supporting other family 

members at a time they generally can't even obtain adequate life 

insurance to cover the costs if something happens to them

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

And waiver of balances should be not inhibited by loan type or 

repayment program type for this population (aged 65+ in repayment for 

at least 15 years)

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "I agree, I think if ..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

+1 one for veterans

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 one for veterans" with ���

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:
126

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Reacted to "+1 one for veterans" with ���

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

Reacted to "+1 one for veterans" with ���

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

Benjamin Lee is stepping forward to table

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

+1 on options for individuals experiencing bankruptcy

From A- Edward Boltz (NACBA/NASLL) to Everyone:

Elizabeth is an example of how, prior to at least 2016, ED 

illegally (See 11 USC 525) refused to count time in Chapter 

bankruptcy towards any IDR. This is recognized by its changes 

effective 7/1/2024 but should be retroactive or lead to a nonbankruptcy hardship determination

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Elizabeth is an exam..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "Elizabeth is an exam..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Elizabeth is an exam..." with ���

From Matthew Ray to Everyone:

I can hear, it’s not unmuting

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on options for in..." with ���

From Matthew Ray to Everyone:

My audio is now working, had to adjust app settings. Ready when 

next available.

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone:

Lynn is a perfect example of why we can’t answer which category 

is most indicative

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Lynn is a perfect ex..." with ���

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "Lynn is a perfect ex..." with ���

From A- Susan Teerink - Private non-profit 

institutions to Everyone:

+1 Jalil

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 Jalil" with ���

From A - Jordan Nellum - Currently Enrolled Postsecondary 

Education to Everyone:

Reacted to "Lynn is a perfect ex..." with ���

From Kyra Taylor, Nat'l Consumer Law Ctr. to Everyone:

Reacted to "Lynn is a perfect ex..." with ���

From Kyra Taylor, Nat'l Consumer Law Ctr. to Everyone:

Reacted to "+1 on options for in..." with ���

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone:

U of Px falls into the BDTR conversation and finding common 

trends to relief or forgiveness.

From P - Ashley Pizzuti - 2yr Borrower to Everyone:
127

Negotiated Rulemaking – 11/7/23

Yes Matt! The department needs to group discharge these bad apple 

for-profits. 

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone: 

Reacted to "Yes Matt! The depart..." with ���

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone: 

Circling back on TPD and we spoke on this topic before: 

Understanding Total and Permanent Disability 

In the current system, total and permanent disability is 

primarily determined by physical impairments that affect an 

individual's ability to work and earn income. While this approach is 

reasonable for many cases, it fails to account for the significant 

impact that mental health conditions can have on an individual's 

ability to maintain employment and manage their student loan 

obligations. 

From (P) Angelika Williams: Private, Nonprofit 

Institutions to Everyone: 

The Importance of Mental Well-being in Debt Relief 

Mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder, can severely hinder a person's capacity to 

work and generate income. These conditions can be long-lasting or even 

permanent, leading to financial hardship and making it nearly 

impossible for borrowers to repay their student loans. 

Expanding the definition of total and permanent disability to 

encompass mental well-being is necessary to acknowledge this reality 

and provide relief to the affected individuals. 

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone: 

Reacted to "The Importance of Me..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone: 

Reacted to "The Importance of Me..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone: 

Reacted to "U of Px falls into t..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone: 

Reacted to "Yes Matt! The depart..." with ���

From A-Jalil Bishop-Graduate Student Borrower to Everyone: 

Reacted to "Circling back on TPD..." with ���

From John Acuros to Everyone: 

It's my time to share 

From Sarah Butts, (she/her) P- 4 yr. borrowers to Everyone: 

+1 for support for military and veterans 

From P-Sherrie Gammage 4 Year Borrowers to Everyone: 

Reacted to "+1 for support for m..." with ���

 (ED Note: Files are available on the Department of Education’s 2023-

2024 Neg Reg website)