1 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

90/10 PUBLIC HEARING 

SESSION 1, DAY 1, AFTERNOON 

October 26, 2021 

On the 26th day of October, 2021, the 

following meeting was held virtually, from 2:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. 
 

 

 

 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. MARTIN: Good afternoon. Thank you 

for your attendance at our virtual hearing today. My name is 

Greg Martin. I am the director of the policy development 

group in the office of postsecondary education. I'm pleased 

to welcome you to today's public hearing. This is one of two 

public hearings that we are convening this week. Our purpose 

is to gather input regarding regulations on the 90/10 

provisions, amended by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, 

under modification of revenue requirements for proprietary 

institutions of higher education. I'm joined on camera today 

by Steve Finley from the Office of General Counsel. And 

joining us with welcoming remarks this afternoon is 

Antoinette Flores, who is a senior advisor with the Office 

of postsecondary education. Antoinette? 

MS. FLORES: Thank you, Steve. Thank you 

and good afternoon to everyone joining us. Thank you for 

your interest in providing input on the Department of 

Education's rulemaking agenda for postsecondary education. 

The hearings today and tomorrow we'll focus on our 90/10 

regulations. The current 90/10 rule caps the percentage of 

revenue that a proprietary institution can receive from 

federal Financial Aid from the Title IV Higher Education 

Act programs at 90%. The other 10% must be come from other 

sources. As you know, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, 

modified the 90/10 provision of the HEA to require that a 
proprietary institution derive at least 10% of its revenue 

from sources that are not ffederal education assistance 

funds, or ffederal funds dispersed or delivered to or on 

behalf of a student. This has implications for education 

funds across the federal Government. Your comments are an 

important part of our negotiate negotiated rulemaking 

process, we held hearings in June to obtain input on a 

number of other key regulatory provisions that reflect our 

commitment to serving students and protecting them from 

harmful practices that may derail their education. We are 

now adding this topic to obtain additional feedback. In 

addition to the oral comments that we will hear during these 

hearings, you can also submit written comments by November 

3. We hope that your feedback today and over the next week 

will help to inform a strong proposal that better protects 

students and taxpayers and promotes increased program 

integrity. After the hearings and the review of comments, we 

will further develop our rulemaking agenda. We will bring 

selected issues before a rulemaking committee that we intend 

to begin this winter. As with our current committee, we will 

conduct those rulemaking sessions virtually. We will notify 

the public of the schedule and topics in the Federal 

Register and we will also seek nominations nominations for 

negotiators. We hope that you will consider serving in this 

capacity and welcome those who are new to the role as well 

as those who have served in the past. Through the rulemaking 
 

process, we hope to strengthen the rules that we have and 

develop others that serve our students in the best way 

possible. Thank you each for your time and for your interest 

in the regulatory process. We look forward to your ideas. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Antoinette. With 

respect to logistics for today's hearing, I will call your 

name to present when it is time for you to speak. We ask 

speakers to limit their remarks to three minutes. If you get 

to the end of your time, I will ask you to wrap up and ask 

that you do so within 15 seconds. If you exceed your time 

you may be muted. Speakers have the option to turn on their 

cameras presenting but that is not required. We do ask 

speakers to turn off the sound for the main meeting site to 

avoid any interference. We hope that you can be in an area 

free from background noise while presenting as much as you 

can. Perhaps most importantly, we asked that speakers remain 

on mute before being called and leave the Microsoft Teams 

meeting after speaking to join or rejoin the public 

Microsoft meeting. If you are a speaker and did not mute 

yourself when not presenting or speak when it is not your 

turn, we will administratively mute you from the Microsoft 

Teams meeting and may remove you from the speaker line. You 

can always join the Microsoft Live team meeting as an 

attendee where you can listen to the hearing. When you are 

called to speak, please provide your name and your 

affiliation. This hearing is being transcribed and the 
transcription will be posted to our website within the next 

few weeks. The department will also provide a recording of 

the hearings with audio and video. This is a public hearing, 

and it is possible that a member of the public may record 

your remarks and post edited clips of them before or after 

the department post the full unedited hearing. Closed 

captioning is also available in real time during the 

hearing. Live captions in a meeting, go to your meeting 

control, to for live captions, go to your meeting controls, 

select options, then turn on live captions. If you are 

submitting written comments, we encourage you to do so 

through the right through regulations.gov. If you may rather 

submit comments through postal mail, commercial delivery or 

hand delivery, but please do not submit your comment more 

than once. If you wish to hand deliver comments, please 

email Vanessa Gomez, that's vanessa.gomez@ed.gov. She will 

coordinate with the front desk staff at the Department of 

Education’s building at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, 

D.C. so that you can leave your comments there. We will not 

accept comments by fax. In addition, please indicate the 

Docket ID, which is ED 2021 OPE 0077-1311 at the top of your 

comments. You will also use that number to quickly access 

the place to submit your comments using the regulations.gov 

website. I'd like to offer one final reminder today, and 

that is that this opportunity for public comment is little 

limited to 90/10. If the speakers’ remarks do not appear to 
 

 

be related to 90/10, we'll ask the speaker to redirect those 

remarks to the topic at hand. I will call names as it's time 

for you to speak, but please restate your name and indicate 

the organization that you represent. So, with that, let's go 

to our first speaker for today and our first speaker will be 

Amy Laitinen. Ms. Laitinen. 

MS. LAITINEN: Good afternoon. Oh, how 

exciting to be the first speaker, I didn't realize I was. My 

name is Amy Laitinen, and I'm with the Higher Education 

Program at New America, and we are so pleased that Congress 

has finally taken some steps which the department is now 

taking steps to implement towards closing a loophole that 

has propped up financially unviable schools and encourage 

them to prey on students, and particularly veterans and 

active service members. As others are likely to note 

throughout the course of these hearings, the 90/10 rule was 

designed to make sure that for-profit colleges got even a 

tiny tiny amount, 10%, of their revenue from nonfederal 

sources. Unfortunately, nonfederal sources of aid included 

many things including the federal GI Bill benefits and 

federal DOD tuition assistance benefits, which means that 

predatory colleges have seen veterans and service members as 

prime targets for recruitment to help them get the 10% of 

the nonfederal but absolutely ffederal revenue. As you begin 

thinking about regulating in this space, we would encourage 

you to be vigilant against attempts that will be made at the 
negotiating table, in the public comments before Neg Reg 

starts, during Neg Reg, after Neg Reg, that, by the 

regulated sector to create new loopholes, waivers and 

exceptions to the intent of the statutory language, which is 

intended to close, not create, new loopholes. The Department 

must pay close attention to the 10% of nonfederal revenues. 

Given the multibillion dollar industry that is for-profit 

education, higher education, it is not just likely, but a 

certainty that a whole industry of creative financial 

arrangements will pop up to circumvent the intent of the 

law. The Department needs to design a strong rule on the 

front end and vigorously enforce it on the back end but it 

can't just be set it and forget it. In the words of favorite 

Harry Potter character, Mad-Eye Moody, the the Department 

needs to have constant vigilance to ensure that the spirit 

and the letter of the law are met so that federal dollars 

are not propping up failing schools on the backs of military 

connected students, or of any students. That's it for me, I 

thank you for having this hearing and for all that you're 

doing on the current Neg Reg and planning to do for the next 

one. I can't imagine how overwhelming it is, and I'm glad 

it's not me. But I'm glad for students that you are taking 

all of these steps to ensure that current and future 

students and borrowers are protected. Thank you so much. 
 

 

 

 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Laitinen. Our 

next speaker today will be Aaron Shenck. Mr. Shenck. Mr. 

Shenck you appear to be on mute. 

MR. SHENCK: Can you hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: We can now, yes. 

MR. SHENCK: Thank you. Thank you. Thank 

you for this opportunity to speak today, my name is Aaron 

Shenck, and I'm the director of The Mid-Atlantic Association 

of Career Schools, which is a regional association 

representing approximately 100 Career Technical Colleges in 

several Northeastern states. Our association represents both 

private nonprofit institutions and private for-profit 

institutions. Our association generally looks at any 

regulation with two leading questions. One, does the 

regulation makes sense by providing a positive outcome, and 

two, is it applied consistently and fairly? Unfortunately, 

the 90/10 rule fails both tests. On the test of whether 

90/10 provides a positive outcome this regulation does the 

exact opposite. It is counterproductive to students, 

institutions, and taxpayers. First, no matter who tries to 

label 90/10 an accountability measure, it is not. 90/10 does 

not measure anything to do with academics or student 

outcomes. Let me repeat that, 90/10 does not measure 

anything to do with academics or student outcomes. 90/10 is 

nothing more than a mathematical test with two basic 

variables. The income level of your student population and 
how much financial aid they need, and two, your tuition 

costs. Schools located in low-income communities educating 

poor students have a tougher time passing 90/10. 

Furthermore, schools with lower tuition rates have a tougher 

time passing 90/10. (Inaudible) made punish schools 

educating poor populations, furthermore, schools who may 

want to lower tuition could be placed at risk of failure to 

meet their 90/10 calculation. At a time when many higher ed 

policymakers talk about access inclusion and affordability, 

the 90/10 rule is in direct conflict with those policy 

goals. In 2018, US Senate Education Committee released a 

white paper on 90/10 and it concluded and I quote, "what 

90/10 really measures is the socio economic status of 

students enrolled school, not the quality of the 

institution." Now for the second test, is this regulation 

applied consistently and fairly? The answer is simply no. 

The schools I work with include institutions with different 

tax statuses. Some of my members have to comply with 90/10, 

while others are exempt. You can theoretically have two very 

similar schools teaching the same programs in the same 

neighborhood, and one of them has to comply with the 

regulation, while the other does not have to comply. In the 

2018 Senate white paper, a national study shows 90/10 was 

applied to all higher ED institutions, it estimated 80% of 

public two-year institutions would fail the rule and 40% of 

public four-year institutions would fail the rule. Does this 
 

 

mean the schools are bad? No, it means the 90/10 regulation 

is bad public policy. Simply put, 90/10 should be abolished, 

however, I understand that's not what Congress has asked the 

committee to do. As you proceed with determining how to 

define ffederal education assistance funds, and therefore 

what ffederal funds should be counted in the formulas and 

how, I plead you to act very cautiously and not make this 

counterproductive rule any worse than it already is. Thanks 

again for your time. I appreciate it. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Shenck, we 

appreciate your comments. Our next speaker will be Dan 

Gormley. Mr. Gormley. Mr. Gormley. Alright, we can go we'll 

return to Mr. Gormley. We're going to move on to our next 

speaker who is Jeff Arthur. Mr. Arthur. 

MR. ARTHUR: Yes, thank you. I'm Jeff 

Arthur, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and CIO for 

ECPI University. I've managed federal student aid programs 

for 37 years and thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comments and supportive Negotiated Rulemaking. My 

institution served the Hampton Roads area of Virginia for 55 

years, which is the densest military community of its size 

in the United States. We have an outstanding record of 

successful with veterans, military personnel, and 

partnerships with military branches and defense contractors. 

Last year, we had 1500 persons using military benefits earn 

their degrees, nearly all of them and Computer Science, 
Engineering Technologies, and nursing. Military Military 

Times ranks our institution as the number one best for vets 

in the Career and Technical College category. Given our 

performance and importance to the military focused 

communities we serve is of grave importance that this 

rulemaking process carefully craft regulations that will 

comply with the language of the bill, and do not result in 

unintended and avoidable consequences for quality 

institutions. Regarding the negotiated rulemaking committee, 

given that this regulation applies only to for-profit 

colleges. It's important that committee in negotiating this 

rule be weighted to for-profit institutions, and the 

entities that have oversight and support for their 

compliance including business officers, auditing firms, and 

of course, financial aid staff that have decades of 

experience with this rule. Other colleges would not have an 

adequate understanding the application or regulatory 

language being considered. And therefore I do believe it 

would be very important for the department to use a 

subcommittee to tackle the highly focused scope of this 

regulation. What are the federal educational assistance 

funds? First, I think the regulation should clearly and 

concisely identify sources of funding that are to be 

considered federal education funding disbursed to or on 

behalf of a student. It's important that institutions 

clearly understand how every source of funding will be 
counted given the dire consequences of a misunderstanding. 

It's very clear what Title IV fund sources are and even at 

that, there are complications that make this less than a 

straightforward calculation. Only education assistance 

programs where the funding source is entirely federal 

funding, with funds flowing directly from the federal 

government should count. There are various state and local 

administered assistance programs where the source of the 

funding is indirect and often not clear to institutions. 

Some of these programs may apply for and receive federal 

support to varying degrees. The administrators of these 

programs have considerable expert influence selecting 

quality programs and institutions, which is what the 90/10 

rule was intended to identify quality institutions, sources 

of funds to deliver to or behalf of students. Our 

institution occasionally contracts for training for various 

military agencies and contractors under a training 

agreement. Whenever you have a process where your 

institution is selected on behalf of a government employer, 

the regulation should make it clear that this is not funding 

delivered on behalf of a student if the primary beneficiary 

or the primary initiator of it is an employer. While the 

employee students certainly benefits from any training and 

certificates they receive, it was not an independent 

decision of theirs to attend the institution. And I 

appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks. 
 

 

 

 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Arthur, we 

appreciate your comments. I'm going to go back and see if 

Mr. Gormley is has joined us. Dan Gormley. Mr. Gormley. 

Okay, I will, I'm going to move on to our next speaker, who 

is, Cyndie Shadow. Ms. Shadow. Ms. Shadow? Feeling very 

alone here, Okay, I'll go. Let's go and again, we're gonna 

come back to these people so they're not being they're not 

being skipped. Well they're being skipped for now, but when 

they're not being, you know, obviously we'll go back. So let 

me proceed on to see if our next speaker is prepared. That 

would be David Proferes. Mr. Proferes. 

MR. PROFERES: Yes, Thank you. Can you 

hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can, thank you very much. 

MR. PROFERES: Wonderful. On behalf of 

the National Commander, Paul Diller, and the nearly 2 

million members of the American Legion, we thank the 

Department of Education for inviting us to speak on the 

90/10 rule, at this public hearing today. We have worked 

tirelessly for years to highlight the targeting of service 

members, veterans, and their families by exploitative 

institutions for the earned educational benefits. We had 

hoped that Congress would act and were or were rewarded when 

the 90/10 loophole was closed earlier this year by the 

signing of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. However, 

the fight for student veterans is not over. The law must be 
 

 

implemented such that veterans and their families are 

safeguarded. In that vein, the American Legion urges the 

Department of Education to ensure that the law which closed 

the 90/10 loophole is translated accurately, and explicitly 

into subsequent rules and regulations using both clear and 

strong language. According to the old interpretation of the 

90/10 rule, Title IV federal student aid programs counted as 

taxpayer dollars on the 90 side the 90/10 calculation. 

Department of Defense educational benefits such as tuition 

assistance, and Department of Veterans Affairs, GI Bill, and 

educational benefits counted as private dollars on the 10 

side of the 90/10 calculation. This has been defined as the 

90/10 loophole, allowing schools to collect federal funds 

classified as private revenue. Schools that are allowed to 

operate on budgets funded entirely by taxpayers are 

incentivized to target student veterans for their benefits 

and often do so using deceptive practices. As private sector 

revenue is regarded as an important benchmark for 

institutional quality and health, we find these practices 

concerning. We encourage the Department of Education to 

ensure service members, veterans, and their families can 

enjoy high quality education and positive student outcomes. 

We thank the Department of Education for their diligence in 

this matter. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Proferes. 

We'll now move on to well, I'm going to go back and see if 
 

 

 

we can pick up Mr. Gormley again, so I'm going to ask if Mr. 

Gormley, Dan Gormley is available speak. And I will again 

ask if Ms. Shadow, Cyndie shadow is available to speak at 

this time. Okay, then, I'll continue on the list and then 

we'll go back and try to pick up those individuals later. So 

our next speaker is Justin Hauschild. Mr. Hauschild, are you 

available? 

MR. HAUSCHILD: I am, can you hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. Thank you very much. 

MR. HAUSCHILD: Excellent. Thank you. 

Good afternoon. My name is Justin Hauschild and I represent 

Student Veterans of America. On behalf of more than 1500 

chapters in all 50 states, SBA thanks the Department for the 

opportunity to comment on closing the 90/10 loophole. For 

student veterans and service members, the upcoming 

rulemaking is nothing short of momentous. It is the 

culmination of nearly a decade of work by many groups, 

including leading organizations in the veteran and military 

serving community, to close the 90/10 loophole in order to 

protect student veterans and taxpayers from bad actor 

schools desperately trying to evade the intent of federal 

law. The department can and must seal this disturbing 

chapter in higher education by promulgating strong 90/10 

regulations. The 90/10 rule was originally meant to serve as 

a market viability test to ensure proprietary schools were 

fit enough to attract healthy at first sources of revenue. 
In other words, to prevent bad actor schools from subsisting 

entirely off federal taxpayer money. To that end, Congress 

crafted a rule requiring that proprietary schools obtain a 

minimal amount of their revenue now just 10% from sources 

other than the federal government. Unfortunately, the law 

suffered from a critical oversight, it excluded Department 

of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Education 

benefits like the GI Bill and tuition assistance. The result 

has been alarming. For every one VA or DOD education benefit 

dollar bad actor schools have taken from service members and 

veterans, they can take it another $9 in federal financial 

aid, providing these schools the pathway to operate entirely 

off taxpayer funds. This turned service members and veterans 

into the linchpin of a scheme by low quality, bad actors 

schools to evade the intent of the 90/10 rule. Many of these 

schools employed well documented, deceptive, aggressive, and 

downright fraudulent recruitment tactics to enroll student 

veterans, causing a measurable harm to the academic and 

financial futures of 10s of 1000s of students. Fortunately, 

Congress saw fit to close the loophole, an effort which had 

recently garnered bipartisan support evidence for example, 

by the aptly named Protect Vets Act championed by Senators 

Carper, Cassidy, Lankford, and Tester. Students will benefit 

from the loopholes closure but so too will taxpayers. 

Hundreds of millions of dollars and likely more federal 

taxpayer money has been squandered by bad actor schools 
 

dodging the 90/10 rule. As if validating the rules intended 

purpose, a troubling number of these schools closed over the 

last decade, leaving students with worthless degrees, 

nontransferable credits, and mountains of debt. Students and 

taxpayers have been left holding the bag for these 

institutions’ empty promises for far too long. I want to 

speak briefly about how closing the 90/10 loophole improves 

student choice. Opponents of this effort decried it as 

somehow limiting student's ability to choose the school that 

will serve them best. This is incredibly misleading. 

Students’ choices are only as good as the options available 

to them and the most dangerous and proprietary schools of 

the last decade have showed that they are some of the most 

dangerous option to students. No student should face the 

risk of bad schools leaving them worse off than if they had 

never attended. Closing the 90/10 loophole enhances the 

quality of choices available to students. Finally, on a more 

technical note, SBA respectfully requests the department 

ensure statutory language referring to federal education 

assistance funds, be appropriately interpreted to include 

all VA and DOD education aid to the fullest extent 

practicable. The statutory language here is unambiguous. 

Thank you for your time and for your devotion to veterans in 

higher education. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Hauschild. We 

are now going to go back I believe that Ms. Shadow, Cyndie 
 

 

 

Shadow is now available, so I Ms. Shadow, the floor is 

yours. Ms. Shadow, you appear to be on mute. 

MS. SHADOW: My apologies, thank you so 

much. 

MR. MARTIN: I can hear you fine now, 

thank you. 

MS. SHADOW: Thank you. I would like to 

respectfully request that the committee thoroughly consider 

the impact that changing the 90/10 legislation might have on 

students who are currently using for-profit institutions as 

their primary means of exiting a place where they do not 

have very much career mobility and moving into a place where 

they can have great career mobility. These students 

typically are unable to find enough fund sources to meet the 

demands of the programs that they want to enter into. And by 

putting 90/10 in place specifically for veterans and 

changing it for any other students, you're reducing the 

availability of appropriate career education for students 

who really need it. If it's an important factor to consider 

the source of funds for educational institutions, I believe 

that there should be parity and all institutions should be 

considered in this decision. It's unfair to discriminate 

against those schools that are providing important and 

greatly needed career education support to people who are 

looking for new and different career avenues based upon the 

way that they are deriving those funds. The source of funds 
 

 

has no impact whatsoever on the quality and caliber of 

education that students receive. And changing any sort of 

legislation as it relates to the source of funds for 

students is having a negative impact or could potentially 

have a negative impact on students who are looking for new 

careers. It's also important to note that schools that are 

for-profit institutions frequently are filled with students 

who are students of color and/or students who are women, and 

adjusting the way that the funds that they receive is 

counted for could possibly have a negative impact on their 

ability to obtain the education that they need. These 

schools, particularly ones that are for-profit schools 

already are required to provide proof of graduation rates, 

of retention rates, and of career placement rates. So 

looking at specifically 90/10 as a means of determining 

quality and/or deciding who should be able to attend these 

schools is providing an unfair burden for students who 

really need this sort of education in order to advance their 

career opportunities. I respectfully submit my information 

and hope that you would consider it as you're looking at 

this information. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Ms. Shadow. And, 

now we're going to I just want to make sure I catch up again 

with our, our list. So I think we are now at Will Hubbard. 

Mr. Hubbard are you available? Mr. Hubbard? 

MR. HUBBARD: Hi, can you hear me now? 
 

 

MR. MARTIN: I can, yes. The floor is 

yours. 

MR. HUBBARD: Great, thanks so much. And 

thank you for the time present here today. I'm grateful for 

the opportunity to speak with the hard working staff and 

leadership of the department. Unfortunately, I have some bad 

news to share. Over the last several months, multiple 

schools have collapsed. And worse yet, students and 

taxpayers were left wondering, what do we do now? And even 

worse news still, this trend will continue as there is no 

meaningful and comprehensive disincentive that exists today 

to stop it. My name is Wil Hubbard, I'm a proud Marine Corp 

Veteran and I serve as the Vice President of Veterans & 

Military Policy with a group called Veterans Education 

Success. And indeed, that is our mission. The situation as I 

highlighted for you is that critical status. While there may 

be no alarm bells, or flashing red lights, let this 

conversation here and now be just that. The next two years 

will be some of the best, for some of the worst schools in 

America. Yeah, the 90/10 loophole has been legally closed 

but while this door may be shut, it is not yet locked. As a 

Department that is the task ahead of you. Schools so 

entirely reliant upon federal funding to survive, are by 

definition, unable to succeed on the merits of what they 

offer. This reliance breeds fraud, deception, and inevitable 

collapse. Last week, I spoke with a veteran who faithfully 
served our country as a Chemical Specialist in the Army. 

They showed up to their school recently, not too far from 

graduation, only to find out that it had collapsed. The 

building? Totally intact., The students and their futures? 

Left in the dust. If ever there was a time for a strong 

90/10 rule, it's in making sure that veterans do not face 

the scenario. That pit in the stomach of realizing the 

unforgiving truth. The promises were hollow, emptier than 

the suits who deliver them. Today and tomorrow, you may hear 

some presenters talk about the importance of veterans having 

their choice of schools, but they do so in bad faith. When 

you're serving garbage, calling it choice, and finishing it 

with a heavy side of fraud, there's really no choice in that 

at all. We should instead call what it is, a scam. I'm tired 

of seeing veterans, lied to, cheated, defrauded, and left 

holding the bag. All while school executives continue to 

dine for free. There must be a clean closure of the 

loophole, no extra waivers, no special carve outs, no 

exceptions. Either schools meet the standard or they're in 

violation. It really is as simple as that. Veterans from all 

walks of life have for years called for closing this 

loophole. They've done their part, they fought for each 

other, and they fought for you. Will you fight for them? I 

sure hope so, thank you. 
 

 

 

 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. We 

will now move on to our next speaker who is Emily DeVito. 

Ms. DeVito. Ms. DeVito? 

MS. DEVITO: Good afternoon. Can you hear 

me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. 

MS. DEVITO: Hello, my name is Emily 

DeVito, I am with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. VFW was very 

pleased when the decision was finally made to close the 

90/10 loophole that has for decades negatively affected the 

military and veteran community. The federal education 

benefits provided to service members and veterans are in and 

of themselves make a target for predatory recruiting. For 

too long, this target has only been amplified by the 90/10 

loophole, making service members and veterans a financial 

bottom line to predatory schools at risk of falling out of 

compliance. As a veteran myself, and having worked in 

military outreach in higher ED as a civilian, I know 

accounts of predatory behavior to be factual from firsthand 

experience, witnessing institutions who go to extreme and 

desperate measures to secure enrollments for military 

federal benefits. I've seen recruiters physically block 

entryways as junior service members try to leave education 

fairs on military bases. I've heard recruiters tell young 

service members their open enrollment institution is 

comparable to Harvard. I've heard recruiters tell service 
members they can take internet-based coursework while 

deployed overseas with limited or no internet access. I've 

heard recruiters persuade veterans not to pursue their 

degree of interest if their institution doesn't happen to 

offer it. I've heard recruiters peddle untruths about the 

importance of their accreditation or lack thereof. I've seen 

recruiters consistently take active-duty service member 

contact information in violation of Department of Defense 

Policy, which they will then use to contact that service 

member over and over and over. In these examples the success 

of military students was inconsequential to these 

institutions, and the only matter of consequence was gaining 

dollars towards the 10%. I share this with an understanding 

that not all actors are bad actors, but that the need for 

regulation in this space is not unfounded and predatory 

tactics are not imagined. The VFW is resolved to close all 

financial loopholes which exploit service members and 

veteran education benefits. As the rulemaking begins for 

90/10, we urge the Department of ED and negotiators to take 

a close look at a possible loophole with the use of forprofit education management companies. There's an increasing 

occurrence of for-profit education service companies 

continuing to wholly manage online students following the 

sale of for-profit subsidiary. More frequently, these forprofits are those with some of the largest populations of 

military connected students nationwide and with long 
 

 

 

 

histories of predatory behavior. In the case of these online 

students continue to be primarily marketed to, recruited by, 

enrolled by, and academically and financially advised by, 

the for-profit education service, it's important these 

companies are not permitted to escape regulation to include 

90/10 through tuition sharing models. If this is not 

addressed, it may begin to disproportionately affect the 

large populations of military connected students attending. 

For decades, the exclusion of DOD and VA tuition towards 

90/10 federal dollars has at best been an oversight and at 

worst, an open invitation to prey on service members, 

veterans, and their families. With at last an end in sight 

through the closure of this loophole, we urge the Department 

of Education to ensure there's adequate oversight and the 

intent of this closure is met. Thank you for your time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Ms. DeVito. I do 

not know if Mr.- our next speakers identified as Luis 

Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez, are you available? Okay, we'll proceed 

then to our next speaker who is Kenneth Greenberg. Mr. 

Greenberg, are you available? Mr. Greenberg, you appear to 

be on mute. 

MR. GREENBERG: Can you hear me now sir? 

MR. MARTIN: I can, you may begin. 

MR. GREENBERG: Okay, thank you. Thank 

you to the officials and staff at the Department of 

Education, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the 
90/10 rule. My name is Ken Greenberg and I'm the National 

Executive Director of the Jewish War Veterans of the United 

States of America. We are a congressionally chartered 

Veteran Service Organization. I'm here to speak today as the 

voice of 1000s of veterans, service members, survivors ,and 

families from across the US who have served in uniform 

services and sought the education they were promised and 

deserve. I, and JWV, call on the Department of Education to 

ensure strong implementation of the new law to close the 

loophole for 90/10. We all know that the 90/10 loophole 

resulted in some unfair targeting of veterans community--

veterans in the community by aggressive and deceptive forprofit college salespersons. Countless service members, 

veterans, family members and survivors were viewed as 

nothing more than a dollar sign, and many had their lives 

ruined because of the loophole. Jewish War Veterans thanks 

to the bipartisan list of members of Congress for acting and 

closing the loophole. We call on the Department of Education 

to regulate that loophole closure in the strongest possible 

way. We remain concerned that veterans will still have two 

years to be targeted, as the final closure of the loophole 

was delayed, and schools still have time to adjust to the 

new requirements. We objected to the delay, but there's 

absolutely no reason to regulatory weaken the law. VSOs view 

any attempt to undermine the closure of the loophole as 

troubling. There already is a built-in mechanism included in 
 

 

giving schools the chance and plenty of time to meet the 

requirements. We trust veterans to use their GI Bill 

benefits where they want. What we don't trust are the 

schools who have lied to veterans repeatedly and as a 

pattern of fraud, failed to deliver what they promised. It 

is because of this kind of behavior that the 90/10 rule even 

exists. Veterans were called to service and did their duty. 

Industries all across the country now look to veterans to be 

strong leaders. As veterans answered their call, for our 

nation, they will do it again. Their quality of education 

and value of their education is imperative. At Jewish War 

Veterans, we we've reached this conclusion very strongly. 

And we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rule 

and we look for your unwavering support to continue to 

implement the rule in the strongest possible way. Thank you 

for the opportunity to present. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. 

Our next speaker is and I apologize if I don't do justice to 

the name, Jonathan Banasihan. Mr. Banasihan. 

MR. BANASIHAN: Thank you. Good afternoon 

and thank you thank you to the Department of Education for 

allowing me to comment. My name is Jonathan Banasihan, I'm a 

Navy veteran with deployments and operations supporting Iraq 

and Afghanistan. And I'm here to express my support for the 

closure of the 90/10 loophole. I urge this department to 

take all appropriate action to end this menace to veterans. 
 

I was fortunate to have guidance on how to best utilize my 

GI Bill when the time came to transition. It helped me to 

attain an education I could not afford on my own and to 

secure a job that is a significant improvement from the 

possibilities I had using just my service. And that's what 

the GI Bill is. It’s a promise deferred, an investment in 

future opportunities for servicemembers from a grateful 

nation and to that nation, the GI Bill in return a welleducated and highly skilled contributor to the workforce, 

but for the veteran so much more. It empowers their futures. 

But this is contingent on finding an education and 

institutions that act in good faith to create these powerful 

outcomes. The institutions that targets veterans, that 

market themselves on every base and on every media, do not 

act in good faith. Most graduates of these institutions are 

drained of their precious time and resources, pursuing 

degrees that do not enable their success. These kinds of 

institutions do not offer opportunities, they rob from the 

future. Allowing these institutions to continue the practice 

of accounting the GI Bill outside of federal funding, the 

federal dollars, money from the people of the United States 

used to pad office margins and leave their students all the 

work. Every veteran that walks through those doors with a 

degree worth less than the paper it’s printed on diminishes 

the GI Bill promised. Today I ask this department to take 
 

 

the steps necessary to ensure that this promise is honored 

in full. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Banasihan and 

I'm sorry for mispronouncing your name originally, but hope 

I got it right on the second try. Thank you very much. Our 

next speaker is Kyle Southern, Mr. Southern. Mr. Southern, 

you appear to be on mute. Okay. Great. 

MR. SOUTHERN: Good afternoon. I'm Kyle 

Southern, Director of Accountability at the Institute for 

College Access and Success. At TICAS, we welcome the 

Department of Education actions to close the 90/10 loophole 

that for far too long, has put student veterans at risk of 

being seen as dollar signs in uniform by exploitative and 

deceptive for-profit colleges. Congress's bipartisan 

agreement to correct the statutory oversight the opened the 

loophole followed nearly a decade of advocacy by veteran 

service organizations and other student focus groups. Now's 

the time to solidify this important protection for student 

veterans. As the department moves forward, we know some 

voices from the for-profit college sector will urge 

flexibility and exemptions that would effectively dilute the 

law’s advocacy. We urge you not to heed those calls. As 

passed in the American Rescue Plan Act, the 90/10 language 

provides a two year on ramp for institutions out of line 

with its financial expectations to come into compliance. 

Moreover, schools will not face consequences for 
noncompliance until 2024. Schools without a nonfederal 

revenue source at that point should face serious questions 

about their value, viability, and ability to provide 

students with meaningful educational opportunities. Closing 

the 90/10 loophole should be a straightforward process. It 

is basic arithmetic that should not be watered down by carve 

outs and exemptions, rather than regulations that simply 

ensure that all federal benefits provided to advance the 

education of students are counted correctly as federal 

education assistance funds. We know the students most at 

risk of being taken advantage of by for-profits, eager to 

reap their educational assistance funds, and provide little 

to nothing in return. But often first generation and lowincome students, many are student veterans of color. The 

department has an opportunity to seal a loophole that makes 

these students particularly vulnerable to deceptive 

marketing and aggressive recruitment, perpetuating cycles of 

exploitation and exacerbating inequities in the 

postsecondary sector. This process will also protect 

taxpayers’ investment and financial aid programs and 

benefits designed to honor the service of veterans who go on 

to pursue higher education. Taxpayers’ investments in these 

important opportunity programs should not be at risk because 

of perverse incentives for predatory schools to draw down 

veterans benefits. Thank you for the opportunity to share 

these comments and for your work to implement the law with 
 

 

 

 

fidelity to its intent that reflects the fidelity with which 

student veterans have served our country. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Southern. Our 

next speaker is Krisztina Pusok. Ms. Pusok, are you 

available? 

MS. PUSOK: Yes. Can you hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. 

MS. PUSOK: Okay, perfect. Good 

afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to 

you today. My name is Krisztina Pusok, and I'm a Director at 

the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit nonpartisan 

research and educational institute, with a mission to 

identify, analyze, and project the interests of consumers in 

selected legislative and rulemaking proceedings. As 

advocates for quality education and school choice for all 

Americans, we commend the Department's efforts to safeguard 

the quality of education, educational options available to 

students. When it comes to considering any changes to the 

90/10 rule, we urge you to consider the full extent of 

ramifications that could potentially be at odds with the 

intended goals and would instead negatively affect the 

education outcome and school choice for the 1000s of 

students that chose to enroll in proprietary colleges. At 

the Institute, we studied the role that these institutions 

have in the American education system and analyze the 

effects regulatory proposals, including changes to the 90/10 
rule would have on the students that seek education at these 

institutions. We found that the net result of further 

reforming the 90/10 rule would include eliminating school 

choice for veterans and military students and forcing them 

into the worst performing education institutions. And I do 

want to highlight that many of the military students and 

veterans sign up for service because of the benefits that 

they are promised: education, housing, health insurance, and 

as such, they should have the right to choose how they use 

the benefits they have earned. Based on our findings, which 

we will discuss this extensively in our written comments, to 

enhance educational equality and opportunity for all 

students, we do recommend the department takes into 

consideration the following. First, quality assurance 

policies meant to protect veterans, military, and minority 

students should be based on student outcome metrics, and not 

on sources of revenue metrics. Second, the student outcome 

metrics should reflect the wide range of demographic and 

socioeconomic background of the students. And third, 

regulation should apply equally to all types of institutions 

of higher education, whether public or private. Currently, 

there's uneven regulatory playing field that preferences 

certain methods of education over others, that should not be 

the case. Emphasis should be placed again on student 

outcomes that reflect their diverse backgrounds and not the 
 

 

kind of school that they attend. And with that, thank you 

for this opportunity to provide this testimony today. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Ms. Pusok. Our 

next speaker is David Tandberg. Mr. Tandberg. 

DR. TANDBERG: Good afternoon and thank 

you for allowing me to provide comments. My name is David 

Tandberg, I serve as Senior Vice President of Policy 

Research and Strategic Initiatives at the State Higher 

Education Executive Officers Association, more commonly 

known as SHEEO. SHEEO serves the Chief Executives of 

statewide governing policy and coordinating boards of 

postsecondary education and their staff. The announced 

negotiated rulemaking process focused on the 90/10 rule 

provides an excellent opportunity to advance a stronger 

consumer protection framework for students attending 

proprietary colleges and universities. As policy 

organization representing one leg of the regulatory triad 

with expertise and consumer protection, SHEEO welcomes the 

opportunity to participate in this effort. State higher 

education leaders have a stake in ensuring that 

postsecondary institutions operate in their state that 

operate in their state are high quality and provide value to 

students states are pursuing an ambitious efforts to improve 

educational attainment and workforce outcomes of their 

students. States however, cannot act alone in protecting 

students, the federal Government, along with accreditors 
 

 

 

 

need to be key partners in creating a higher education 

marketplace that provides quality educational opportunities 

for students and value to taxpayers. The 90/10 rule is a is 

a key provision in helping the marketplace work for students 

and taxpayers. SHEEO was pleased to see reforms to the 90/10 

rule in the American Rescue Plan of 2021, closing the 90/10 

loophole and hopes to see continued legislative and 

rulemaking efforts to strengthen this law and implement the 

revisions as quickly as as possible and with fidelity. We 

applaud the US Department of Education for quickly 

initiating the negotiated rulemaking process and working to 

get this this law implemented as soon as possible. We hope 

the Department rigorously enforces the new law and welcome 

the opportunity to partner in a broader effort to provide 

students with access to a marketplace of high quality 

college opportunities while protecting taxpayer investment 

in higher education. We look forward to engaging with you on 

this important work, thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Dr. Tandberg. 

Our next speaker is Kenny Golden. Mr. Golden. 

MR. GOLDEN: Good afternoon, can you can 

hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can, yes. 

MR. GOLDEN: I'm Kenny Golden, I'm a 31 

year Navy veteran and I've enjoyed both the benefits of the 

GI Bill and all the benefits of tuition assistance for both 
 

the the folks that have worked for me in the United States 

Navy, and and different services. And I don't want to see 

anything that restricts or harms the ability of people that 

have served their country that have raised their right hand 

and decided that they would accept the obligation of 

defending the Constitution of the United States. And I don't 

want to see anything that was going to harm their ability to 

choose the schools that they go to, and keep them from 

having to pay for any of the educational capabilities that 

they've been promised. When they join the service. I think 

that any restrictions on that should be lifted. And that 

this, we need to make sure that schools do the right thing. 

There are two sides of this thing, to make sure that the 

schools that they actually are going to do what they say 

they're going to do, and also that the volunteers that have 

served their country get the education that they have asked 

for. So I'm asking the Department to do the right thing as 

far as the veterans are concerned and make sure that both 

the schools comply with the laws and that veterans don't 

have to reach into their pocketbooks when they're trying to 

take care of the families, their children, to pay for any of 

these educational benefits. So thank you very much for your 

time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Golden. Our 

next speaker is Jesse Cruz. Mr. Cruz. 
 MR. CRUZ: Hello. Good afternoon, my name 

is Jesse Cruz and I'm a US Army veteran from Atascosa, Texas 

and I decided to use my GI Bill to pursue a college degree 

in Electronic Engineering. I went to ITT, they recruited me, 

ITT Tech recruited me right out of the Army telling me that 

my GI Bill would cover my tuition. They also told me that if 

I went to school there, I would have a guaranteed job in my 

field with a salary starting at 50 to 60k. They also told me 

that their credits would transfer to any other program. I'm 

here today to tell you that none of this is true. I am a 

first-generation college student, and pretty much pursued 

this path all on my own. I worked hard for my degree, only 

to learn it wasn't worth much. I graduated in 2003 and to 

this day, I haven't found a decent job that pays what I went 

to school for. The only job I have, the only reason I have a 

job now is because I went out on my own and I went went out 

to learn on my own. And I tried to pursue a higher degree 

but I was not able to because none of my credits 

transferred. Something that ITT Tech told me I would be able 

to do. And today, I still have 17k and student debt. That 

that debt I did not expect to have, since ITT told me that 

my GI Bill would cover my education. Pretty much, ITT, I 

felt that ITT Tech recruiters lied to me and I I know I am 

one of many, that the 90/10 loophole has been had been back 

when I was in school, I probably wouldn't be in this 

situation. I am thankful to Congress for recently working to 
 

 

close the loophole because it harmed many student veterans 

over the years. I hope that you keep my story and others in 

mind as you continue your rulemaking in the coming days and 

weeks and thank you for your time. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Our 

next speaker is Billy Clark. Mr. Clark. 

MR. CLARK: Thank you. In 1992, Congress 

passed the 85/15 rule now known as 90/10, designed to 

protect students from bad schools. The theory was that any 

legitimate school would be able to attract enough cash bank 

students to generate at least 15% of their tuition revenue. 

Over the past 19 years, has the 90/10 rule driven schools 

out of business or lessened student debt? The answer is a 

resounding no. As a matter of fact, the 90/10 rule has had 

just the opposite effect. Instead of lessening student debt, 

student debt has increased and now includes not only maximum 

Title IV debt, and in many cases 1000s of dollars in gap 

loans as third party private student loans. The 90/10 rule 

has removed competition, students no longer receive stipends 

from Title IV funds, it has driven up tuition cost, it has 

increased student loan debt burden on many students, 

virtually created the gap funding industry, and the 90/10 

rule created some very wealthy folks on the backs of those 

students who can least afford it. Yes, it is the 90/10 rule 

that has been a major factor in creating the wealth and 

political power of the private career college sector. So if 
not 90/10, what? Gainful employment. Gainful employment went 

into effect in 2015. Colleges were penalized if too many of 

their graduates landed in low paying careers with excessive 

student debt. The GE rule brought accountability to the forprofit sector and accomplished what the 90/10 rule could 

not. The GE[Audio] oversight, the closing of over 1000 forprofit campuses. By contrast, in the 17/18 school year, only 

one proprietary school closed due to not meeting the 90/10 

rule. Today, many prominent politicians are championing free 

college, arguing that students should not have to pay for 

their degrees. However, most of the same politicians believe 

that some students in for-profit colleges should be willing 

to pay. That's the 90/10 rule and there's a disconnect 

somewhere. But with the upcoming reimplementation of the 

gainful employment rule and the push for free college, it is 

time for 90/10 to go away. The 90/10 rule actually 

accomplished the opposite of what was intended. Students are 

not protected, student debt skyrocket, and if we truly want 

to safeguard students’ financial futures, Congress needs to 

abolish this harmful 90/10 regulation. I have a whole lot 

more to say but only have three minutes. To see the evidence 

and how the removal of 90/10 would affect the students at 

our schools please see the full version of these comments 

submitted through the website. I hope to continue this 

conversation with fewer time constraints so there can be 
 

 

 

 

 

 

open honest discussion that find solutions that are in the 

best interest of the students. Thank you so much. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Mr. Clark. Our 

next speaker is James Marks. Mr. Marks. You appear to be on 

mute Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks looks like your feed may be 

frozen. Okay, I'll tell you what, Mr. Marks, why don't we 

proceed to the next speaker and then when that individual is 

done with his or her remarks, then we'll return to you. 

We'll move down to, I'm sorry, I was on mute, that's I think 

we'll move down to Ms. Harfeld next on the list. Is Ms. 

Harfeld available? 

MS. HARFELD: I am, thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Ms. Harfeld, and I 

apologize for being on mute and only talking to myself. 

MS. HARFELD: That's okay. 

MR. MARTIN: Maybe doing the world a 

favor, but thank you very much. 

MS. HARFELD: My name is Amy Harfeld and 

I'm here on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute, a 

children's rights nonprofit based at the University of San 

Diego School of Law. I'm here to lift up the impact of the 

90/10 rule and rule changes on foster youth and former 

foster youth using Chafee and educational training vouchers. 

Over the last decade, we have encountered countless 

transition age foster youth who have suffered poor 

educational outcomes as a result of being targeted by 
private for-profit colleges, because the benefits that they 

use were excluded from the 90/10 rule. We have heard endless 

stories of recruiters coming into group homes and 

institutions making false promises about employment outcomes 

and opportunities, filling out loan forms, and then failing 

to provide academic supports or follow up to students. These 

predatory practices have disproportionately impacted youth 

of color and have served as an insidious barrier to economic 

mobility and economics an educational success for those your 

youth who need the most support. Evidence is clear that when 

provided with supports, foster youth can fulfill their 

ambitions and achieve success just as well as their peers. 

But they face an uphill battle with high rates of 

homelessness, chronic unemployment and underemployment, 

justice system involvement, and very poor engagement in 

postsecondary education. The Chafee Foster Care Program and 

educational training vouchers, allow them to receive up to 

$5,000 a year for up to five years to fulfill their 

educational ambitions. Now, thanks to the legislative 

change, there is an opportunity to issue strong regulations 

that ensure specific attention to foster youth and former 

foster youth using these benefits and to make sure that no 

additional barriers are placed in their way as they work to 

achieve their dreams. We implore you to to adopt a strong 

set of regulations without carve outs, waivers, or 

exceptions to any vulnerable youth that would skirt the 
 

 

 

 

legislative intent. Please keep these young people who have 

aged out of foster care without a forever family into your 

considerations as you issue these regulations. Thank you. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you Ms. Harfeld. We 

will now return to Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks. You still appear to 

be on mute, Mr. Marks. Still on mute. Still on still on 

mute. I still cannot hear you Mr. Marks. Okay let's see 

here, while we're waiting for Mr. Marks, I'll ask my my team 

if there is anybody else that that is scheduled to speak. 

Okay, I'm being told that Mark Diaz is ready to speak so Mr. 

Marks, we're going to go ahead with Mr. Diaz and then allow 

you to come back and see if you can resolve that problem 

with your with your with your microphone. Okay, Mr. Diaz. 

MR. DIAZ: Hello, can you hear me? 

MR. MARTIN: I can. 

MR. DIAZ: Excellent. Good afternoon and 

thank you very much for your time. My name is Mark Diaz, and 

I'm a Full Sail University graduate and a US Navy veteran. I 

served from 2006 to 2010. And after I separated, I worked as 

a civilian contractor for the US Army. At 23 years old, I 

was making close to six figures utilizing my skill set and a 

top-secret clearance that I received in the Navy. I 

eventually kind of came to the realization that I wasn't 

passionate about what I was doing, wasn't fulfilled or 

excited about my work or the future, despite being in a 

secure industry making good money. So I chose to walk away 
from that and pursue a dream career making video games. I 

made that choice after attending one of Full Sail's behind 

the scenes tours where I got to see the campus and learn 

about their past graduates and their careers. I understood 

that it was a big leap of faith, but I enrolled with full 

confidence the school would put me in a position to achieve 

my goals. Going back to school as a veteran is uniquely 

challenging, you've already signed over years of your life, 

and it can feel like losing a bit of progress and starting 

over again. Our time becomes that much more valuable to us 

and being able to complete a four-year degree in 24 months 

at Full Sail, is a massive benefit. I started school at 24 

and I earned my bachelor's degree as valedictorian at 26. I 

had an industry job lined up months before I graduated, and 

I was able to start my career just three weeks later. Since 

then, I have worked on some of the most critically acclaimed 

games of the last decade. The GI Bill was something that I 

paid for and earned not just with my time, but with my 

money. I don't hear it talked about much. But for the first 

year of my service, I had to give up money every paycheck, 

you know, to receive those GI Bill benefits. To limit the 

opportunities it can provide would mean that people like me 

wouldn't have the chance to pursue the same kind of 

informed, life changing education that I got. I have no idea 

where I would be today without the opportunity provided to 

me by the GI Bill and its flexibility to allow me to pursue 
 

 

 

 

the unique environment and education provided by Full Sail. 

I'm currently a Senior Gameplay Programmer going on eight 

years in the industry. I've worked on several of the most 

critically acclaimed games of the last decade as I said 

before. It's no exaggeration when I say that it's a dream 

come true for me. And I know that my story is not unique in 

that many of the people that I went to school with are now 

my industry peers who are out there doing like, mind blowing 

work in creative entertainment. So with that, I just want to 

thank you for your time and consideration. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Diaz. And now 

I'm going to get back to Mr. Marks and see if those issues 

have been resolved. Mr. Marks. Okay, unfortunately, Mr. 

Marks we still have you on mute. I'm not certain but the 

issue is, but we still have you as appearing on mute. Mr. 

Marks, we still we still can't hear Mr. Marks. We're going 

to move on, we're gonna move on to to our next speaker and 

then again, we'll try to we'll try to come back. So, our 

next speaker is I'm told Victor Victor Inzunza. Mr. Inzunza? 

Are you ready to speak? 

MR. INZUNZA: Yes, I'm here. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you. You may begin 

whenever you're prepared. 

MR. INZUNZA: Okay. So good afternoon, to 

the officials, staff with the Department of Education. I'd 

like to thank you for having me here. My name is Victor 
Inzunza, I'm a Marine Corps veteran and I serve as a policy 

analyst at Swords to Plowshares, out in San Francisco. Our 

agency was established in 1974 to heal the wounds of war, 

restore dignity, hope and self-sufficiency to all veterans 

in need, and prevent and end homelessness and poverty among 

veterans. We offer employment and job training, supportive 

housing, programs, permanent housing placement, counseling 

and case management and legal services. One of the most 

significant life changing opportunities for veterans and 

their time in college is made possible by benefits that 

they've earned during their time in service. Policy 

department at Swords to Plowshares has spent over five years 

researching and advocating on behalf of military connected 

students. We've developed we've developed partnerships with 

students and leadership across the country to determine why 

institutional support systems matter. Institutions must have 

integrity and they must have a commitment to support the 

students who come through their doors to provide quality 

education and a reputable degree. Our work with military 

connected students has revealed inconsistencies in support 

systems, leading many to seek outside resources in their 

communities. For example, in many of our recent studies we 

have found that students often struggled with financial 

issues, causing housing instability and food insecurity. The 

reality is that our military communities already faced 

multiple challenges in their efforts to assimilate back into 
society. Predatory colleges exacerbate that unfortunate 

situation and can and can derail features entirely. Our 

agency administers VA Supportive Services for Veterans 

Families, which is also known as SSVF, ones that help 

veterans on the verge of financial disaster and 

homelessness. Student veterans come to us for help. 

Meanwhile, the 90/10 loophole allows predatory colleges to 

rob veteran students of their educational benefits and deny 

them the promise of future careers which require a college 

degree. Today, we ask the Department of Education to ensure 

strong implementation of the new law to close the 90/10 

loophole. As you know, the 90/10 loophole resulted in the 

targeting of our community by aggressive and deceptive 

colleges. Countless service members, veterans, family 

members and survivors were seen as nothing more than dollar 

signs in uniform, and had their lives ruined because of this 

loophole. We thank bipartisan members of Congress for 

listening to us and finally closing the 90/10 loophole. The 

closure of the 90/10 loophole does not take effect for 

several years. This means veterans, service members, their 

families, and survivors will continue to be targeted due to 

a bipartisan compromise to give the schools time to readjust 

to requirements. This compromise and delay in implementation 

mean any request from these schools to weaken the 

department's implementation of the law in any way would be 

in bad faith, as their demands were already considered by 
 

 

Congress, and they were already given a mechanism built in 

to account for the upcoming changes. Veterans deserve to 

spend their hard earned benefits at an institution of their 

choice and any attempts from these schools to say closing 

the loophole limit that choice is another false argument. 

When bad schools target veterans for the purpose of scamming 

them out of the GI Bill, there's nothing honorable about 

standing by to watch the scam occur in plain sight. If these 

for-profits were relying on their merits, they would not 

resort to predatory marketing to veterans that misleads and 

jeopardizes their academic career. Any executives college 

can improve its quality enough to attract at least 10% 

funding from employer sponsors or students who see enough 

value that they are willing to pay. At Swords to Plowshares, 

our commitment to veterans comes first. Any institution of 

higher learning must make that same commitment by providing 

a quality curriculum for student veterans, a supportive 

resource system, and by making every dollar spent there 

worth all the time they spent in military service earning 

them. Thank you for your time to present our views and 

please reach out to us if you have any clarifying questions. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Inzunza. 

We're now going to go back to Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks. 

MR. MARKS: Thank you very much. Can you 

hear me? 
 

 

MR. MARTIN: I absolutely can hear you 

now. Yes, you may begin. 

MR. MARKS: Touch touch down. We're on. 

We're on. This is great. Thank you. Everybody, thanks very 

much, my name is Major General Spider Marks. I'm a retired 

Army General and serve as an Advisor to the Centurion 

Military Alliance Alliance, which provides support to 

veterans as they transition from a military commitment back 

to their individual civilian sectors. So, thanks very much 

for this opportunity to testify before you today to share my 

perspective about an issue that's very important to me, that 

is recognizing and meeting the educational needs of veterans 

as a nontraditional learner. The following testimony is 

based on a written testimony that I submitted earlier public 

hearing for your public hearing session in July. As a 

retired Army General, I now have the great opportunity to 

help service members successfully transition out of the 

military find their next task and purpose in various efforts 

working against the well-being of our veterans. That's why 

I'm so committed to urging our nation's lawmakers to work 

together to defend veterans’ earned benefits that they have 

earned through service and sacrifice. The fact is, veteran 

learners have different needs than traditional learners and 

that's why our organization operates with a focus on end 

results, not if a degree is earned from traditional 

university, community college or proprietary university. 
Veterans are well equipped to choose the school that works 

best for them. And that's why so many choose innovative, 

flexible programs that can be tailored to meet their 

individual needs, at different phases in their transitions 

back into their civilian lives. Colleges and universities 

across the globe recognized that veterans student needs are 

different. Yet some adversaries are now calling to limit 

their options restricting restricting where veterans can 

attend or take courses. Any academically rigorous 

institution regardless of funding mechanism should be 

considered viable, and should be subjected to arbit should 

not be subjected to arbitrary rules, limiting veteran 

student enrollment, arbitrary rules like 90/10 mistakenly 

equate equate veterans earned benefits with need based 

entitlements. They're often mischaracterized as a loop in a 

way that only offends veterans, many of whom put themselves 

in harm's way and joined the military because of these very 

benefits. If a veterans right, for example, to choose their 

house that meets their individual needs, is not under 

attack, then why are their educational choices? I don't get 

it. Let's give our nation's veterans the respect they 

deserve and educational opportunities they've earned by 

treating their schools of choice as equals among more 

traditional schools, rather than working to degrade their 

earned benefits. I want to thank everybody very much for 

this opportunity to speak. 
 MR. MARTIN: Thank you General Marks. I'm 

going to go back to my my team here and ask if there are any 

if there's anybody else that we have missed, that I should 

be calling on. So I'm just going to give them an opportunity 

to respond to me to see if there's anyone else we we are 

going to try and pick up. So Dan Gormley, Dan Gormley, are 

you available? Mr. Gormley. If you're available and would 

like to comment you may do so at this time. Okay, I don't 

believe Mr. Gormley is is on right now so our next 

individual would be Luis Vasquez. So I'll ask Mr. Vasquez is 

with us. Okay, I don't see any further speakers for today. 

In closing out, first of all, I want to thank all of our 

speakers for the for their comments, all of which were 

concise. And I want to thank everybody for respecting the 

time limits as well. It was, it was our pleasure to hear 

from all of you representing all of the entire scope of 

opinion today. I do want to remind everybody that if you 

weren't if somebody's listening, and was not able to speak 

today, but wants to speak to this issue, we do have a 

hearing tomorrow, tomorrow morning, we published the Federal 

Register Notice on 4th of October 2021, which provides 

registration info on that. So if you would like to, if you 

would like to speak tomorrow, speak tomorrow, do look for 

our Federal Register Notice. You can find that on-- you can 

just type into your search either partner connect partner 

connect or IFAP and through either of those mechanisms, you 
should be able to find that that announcement. I also want 

to thank everybody on today's call that supported me. That 

would be a Mr. Finley from Office of General Counsel and Ms. 

Flores from our Senior Advisor and also all the people 

behind the scenes today. So with that, I wish you all a very 

good afternoon and say goodbye. Thank you very much. So, 

before I sign off, oh, let me respond to this. So, again, I 

was some discussion here as to whether we should, whether we 

should have to whether we should wait or not, but we've had 

every speaker there is today, so again, if you want to speak 

and you have not had that opportunity, there is a there is 

the opportunity to do so to do so tomorrow. So if anybody 

has any trouble with registration or finding where that is, 

you can you can also I gave you some information, you can 

also go to the Federal Register website if barring any of 

that if you're if you're stuck you can you can feel free to 

email me at Gregory.Martin@ed.gov. That's 

Gregory.Martin@ed.gov so failing any other opportunities to 

register that should be enough. Okay again I'd like to wish 

you all the best and thank you again for joining us today. 

Goodbye.